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

[Jeff Kleist]

All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses. If you were to ask a man, why he believes any matter of fact, which is absent, (for instance, that his friend is in the country, or in France) he would give you a reason, and this reason would be some other fact, as a letter received from him, or the knowledge of his former resolutions and promises. A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude that there had once been men on that island

That about do it for you? That our own personal experience drives expectations, that an event, in this case the sun setting, will be followed by the sun rising in the morning. The ability to anticipate future events based on prior experience, when presented with similar situations is part of what seperates man from the lower orders.

However in this case you do not allow for people with established agendas, modus operandi and personal biases that will not let them operate in a logical manner, and even with definitive contradicting evidence shoved in front of their nose will ever accept it.

Unlike the people at AVS. I've actually done a hell of a lot of footwork and hours on the phone when questions like this come up, researching the answers instead of making snap judgements, and I'm doing the same here. I haven't seen the disc, and the answers haven't come back from the people who know them, so yeah, I haven't weighed in except to say "wait till someone actually sees it" Heck with the T2 thing I worked with Stacey Spears and spent a solid week setting up torrenting that disc image to demonstrate what happened. So please stop painting me as a kneejerk hater. I've spent more time cleaning up those a**holes messes when they throw a sh*t grenade than you ever want to know. Is there edge halos in it? Sure. Ridley Scott was neck deep in Nottingham when that would have come up, and probably didn't have time to supervise a new transfer, so this is probably the 2005 tape, which would be the last one he approved.

I've blown up the images on DVD Beaver as much as 300%. There's nothing there I'm seeing that anyone who hasn't trained themselves to be hypersensetive is going to pick up on on the film in motion. The photography is full of backlighting, and the bloom tends to combine quite often to something that's mistaken for oversharpening

How many people honestly here have seen the film projected in the last ten years?

Hell, I've started taking notes after I get back from the theater for just these kinds of occasions. I can't wait to hear the complains about DNR and edge halos on Inglorious Basterds (it's awash in the former to create that 70s low-res photography feel)

[Jeff Kleist]

“I said, ’Ridley, it’s f***ing snowing!"
He yelled, "Cut! I don’t care.”
(http://www.theasc.com/magazine/may00/pg2.htm)

Heck, I'd think he'd prefer it snowing He loves stuff flying around in the air

I love Ridley. Producers love him, actors love to work with him, etc.
Jeff, maybe you or Bill should try to get Ron Smith or someone else from Paramount’s Mastering Dept. to give a little spiel on the Bits regarding the technicalities of the Blu-ray production of both Braveheart and Gladiator movies.

Would love to. The problem is of course that when aforementioned people start this stuff up, it's often nigh-impossible to get official people to put down public word on this stuff, and even the unofficial ones clam up, or forbid you to repeat things.

It took us what, 6-8 weeks with many parties, including people in the chain of command at Lionsgate being proactive on T2 to get something out on that one. To this day I'm grateful to Stacey Spears for his insight, and Van Ling for being so proactive. I know I'm not mentioning other people. That was a rare and unusual chain of events that isn't likely to be repeated soon

[sharkshark]

Just finished "Balance of Terror"... hell of an episode! Gotta love sub movies...

Sorry Jeff, I forgot the emoticon with the Hume reference, I thought the self deprecation would lead to you figure out I wasn't targetting you specifically...

Besides, why are you bothering to blow up screenshots? They've been debunked, remember? [ <--- see? ]

And, yeah, Penton. That damn 45 degree shutter. The "auto-tune" of action movies post-Private Ryan (where it was used stupendously).

In Ridley's hands, it's awful, I tells ya... Like Marty S., he's made some of the finest films ever, and, almost shockingly, some of the crappiest. Alas, my vote is that Gladiator is just utter garbage. But I'll shuttup, honest... Enjoy your discs, everyone!!!

ps.

Hell, I've started taking notes after I get back from the theater for just these kinds of occasions. I can't wait to hear the complains about DNR and edge halos on Inglorious Basterds (it's awash in the former to create that 70s low-res photography feel)

We are completely in agreement that an entire generation of movie goers/HT "fans" are oblivous to the point of utter retardation when it comes to actual theatrical experiences and expectations of a given film. Frankly, I think my derision for those wanting films of this era to look like, I dunno, "Crank 2" knows no bounds (to the point, I fear, of eventual physical violence against nearby inanimate objects). I guess my skepticism about what Penton refers obliquely to as "screen shot science" is outweighed by a general pessimism that classic films will be treated well by studios interested in pleasing the lowest common denominator even in this new world of HD disc creation. But, yeah... I've been scolded before for my "worries", and I'll leave it at that for tonight....

[Jeff Kleist]

Sorry Jeff, I forgot the emoticon with the Hume reference, I thought the self deprecation would lead to you figure out I wasn't targetting you specifically...

Besides, why are you bothering to blow up screenshots? They've been debunked, remember? [ <--- see? ]

And, yeah, Penton. That damn 45 degree shutter. The "auto-tune" of action movies post-Private Ryan. Awful, I tells ya...

Accepted, 3:30AM talking more than anything I think

I love coming home from a movie that was probably 40min too long (QT, hire an editor, please!), though still pretty enjoyable, and entering a shitstorm on the other side of the world I have to solve (two parties who were expected to work together are having a tiff, and we have 8 weeks till the event, whee!)

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Heavy, I guess you missed reading or else totally dismissed what I posted on the previous page.

I would suggest you watch the home video of the motion picture first will ya?
Then, if you feel it is “a bit electronic” or “digital”, bang away as to its less than optimal video rendition of the film.
Meanwhile, for some past perspective -

Screenshot scientist:
“Baraka comparison *PIX*- No its not reference PQ as many "reviewer(s)" has asserted. To even mention this among the "best in PQ" and as good as Sleeping Beauty and How The West Was Won is just grossly inaccurate.
Scanned at 8K Ultra High Resolution and this is what the resulting image on Blu-ray? Uneven, artificial, inconsistent image. There are scenes that is better looking than the rest but that is not saying much does it? EE or "ringing" as others has called is definitely there.”

Then the posting of multiple ‘illustrative’ screenshots as ‘evidence’.



Several days or weeks later -
*Movie Watcher:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=307

*(Some) Credentials of Movie Watcher-
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7561206.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7158668.html
http://www.spearsandmunsil.com/

I totally hear you. In fact, I will be purchasing Gladiator...no question about it as it will still blow the DVD away and I'm sure the audio track will be phenomenal. I will definitely base my overall opinion on how the movie looks on my display and set-up. It's just that those Braveheart shots look really nice...where as I when I flipped to Gladiator, I didn't have that same reaction. I also realize style and source material plays a factor. According to an acquaintance of mine who watched Gladiator BD already, it seems to stem from the same source as the previous DVD as they shared similar "looks" although the BD being much better obviously. I will definitely watch it and give my opinion. I mean I didn't think Skynet T2 was the travesty (after actually watching it) another forum made it out to be after zooming the images by 300-400% to show some DNR flaws.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The scientists are going nuts over gladiator, convinced the low-resolution super35...

Not to defend Tool Central, but Super-35 is not "low resolution". In the horizontal domain (perf-to-perf on the film), it's wider than anamorphic 35mm (approx. 25mm vs. approx. 22mm), plus spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphics. The negative area is obviously smaller than anamorphic since they crop so much top and bottom to achieve the 2.35:1 shape- which would result in a grainer projected image- but the "resolution" is not low. The wider width combined with spherical lenses should actually be sharper than a comparable anamorphic film in the horizontal domain at least.

Vincent

[Vincent Pereira]

Not to mention, M. Hafner posted in that thread over at Tool Central and said he didn't seen any evidence of DNR or filtering in the gorgeous Blu-ray of BARAKA, and Hafner may be the single most anti-DNR activist in this world.

Vincent

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Heavy, I guess you missed reading or else totally dismissed what I posted on the previous page.

I would suggest you watch the home video of the motion picture first will ya?
Then, if you feel it is “a bit electronic” or “digital”, bang away as to its less than optimal video rendition of the film.
Meanwhile, for some past perspective -

Screenshot scientist:
“Baraka comparison *PIX*- No its not reference PQ as many "reviewer(s)" has asserted. To even mention this among the "best in PQ" and as good as Sleeping Beauty and How The West Was Won is just grossly inaccurate.
Scanned at 8K Ultra High Resolution and this is what the resulting image on Blu-ray? Uneven, artificial, inconsistent image. There are scenes that is better looking than the rest but that is not saying much does it? EE or "ringing" as others has called is definitely there.”

Then the posting of multiple ‘illustrative’ screenshots as ‘evidence’.



Several days or weeks later -
*Movie Watcher:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=307

*(Some) Credentials of Movie Watcher-
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7561206.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7158668.html
http://www.spearsandmunsil.com/

[Jeff Kleist]

Not to defend Tool Central, but Super-35 is not "low resolution". In the horizontal domain (perf-to-perf on the film), it's wider than anamorphic 35mm (approx. 25mm vs. approx. 22mm), plus spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphics. The negative area is obviously smaller than anamorphic since they crop so much top and bottom to achieve the 2.35:1 shape- which would result in a grainer projected image- but the "resolution" is not low. The wider width combined with spherical lenses should actually be sharper than a comparable anamorphic film in the horizontal domain at least.

In my experience, the end product almost invariably the end product is not as good as anamorphic. Obviously apples are not being compared to apples

If you want to shoot flat, shoot 65mm 0 in my book or don't crop it . At least I admit it's could be a purely emotional and irrational statement however I don't mind anamorphic 65mm either (mmm, Ben Hur )

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

The wider width combined with spherical lenses should actually be sharper than a comparable anamorphic film in the horizontal domain at least.

But that doesn't seem to be the case in practice. Just look at the stunning anamorphic Braveheart.

In the end isn't it something like 3k flat vs 4k+ anamorphic?

[Vincent Pereira]

Jeff and Peter:

What you're seeing is the effect of the larger negative area, which results in a finer-grained and thus more "pleasing" image. But my point was, Super-35 in and of itself is not "low resolution". All things being equal, in terms of horizontal "resolution" (as much as that would apply to motion picture film), Super-35 actually has the edge vs. anamorphic (at least on the negative) since it's A. wider, and B. uses sharper spherical lenses.

But yes, since the 2.35:1 Super-35 image is cropped so much top-and-bottom, the result is a grainer final image, and anamorphic usually looks "better" because it's more finely grained since the overall negative area is much larger. Plus in the pre-DI days, Super-35 was optically printed in order to "extract" the 2.35:1 area, which would exascerbate the bump in graininess.

Vincent

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

...

If you want to shoot flat, shoot 65mm 0 in my book or don't crop it . At least I admit it's could be a purely emotional and irrational statement however I don't mind anamorphic 65mm either (mmm, Ben Hur )

I wouldn't mind if they brought back VistaVision and used it like Super-35.

Vincent

[Jeff Kleist]

Totally with you there, except I'd say "instead of"

I totally agree in the DI world, S35 looks 100% better.

[Deciazulado]

Film area or 2K (scan at 12 micron pitch) pixel count:


2.39:1 Super 35 Panavision extraction for anamorphic prints: 0.395" x 0.945" = 836 x 2000

2.39:1 Anamorphic 35mm projection frame: 0.690" x 0.825" = 1460 x 1746 (or an "square" equivalent of 1033 x 2468 pixels).
53% more pixels or negative area


VistaVision would be about 0.58" x 1.38" for 2.39, approx. 40% more than anamorphic

65mm would be close to double than VistaVision

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by syncguy

I really cannot understand the rationale for the application of excessive DNR and EE in blu-rays.

Well, since the recent conversation here revolved around the presence or absence of blatant sharpening artifacts involving the Gladiator Blu-ray at Screenshot-science.com, or Witch-Hunt.com, or whatever your guys’ current favorite description is of the ruling members of that site, I’ll briefly comment on “EE”.

It’s not always as simple as the application of “excessive EE” at one step by one technician. If sharpening is applied on multiple parts of the post production chain, the results can create objectionable artifacts because the sharpening becomes cumulative. Additionally, many current consumer displays also apply sharpening which can exaggerate the problem.

As to HeavyHitter’s (whom I now know meant well ) comment of “looks a bit "electronic" and digital”, this appearance can be attributable to differences in telecine vs. datacine equipment in the film transfer process. I am not saying this is or isn’t the case in particular with Gladiator, as I’m not familiar with its Blu-ray production but, this reason is applicable to some other older Blu-ray titles that some people have viewed and commented on as being a bit electronic and ‘authoritatively’ claimed it secondary to the intentional actions of the compressionist, when that was not the case.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Not to mention, M. Hafner posted in that thread over at Tool Central and said he didn't seen any evidence of DNR or filtering in the gorgeous Blu-ray of BARAKA, and Hafner may be the single most anti-DNR activist in this world.

Vincent

Movie Watchers 2
Screenshot Science 0

I must say though that whenever in a Blu moon I do get over there, I absolutely enjoy the melodrama of the contributors in those screenshot threads.

The back-and-forth reminds me of the emotions exhibited by cliquish pre-teens and teens yammering on about the latest rumored scandal at school. Also, amusing are the inevitable public threats of boycott, etc. when, in reality, despite all their perceived self-importance as a ‘group’, no matter what they say about a particular Blu-ray movie (be it overwhelmingly positive, negative, or neutral)….their real purchasing-power influence over any title in Blu-ray software ranks up there with how many people in the world hear a small tree fall over in the remotest jungle of the Amazon.

At the end of the day, despite all the self-righteous posturing, if you’re looking for a reason to purchase the title (fan of the film, the supplemental extras on the disc, upgrading your whole DVD collection to Blu-ray, etc.), you’ll buy it.

If you’re looking for a reason not to, you won’t.

[Penton-Man]

Shooting and composing in 2.35 works especially great for well-lit panoramic exteriors where you can really take advantage of the less grain and more detail…..like with those Braveheart battlefield sequences, shots of the people doing things on the Highlands, etc. Superb!

I really don’t think one gets much extra benefit out of it over S35 when one is shooting poorly lit interiors or especially stuff at night as much of the frame is out of focus because one doesn’t have enough depth of field.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Film area or 2K (scan at 12 micron pitch) pixel count:
2.39:1 Super 35 Panavision extraction for anamorphic prints: 0.395" x 0.945" = 836 x 2000
2.39:1 Anamorphic 35mm projection frame: 0.690" x 0.825" = 1460 x 1746 (or an "square" equivalent of 1033 x 2468 pixels).
53% more pixels or negative area
VistaVision would be about 0.58" x 1.38" for 2.39, approx. 40% more than anamorphic
65mm would be close to double than VistaVision

What’s with all the numbers!
Been attentively listening to John Galt over the weekend?

As an unbiased attendee of………
http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...program09.html -are you planning on doing a report on what you personally found to be the highlight(s) of the Symposium?

[Constitution 101]

I've an account over at AVS for several years now(although I don't frequent it very often unless I've got a technical question). I get the impression over here there's some sort of ongoing disdain for it. Can somebody clue me in or am I just nuts??? I(like yourselves I assume) don't like to waste my time on unreliable sources. If they're uninformed or whatever I'd like to know. Any insight is appreciated...

[Penton-Man]

You're not nuts.
I'll let someone else answer your questions.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

I've an account over at AVS for several years now(although I don't frequent it very often unless I've got a technical question). I get the impression over here there's some sort of ongoing disdain for it. Can somebody clue me in or am I just nuts??? I(like yourselves I assume) don't like to waste my time on unreliable sources. If they're uninformed or whatever I'd like to know. Any insight is appreciated...

This should be good.