"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hey, don’t extrapolate what I said to Aliens. I really said that so that merrick wouldn’t freak out about the Aliens Blu-ray and actually start working on something more important like the Abstract or Title page of his thesis.

I think there is a difference between having to accept a certain approach and being OK with it. Everbody will have to make that decision for himself.

Of course it would be nice to also have a pre-degrained and recolorized version of Aliens so that we can choose our favorite version but I think these cases will be extremely rare and restricted to the most popular movies like Star Wars, if at all.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The original The Fly, from Fox.

Ahhh! I wish I could have been a fly on the wall at that screening

Did you attend some of the presentations and where there sniplets of some large format projects shown?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hey, don’t extrapolate what I said to Aliens. I really said that so that merrick wouldn’t freak out about the Aliens Blu-ray and actually start working on something more important like the Abstract or Title page of his thesis.

Its funny that you say that Penton, because I am one of the few who is THRILLED by Cameron's comments. That interview was music to my ears.

If you take a look in the Aliens threads there are all these comments that Cameron doesn't know what the hell he is doing. If you watch any documentary of him you will know that the guy is VERY particular about his films look and I cannot think of a better endorsement than one coming from Cameron himself.

The sad thing about this is that this has created a major stir that is going to lead to new ridiculous levels of screenshot science in which the usual suspects are going to have their microscopes out and freezing every single frame to look for every little soft image to call DNR. Cameron, has unintentionaly created a no-win scenario for him and Fox it seems

As for my thesis, that is a LONG way off. We have just started a new project that I am not allowed to talk about at this time. Not that anyone on this forum would care anyway.

I am going to do my best to try and ignore any Aliens related posts, because frankly I dont think there is anything left to say and I will just end up getting pissed off. Cameron's word should have been the be all end all, but for some people it isn't.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

The sad thing about this is that this has created a major stir that is going to lead to new ridiculous levels of screenshot science in which the usual suspects are going to have their microscopes out and freezing every single frame to look for every little soft image to call DNR.

That's not really a fair description of what the (better) screenshot guys are doing. They are not simply pointing at any soft shots and claiming that they must be the fault of DNR, without having any proof. The screenshots guys are comparing Blu-Rays to other sources (e.g. D-Theater or good broadcasts from around the world). If you do such comparisons and find noticeably more detail in other sources and less detail in the Blu-Ray, and that not only in just a couple of frames, but throughout bigger parts of the movie, then I think some complaints are justified. After all, can we not rightfully expect a Blu-Ray to at least equal broadcasts in quality?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by madshi

That's not really a fair description of what the (better) screenshot guys are doing. They are not simply pointing at any soft shots and claiming that they must be the fault of DNR, without having any proof. The screenshots guys are comparing Blu-Rays to other sources (e.g. D-Theater or good broadcasts from around the world). If you do such comparisons and find noticeably more detail in other sources and less detail in the Blu-Ray, and that not only in just a couple of frames, but throughout bigger parts of the movie, then I think some complaints are justified. After all, can we not rightfully expect a Blu-Ray to at least equal broadcasts in quality?

I am not going to be drawn into a debate over the pros and cons of screenshot science. I have a life to live.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by madshi

That's not really a fair description of what the (better) screenshot guys are doing. They are not simply pointing at any soft shots and claiming that they must be the fault of DNR, without having any proof. The screenshots guys are comparing Blu-Rays to other sources (e.g. D-Theater or good broadcasts from around the world). If you do such comparisons and find noticeably more detail in other sources and less detail in the Blu-Ray, and that not only in just a couple of frames, but throughout bigger parts of the movie, then I think some complaints are justified. After all, can we not rightfully expect a Blu-Ray to at least equal broadcasts in quality?

It is a problem when they perceive something as additional detail, when it isn't. Of course you also have to be sure that the previous versions (whether they're Laserdisc, DVD or broadcast) were correct in the first place.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I am not going to be drawn into a debate over the pros and cons of screenshot science. I have a life to live.

Said the guy who just one post earlier fired off cheap shots at "screenshot science"...

[madshi]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

It is a problem when they perceive something as additional detail, when it isn't. Of course you also have to be sure that the previous versions (whether they're Laserdisc, DVD or broadcast) were correct in the first place.

"when [...]". Sure. Fully agreed.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by madshi

That's not really a fair description of what the (better) screenshot guys are doing. They are not simply pointing at any soft shots and claiming that they must be the fault of DNR, without having any proof. The screenshots guys are comparing Blu-Rays to other sources (e.g. D-Theater or good broadcasts from around the world). If you do such comparisons and find noticeably more detail in other sources and less detail in the Blu-Ray, and that not only in just a couple of frames, but throughout bigger parts of the movie, then I think some complaints are justified. After all, can we not rightfully expect a Blu-Ray to at least equal broadcasts in quality?

What about the MPEG2 broadcasts that sharpen the picture artificially as an artifact of the encoding?

[iceman]

Originally Posted by merrick97

If you take a look in the Aliens threads there are all these comments that Cameron doesn't know what the hell he is doing. If you watch any documentary of him you will know that the guy is VERY particular about his films look and I cannot think of a better endorsement than one coming from Cameron himself.

I also find it very funny with all laymen claiming that Cameron doesn't know what he's doing. Cameron has only made some of the most popular movies in history and has worked with film for longer than most Internet posters are old
I'm hoping that this becomes a turning point in the debate.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

What about the MPEG2 broadcasts that sharpen the picture artificially as an artifact of the encoding?

I don't really want to debate this in Penton's thread, so this is my last post here about this topic: Most "screenshot scientists" absolutely hate any sort of artificial sharpening just as much as they hate noise/grain reduction. So if a Blu-Ray is less artificially sharpened than an MPEG2 broadcast, you'll see the better screenshot guys defending the Blu-Ray, although it's softer. Of course there may be people out there who do screenshot comparisons in a wrong way and come to wrong conclusions. Just in the same way as people who compare different encodings in motion can come to right or wrong conclusions, based on their knowledge and how trained their eyes are...

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Of course he could have not been afraid of 'scope and shot it 'scope.

John Carpenter was able to shoot Halloween in 'scope on a VERY limited budget and look great for what it was.

On a different note and to open up another can of worms, did we ever get "verification" of the color timing of the Halloween BD as we know it differs from the Cundey color timed DVD?

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

The point is, Cameron was very interested in using Super-35 to achieve a 'Scope theatrical print that could then be transferred to video without the usual massive cropping/panning-and-scanning when prepping ALIENS, but the use of Super-35 was SO NEW when ALIENS was made that he was able to be talked out of it. Between the making of ALIENS and THE ABYSS he was was shown some actual lab tests that changed his mind, plus Kodak had improved their high-speed filmstocks during that interval, as well.

It's interesting that in the Summer of 1986 when Aliens was released, Top Gun was also released -featuring Super 35 sourced 2.35:1 imagery and some 70mm 6-track Dolby mag blow-up prints. Not many Super 35 releases preceded it. Silverado and Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes are two mid-1980s "Super Techniscope" movies that come to mind.

The Abyss demonstrated what appeared to me as a pretty noticeable improvement in Super 35 image quality. Film stocks, camera/lens systems and knowledge of using Super 35 had significantly improved. I don't know the details in how the 35mm and 70mm release prints were produced, but the show looked significantly better in 70mm.

The home video rental industry was in the early stages of its boom when Aliens was released. The 1.85:1 format had a sort of tyranny in place in the late 1980s. Between 1985 and 1990 quite a few movies with 70mm Dolby mag prints were released in 1.85:1. Anamorphic 'scope photography wasn't as common as it was in the 1970s. And even when it was used steps were often taken to make the imagery more pan and scan friendly. I have often suspected James Cameron just doesn't like the obvious look anamorphic lenses will apply to a movie image. Even if he would have considered filming Aliens with an anamorphic system there's a chance he would have got some pressure from studio executives to make a more home video friendly choice.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Vincent

Vincent you changed your sig!
You know what they say, the first step to a cure is...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Ahhh! I wish I could have been a fly on the wall at that screening

Did you attend some of the presentations and where there sniplets of some large format projects shown?

I missed Andrew O.’s presentation on 65mm restoration with those split-screen 70mm prints vs. 4k counterpart images.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by merrick97

The sad thing about this is that this has created a major stir that is going to lead to new ridiculous levels of screenshot science in which the usual suspects are going to have their microscopes out and freezing every single frame to look for every little soft image to call DNR. Cameron, has unintentionaly created a no-win scenario for him and Fox it seems

I wouldn’t worry about it. Jim is a big boy and what some audio/video internet forums say or don’t say about his filmmaking/remastering choices really wouldn’t bother him in the slightest.

Since Jim’s comments in the interview were genuinely from the heart and not layered with any PR spin to avoid a controversy on the net, there is one potential upside to the situation. IF the degrain work is pleasing to the eye of internet forum junkies, maybe ‘dnr’ will get a little bit better reputation than it has had in the past…….if.

Of course, it won’t end the discussion, nor do I think it should (despite whoever the Director, the DP, etc. is) of modifying home media editions from that of the look of the original theatrical presentation for this or any other future Blu-ray titles that come down the pike.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by merrick97

As for my thesis, that is a LONG way off. We have just started a new project that I am not allowed to talk about at this time. Not that anyone on this forum would care anyway.

Well, I care ...and last I checked, it's my thread.

Damn merrick, what kind of Ph.D. program are you in?.....something on a 20 year tract? Maybe things have changed since I went through that higher education, but everyone I know/knew, essentially lived in the lab and had at least been recognized as contributing authors (vis-a -vis research assistant status) in papers in which their professors were the primary authors.

What dept. are you in at College Station?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by iceman

I also find it very funny with all laymen claiming that Cameron doesn't know what he's doing. Cameron has only made some of the most popular movies in history and has worked with film for longer than most Internet posters are old
I'm hoping that this becomes a turning point in the debate.

lol, yeah, to spare yourself another grey hair as a moderator on this forum.
Jim knows what he’s doing. I think what scares some folks is the unfiltered candid comments he made and the fact that he has no aversion to using digital cameras (smooth and grain-less) for his motion pictures.

Believe me, if Quentin T. or Chris Nolan had listened to that interview, I think that they would have been just as concerned as some Blu-ray.com members about what Jim expressed. Heck, Wally P. would have gone into one of his anti-DI rants like at that camera (and accessory) expo where at least 100 people were in attendance.

The truly comical thing that I find about the whole situation is that the fanboys of each particular movie (whenever this sort of issue comes up) rally their forces en masse and defend the Blu-ray product as if they’re getting a percentage of the sale on each disc.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think what scares some folks is the unfiltered candid comments he made and the fact that he has no aversion to using digital cameras (smooth and grain-less) for his motion pictures.

I think what scares most folks is that you have directors like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg who will mutilate their previous films just because they have a different idea of what the film could have been. I'm not going to dispute the fact that a director can change their film in whatever way they see best, but can and should are two completely different arguements. The people who are fearful of Cameron's talk are the same people who will argue all day about whether a director should modify a completed work.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, I care ...and last I checked, it's my thread.

Damn merrick, what kind of Ph.D. program are you in?.....something on a 20 year tract? Maybe things have changed since I went through that higher education, but everyone I know/knew, essentially lived in the lab and had at least been recognized as contributing authors (vis-a -vis research assistant status) in papers in which their professors were the primary authors.

What dept. are you in at College Station?

Quick version:
I got my B.S in Biology in 2005 and I entered into the Ph.D program in Biochemistry that same fall, but wasnt ever able to get my project off the ground and finally decided to cut my losses and take a Masters Degree at the end of 2008. I got a full ride through graduate school so I didn't lose any money. I had no publications.
I spent all of 2009 working as a research assistant in animal science working with pigs and sheep. I kind of enjoyed it, but I felt that if I was going to do research I should at least get a degree out of it.
So at the beginning of this year I decided to enter the Nutrition/Food Science field (a field dominated by women I might add) and try and get a doctorate at this time and here I am now.

I've had a lot of down time as of late which is why my post count is up from usual.