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

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by frank_t

much appreciated too!!!

Hear hear. We love you penton.

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Patrick, I don’t know what thread or which circumstance you are specifically alluding to but, I think that “unresponsiveness” by insiders here is probably perceived by you as being synonymous with being *ignored*…..which is not the case.

All requests/observations that are respectfully submitted here are considered as to their validity first and then their possible implementation. It’s just that we don’t have the time to correct or elaborate on every misconception or fallacy posted by hobbyists or else we would never get any real work done the course of our day. And we sure as hell don’t have time to read other forums, except in passing, so don’t waste your time/energy posting anywhere else if you choose to make a real difference in something.

What the hell, paidgeek took time out of his family life to make continual posts regarding Dolby THD and the Sony S300 player because of people’s reluctance to believe him.

I’ve made repeated posts regarding the true value of 4K scanning per se in regards to its misperceived benefit for home theater enthusiasts some of whom still believe what they chose to believe. And if I get the chance to scan a scientific paper, I’ll submit that as a piece of evidence against michel’s notion that a 1080p source which is displayed at 1080p where no filter is present in the signal processing chain will produce a poorer result than utilizing a 4K source to begin with.

I took the time to confirm with the SCE insider that the PS3 will definitely get DTS-MA because to the best of my knowledge there has been no credible source that has confirmed this and everything that you’ve read on the internet concerning this issue has been either wishful thinking or supposition. Paidgeek never confirmed this, because he would be overstepping his bounds(Sony Pictures) to post such.

We really do as much as we can here.

Penton, I probably could have been clearer in my choice of words.

Believe me, I very much appreciate how diligent Paid is in taking time to respond with care and to take time to investigate issues and the fact that he frequently does his marathon responses on weekends or late at night, and all of us are very, very appreciative of your posts. I know how important, for example, that information you provided about DTS-MA was to a great many people. Whenever I post in Paid's thread I try to express my appreciation for his participation here.

The particular issues I was referring to related to my questioning of SPE's apparent judgment that bitrates in the mid 20's are sufficient to produce acceptable PQ and my raising that issue in the context of some specific releases. He did respond, but basically the response was that he didn't see anything wrong with those particular titles. He did not seem receptive to my general concern about a general practice with respect to bitrates. I view my concern as an attempt to improve what I see as a shortcoming in current SPE practices, in comparison to what I see in some releases from some other studios. I understand there are trade-offs, and that there is a desire to include a lot of material on each disc, but every time the issue comes up among non-insiders who post here and in other HT forums, the majority view seems to be a desire for the best possible PQ and AQ on the movie itself as the first priority. I don't claim to be an expert on anything in this area other than what I see on my display as delivered by my PS3, but I have bought and watched a fairly large number of BDs. I have only gone into some detail on this now in order to try to clear up any misunderstanding.

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Usually a camera like that shoots a digital image at either 2k or 4k. Both are bigger than 1080 (which is technically around 1.9k but really very very close to 2k). So what you get is an image that is almost equal to or half that of the original film when it is on Blu-ray.

If we're going by pixel count, 4K is about four times the resolution, since both dimensions are doubled.

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Patrick, I don’t know what thread or which circumstance you are specifically alluding to but, I think that “unresponsiveness” by insiders here is probably perceived by you as being synonymous with being *ignored*…..which is not the case.

I believe he is referring to paidgeek's thread. Patrick99 felt the PQ for Across the Universe was sub-par:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...469#post585469

He discussed it with paidgeek and other members of this forum in paidgeek's thread. Almost everyone else thought the PQ on that movie was fantastic, but patrick99 thought it was soft. It was suggested to him that the softness he was seeing was the director's intent. Paidgeek himself said he watched the movie closely and thought it was in the top 10 titles for PQ.

It's not my intent to bash patrick99 here, but I think paidgeek was responsive to him. For whatever reason there was a difference in opinion on the PQ of the movie. This may be an example of the director's intent that some images be soft, as you said, but in this case the intent was actually respected instead of being "fixed" with edge enhancement, thus causing some people to perceive this as a bad encode.

Patrick99, feel free to jump in and correct anything you feel I've misrepresented here.

[TheRealBob]

Patrick99, I didn't see your last post before posting mine above.

I do have one comment on your last post that is pertinent to this discussion:

Originally Posted by patrick99

The particular issues I was referring to related to my questioning of SPE's apparent judgment that bitrates in the mid 20's are sufficient to produce acceptable PQ and my raising that issue in the context of some specific releases. He did respond, but basically the response was that he didn't see anything wrong with those particular titles.

I think that there's not really a good response to the whole mid-20's issue for paidgeek or anyone. They're striving for picture quality, regardless of how many bits it takes, and I doubt they want to get pinned down to advocating a specific bit rate.

I think pointing to specific problems with the image is generally a better approach, since it's better to identify the problem and let them figure out and hopefully correct the cause of it than diagnosing the cause of it yourself as lower bit rates. I know you did point to specific scenes in Across the Universe and at least one other movie in paidgeek's thread, but for whatever reason other people didn't see the same problems that you did, so there wasn't a consensus that there was a problem.

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

i apologize if asked but any truth to that listing posted for sweeney todd on blu apr 1st or is it a fools prank . i know that alot of blus ie beowulf and sweeney had uk release dates why dont they pay distributors to just release here instead of reprinting a usa version ??


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=41837

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Like how Criterion has the signatures

You mean like "Dave Mack's Dracula"...but the Criterion Laserdisc was signed by FFC...

Sorry, Wicky, I just could not resist a little humor in P-Man's thread.

[DaViD Boulet]

He discussed it with paidgeek and other members of this forum in paidgeek's thread. Almost everyone else thought the PQ on that movie was fantastic, but patrick99 thought it was soft. It was suggested to him that the softness he was seeing was the director's intent. Paidgeek himself said he watched the movie closely and thought it was in the top 10 titles for PQ.

Interesting. Because that title does look soft compared to most other "reference" BD titles on both my 720p and my friend's 1080p projector. Also, the film's clips in the HD bonus material often look more detailed/sharper than what you see in the feature film. That's usually a sign that something has been dumbed-down in the final image, so there's justifiable reason for people to ask and be concerned.

Had that disc been released on HD DVD by Warner, we'd be reading thread after thread about how the encode was dumbed down for HD DVD.

BTW, the lossless audio for that title is out-of-sight. Damn that's good sound!

dave

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

What is needed is a logo that can be approved for use by the DP/Director that would appear on the disc + case to indicate the transfer had been approved.

When one knows the DP/director have seen the result, then it becomes "intent" and people can shut the hell up about it.........
Gary

Not exactly that, but check the fine print on the box for the upcoming Blu-ray movie Steep as we don’t plan on getting unjustifiably *Internet Draculud-To-Death* with that title.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Grubert

You're describing my experience when watching JP Jeunet's film A Very Long Engagement. Possibly the first time I've seen edge enhancement theatrically.

With that film, the DP did not use any filter on the lens but achieved the soft look via diffusion through his lighting on the set. Plus Cookes (used in the primary photography) are *soft* anyway which may have contributed to *the look*.

What you saw at the theater is indeed troublesome. If this artifact was indeed present then I suspect there was a shortcut in the DI workflow with excessive sharpening prior to filmout or else possibly a lack of communication between Delbonnnel and the person that worked on the DI as to the appearance on the big screen.

Regardless of which, it is inexcusable.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

I believe he is referring to paidgeek's thread. Patrick99 felt the PQ for Across the Universe was sub-par:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...469#post585469

He discussed it with paidgeek and other members of this forum in paidgeek's thread. Almost everyone else thought the PQ on that movie was fantastic, but patrick99 thought it was soft. It was suggested to him that the softness he was seeing was the director's intent. Paidgeek himself said he watched the movie closely and thought it was in the top 10 titles for PQ.........

I never saw the HDCAM SR master tape running in synch with the Blu-ray edition so I can’t comment as to the degree of transparency but I can tell you that I would trust paidgeek’s comments without reservation and that Across the Universe was also shot by the same DP as above………. who loves to diffuse with light.

Connect the dots.

[D]

Dear Penton Man, I just wanted to say a big thank you to yourself and all of the insiders for all of your time and effort, it is much appreciated, even if it is not said enough.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Happy St. Paddy's Day everyone.

It's St Patrick's Day; sorry but nothing else is acceptable!

But thanks for the sentiment
Do you have any Irish blood in you?
I have gallons!!!

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

Patrick99, I didn't see your last post before posting mine above.

I do have one comment on your last post that is pertinent to this discussion:



I think that there's not really a good response to the whole mid-20's issue for paidgeek or anyone. They're striving for picture quality, regardless of how many bits it takes, and I doubt they want to get pinned down to advocating a specific bit rate.

I think pointing to specific problems with the image is generally a better approach, since it's better to identify the problem and let them figure out and hopefully correct the cause of it than diagnosing the cause of it yourself as lower bit rates. I know you did point to specific scenes in Across the Universe and at least one other movie in paidgeek's thread, but for whatever reason other people didn't see the same problems that you did, so there wasn't a consensus that there was a problem.

What makes me question that is on SPE releases I almost never see the bitrate go over 30, whereas on Fox or Disney releases I do see this frequently. It seems that SPE has something like a "rule" that the bitrate must not go over 30, which does not correspond with the notion of using whatever bitrate the material requires. I know that not everyone gives any credence to the AVS tier thread, but why is it that, apart from animation and a concert film, SPE has only one title in Tier 0, whereas Fox and Disney have many?

[spicynacho]

There was a story on NPR this morning about Steffan Sonnenberg (sp?) who is a digital colorist. They said that they were among the most unsung heroes of the movie industry and I believe it, when I got in, I googled his name and didn't find anything. It sounds like they do "airbrushing" for video, among other effects. They said that 95% of films get this treatment and many stars have it written into their contract that they will get touchups to cover up their imperfections. How come we never hear about these guys or even see them in the credits but we always know who is the best grip boy? It sounded as if they were very influencial to the outcome of many movies. This guy had worked on everything from Mission impossible to PoTC and Sweeny Todd (where he drained most of the life out of people and made it so dark).

Surely they work with the Director and DP to get the look right, but the way they were comparing Sweeny Todd from the original print to the final result it sounded like they had made it dramaticlly grayer and darker.

Basiclly I was just wondering why is it we never hear about these guys?

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And if I get the chance to scan a scientific paper, I’ll submit that as a piece of evidence against michel’s notion that a 1080p source which is displayed at 1080p where no filter is present in the signal processing chain will produce a poorer result than utilizing a 4K source to begin with.

Where is that posting with the paper?
Anyway, that notion attributed to me needs more context. Especially how did this 1080p 'source' come into existence in the first place.
The original statement from paidgeek was:

Further, if you could shoot a native resolution of say 1920 for a 1920 display, it would actually look better than shooting 4k for a 1920 display with respect to filtering/aliasing artifacts.

I don't know what he means with 'native'. I interpreted 'shooting 1080p native' as using a chip with a native grid of 1920*1080 sensor elements. Why this should look better with respect to filtering/aliasing artifacts than shooting with a native 4K sensor and downfiltering is indeed unclear to me. To avoid aliasing on the native 1080p chip the optical lowpass filter can not do as efficient a job than a digital filter working with a 4K source. So this paper disagrees?
Quote paidgeek

For a digital system where a filter is included, I agree that oversampling produces the optimum result, the higher the sampling frequency the better, so long as sample accuracy does not suffer.

The 'native scan' uses at least one filter too. The optical low pass filter. Not to mention that some scanners and telecines use internal oversampling and downfiltering anyway to produce the 'native' 1080p or 2K. So I don't know what he means with native and/or unfiltered 1080p.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by patrick99

What makes me question that is on SPE releases I almost never see the bitrate go over 30, whereas on Fox or Disney releases I do see this frequently. It seems that SPE has something like a "rule" that the bitrate must not go over 30, which does not correspond with the notion of using whatever bitrate the material requires. I know that not everyone gives any credence to the AVS tier thread, but why is it that, apart from animation and a concert film, SPE has only one title in Tier 0, whereas Fox and Disney have many?

You also need to take into account encoders. Sony (as far as I know) doesn't use the same encoding houses and Fox and Disney, so the encoders used and the talent involved could be very different.

[eChopper]

Hey Kris

Sorry to see you leave Secrets but at the same time glad to see you at home Theatre mag!

[Bullseye]

Hey PM by no means do I want you to get in trouble but can we expect some news from Paramount or Universal anytime soon (like in the next month). Even if they announce some titles.

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Hey PM by no means do I want you to get in trouble but can we expect some news from Paramount or Universal anytime soon (like in the next month). Even if they announce some titles.

Yeah I concurr
Well, that's really not a "new " question hehe.
-but-
What I do hope for is that Para and Uni would be willing to share their "intended" release slate, even without dates.
Quarters even would make everyone happy (like, we intend to release the Bournes and TF in Q3, Sweeney Todd Q4, etc.), or even seasons, like Summer, or Fall. By Weather? - When it'll get warmer. Or When it'll get cold again...

I think that would go a long way to appease the fears of some pessimits who are thinking that those studios just might be stalling, waiting to see if the VOD promises (probably) made by a certain Masquerading in Secret company will come true...