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

[meckel]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Re: Metropolis. It's a 16mm dupe because the original nitrate print, which would be 80 years old, is long gone. Also see this post by Bill Hunt which should make us all happy: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...580#post996580

2009 is just soooooo far away. I want it on Blu now should be an awesome release.

Have a happy 4th everyone

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As to it being “important”, I appreciate the fact that you utterly believe that as I remember nearly five years ago you brought this topic up on one of the professional venues – where you were schooled by people that have/had daily hands-on experience with this stuff.

That's kind of funny... Schooled. Ok. Unlike most of these people I have written DNR software myself and not just operated some vendors tools. Of course these people have more hands on experience with specific commercial tools as I don't work in a post house.
Concerning schooled what I remember is that in one case my findings were ridiculed till apparently someone from the post house stepped in and confirmed what I saw, although anonymously, apparently out of fear for repercussions. An interesting learning experience indeed!

The point that Merrick and myself are trying to make is that the internet chatter about “DNR” has been more excessive, than the excessive DNR occurring on a handful of titles that are the most egregious visual offenders……to begin with !

Possibly. But I see no negative in discussing this thoroughly. The main reason that this has been going on page after page on some sites is the simple fact that a lot of people don't give a damn if and how films are processed and changed into something that is no longer recognisable as film. Not only that. Once they are told they start defending such tampering vehemently or play dumb (I can't see any problems. It looks fantastic. How do you know that's not how it always looked etc.). Is there something more subversive and unsettling than see the threat of the film heritage being destroyed this way looming over our heads?
No, I don't believe it will happen and common sense will prevail, as it prevailed with colorising films or pan and scan only releases.

I realize that “DNR” is your stick.

My stick is film. And after that digital image processing. And after that digital versions of films. And after that video, professional and consumer versions. And after that specific cases of releases and specific types of artifacts stemming from digital processing. DNR is one of them. It's also the one most ignored by people and unknown to them. It's ubiquitous in mastering and display equipment alike. And it's fundamental as it affects the foundation of imagery like lighting and exposure in the film word and color grading in the digital post world.

But sometimes you guys should just take a chill pill.

Gulp, gulp... I'm feeling much better now, Dr. Silverman! Calmer, more relaxed...

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

As the 16mm print was probably a reduction from a 35 neg, (which one, we cannot be certain at this time) and not via a 16 dupe, the final quality, if well scanned, can be quite acceptable and impressive.

The latest information is that the best material we have here is:
ON -> 35mm print (beaten up and scratched) -> 16mm negative. That sounds like it will be a difficult job to make it fit well into the existing material without sticking out.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The point is after viewing three particular Blu-ray titles and personally being unhappy with what they consider a suboptimal image, some *respected* and *knowledgeable* folks (not you Max) have extrapolated DNR into a defining point for the success of the whole format (Blu-ray) itself and the intentional actions of more than one studio toward catering to the Joe6Packs for a “smoothie” look.

Obviously it's much too early to tell if this is an anomaly or the beginning of a new trend. Fact is that these tools have been bought and installed (at considerable cost) and why should you pay for something you don't intend to use? So they get used. How and how often remains to be seen.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

Let's be blunt, but in this situation, who cares?

Firstly the people who have to put the new restoration together. Their goal is to have a seamless as possible version of the whole film. When you have to integrate footage of very varying quality you have big technical problems making it look consistent.
Of course it's great that footage was found at all. And it must be used even if it were VHS quality. But unless we know for sure the 35mm print was destroyed people should keep looking for that one as well.

[Grubert]

the internet chatter about “DNR” has been more excessive, than the excessive DNR occurring on a handful of titles that are the most egregious visual offenders……to begin with !

I disagree. When you're sellilng a product to enthusiasts, any blunder will be met with substantial backlash.

You should have been at AVS, dvdtalk or HTF when Criterion released The Last Temptation of Christ and the scene where John the Baptist is naked had his genitalia obscured by mosaics...

Or when SPHE released Drunken Master with random passages of the Cantonese track replaced with English...

Or when Monty Python and the Holy Grail was released missing the subtitle "Mønti Pythøn lk den Hølie Grailen" and many others...

Or when Artisan released the Reservoir Dogs SE misframed and with the wrong black levels and a missing dialog line. There were entire sites trying to track down releases where the "I think he just passed out" ADRd line was kept intact...

etc etc etc. It goes with the territory.

In each and every one of those cases the same pattern was followed: report of a problem - disbelief - posting of proof - dismissal - complaints become widespread - admission of problem by default

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

But I see no negative in discussing this thoroughly.....

I’m sorry you feel that way.

P.S.
You have a funny definition of “thoroughly”.

[Woody]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m sorry you feel that way.

ditto

[garytma]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

I saw that too. Awesome!

Here's hoping there is a chance that the "Jitterbug" sequence, from The Wizard of Oz", will be found someday too!

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m sorry you feel that way.

Why?

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by BluDomain

I get it now. It's not about DNR at all. It's about whose tools
were bought and whose tools lost out.

It's about what is considered good practices and accepted standards when transferring film elements and DIs to HD masters and then compressing them for Blu Ray. This is about technical issues as well as financial issues and last but not least artistic issues. And it's currently in flux as the industry is climbing the Blu Ray learning curve.

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I repeat, are we talking about Dances With Wolves???

I believe Mr Harris is referring to the best picture winner after LOA, Tom Jones. This had a director's cut assembled at around that time, which was a questionable decision, owing to severe ill health by the director.

As for DNR...

Having watched "I am Legend" for the first time ever last night, on an 82" screen, I cannot believe that a film that obviously could have been 10+ stunning can look this artificial and detail-less.

Judging by his posts and replies the usually great Penton-Man seems to have real issues with Mr Harris & the general quest against DNR, for whatever reason, but on this evidence i'm behind Mr Harrris. DNR sucks - when used incorrectly as it has here.

Fox has had it's brow-beaten over Patton, right or wrong, and it's still questionable whats to blame, but WB deserves to be beaten by the yardstick of it's own quality releases over this. This is unacceptable for a 6 month old film.

M

[JasonR]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Thanks for the recommendation on Broken Trail. I am only slightly into it, but am very impressed thus far. So much so I had to stop and tell you about it. Thanks again.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=497

Finished my viewing. Great flick, a little slow at times, but a great flick. Glad I made the purchase!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mark antony

Judging by his posts and replies the usually great Penton-Man seems to have real issues with Mr Harris & the general quest against DNR, for whatever reason.........

See……………
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4315

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Finished my viewing. Great flick, a little slow at times, but a great flick. Clad I made the purchase!

Fabulous western.
I'm glad you liked it.

P.S.
b.t.w., although I’m not affiliated with 20th Century Fox, might I also recommend The Sand Pebbles, a title that debuted right around the same time as Patton and The Longest Day, in case you missed it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Why?

You’ll ultimately figure it out eventually on your own.
Actions speak louder than words.

[Blu Titan]

I respect the authentic enthusiast that craves the ultimate experience from movies. Most people that participate in this forum are movie lovers, and their intentions are transparent. However, individuals that work in the industry often have hidden agendas that are not easily discovered. The financial consequences of every "development" affect people where they feel it the most...It is fine to be passionate, but not to be manipulated. I am taking all of the "comments" from the "experts" with a boulder of salt at this point.

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

See……………
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4315

Having read that and the majority of the posts about this issue on this and other forums I am unconvinced that Mr Harris and Bill Hunt at the digital bits among others are doing anything other than trying to prevent wide-scale use or more importantly over-application of dnr on releases where it's unecessary for quality or to reduce bit size.

I cannot think of any scenario where either of them would have a "hidden agenda" financial, ego-related or whatever.

A similar situation occured back in the early days of dvd when Bill Hunt amongst others fought for anamorphic widescreen on all releases, again at the time it was thought to be a non-issue, then everyone got widescreen tv's....similarly edge-enhancement was a non-issue, until tv's got bigger, transfers got better and star wars I came out!

In the grand scheme of things, if they are trying to improve BR's for us all, who gives a monkey's who gets upset at what studio, the studio's will either do something about it or they won't.

The fact is that BD's are starting to appear in sub-standard form - I am Legend, gangs of NY & Patton being 3 examples gives rise to the need to say something now, before more are affected by this issue - although all 3 could have different causes.

M

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’ll ultimately figure it out eventually on your own.
Actions speak louder than words.

Very Sad

This site, with the insider contributions has been exceptional.

I already see repercussions from the "Excedrin headaches" people are getting and will miss the freedom of expression because of the subsequent reality of consequences coming from the biting the hand that feeds many involved here.

Personally feeling that it's the "ego-related" having the "financial" clout.

Maybe a bit of paranoia mixed in?

Paul

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For all “sensitive” and “educated” enthusiasts that hardly watch the movie at all because they’re too preoccupied being amateur digital video janitors…

That's priceless. Thank you Penton. Did you just coin a new euphemism?