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

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

Indeed.

Not only is it closer to the theatrical presentation to have the subs in the picture area, it also makes more sense in the home environment.

For folks with 2.40:1 front projection setups (like myself), it's really annoying when the subs are in the "black bars" as they just disappear in the black masking of the screen.

But even for "normal" 16:9 setups like flat panel TVs it's much nicer to have the subs in the picture, because your eyes don't have to move between the picture and the black bars; ideally, in a dark/light controlled environment, those bars shouldn't be visible at all so your full attention is focused on the picture.

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute here, placing subtitles at the bottom of scope-ratioed films also makes sense.

First, I am sure that you have witnessed numerous debates on dubbing vs subtitling. One of the reasons pro-dub people always give is that the subtitles intrude upon and 'dirty up' the frame and ruin the carefully-chosen compositions. Putting subtitles at the bottom minimizes that effect (and, in the case of one-line subtitles, totally eliminates it).

Theatrical subtitles have to be in the frame - you have no choice. When there is an option (such as the electronic subtitles we often see in film festivals), they are often placed outside.

Granted, the distance the eye must travel is longer.

[HDJK]

^^ True, but that doesn't explain why Sony for example places not quite half of the second line in the black bars and the rest in the picture (as in Encounters). IMHO that is just plain stupid (as much as I respect Sony otherwise, this just doesn't make any sense to me).

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Grubert

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute here, placing subtitles at the bottom of scope-ratioed films also makes sense.

First, I am sure that you have witnessed numerous debates on dubbing vs subtitling. One of the reasons pro-dub people always give is that the subtitles intrude upon and 'dirty up' the frame and ruin the carefully-chosen compositions. Putting subtitles at the bottom minimizes that effect (and, in the case of one-line subtitles, totally eliminates it).

Theatrical subtitles have to be in the frame - you have no choice. When there is an option (such as the electronic subtitles we often see in film festivals), they are often placed outside.

Granted, the distance the eye must travel is longer.

Your post makes things a lot clearer for me. I was wondering why some people where posting that subtitles belong in the screen. Obviously, if the subtitle is part of the theatrical presentation, the original placement should be respected. However, when people are using subtitles due to a language issue or a hearing deficiency, the bottom of the picture is probably the most unobtrusive placement.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Your post makes things a lot clearer for me. I was wondering why some people where posting that subtitles belong in the screen. Obviously, if the subtitle is part of the theatrical presentation, the original placement should be respected. However, when people are using subtitles due to a language issue or a hearing deficiency, the bottom of the picture is probably the most unobtrusive placement.

Thanks. Subtitling is a very tricky thing with many disparate requirements and limitations. It could deserve its own thread.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by HDJK

^^ True, but that doesn't explain why Sony for example places not quite half of the second line in the black bars and the rest in the picture (as in Encounters). IMHO that is just plain stupid (as much as I respect Sony otherwise, this just doesn't make any sense to me).

Agree 100%. Text overlapping the bottom of the film frame is a total no-no in subtitling.

Any line of text should be completely above or completely below the edge of the frame.

In summary:

Both lines in frame (works for all users):


Top line in frame, bottom line out of frame (works for non-CIH users, but not for CIH users):


Bottom line partially out of frame (*incorrect*):

[jd213]

Why would the second image be correct? The bottom line would get cut off for those with Constant Image Height setups, and the top line blocks part of the picture for those sensitive to such issues. Shouldn't all lines always either be in the black bar or inside the picture?

[H9k_]

It should always be in the image since there is not any infomarmation in the black bars that you are not even suppose to see.. The black bars are only there to maintain the proper OAR for those people that have the wrong setup.

It should also be noted that keeping subtitels in the picture (Like in the cinemas!) also benefit the MILLIONS of black bars haters\Zoomers all over the world. How hard is this to get right, dont people ever go to the movies anymore?

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by jd213

Why would the second image be correct? The bottom line would get cut off for those with Constant Image Height setups, and the top line blocks part of the picture for those sensitive to such issues. Shouldn't all lines always either be in the black bar or inside the picture?

For Constant Image Width setups, they are both correct. Actually, for CIW (which at present comprise the vast majority of consumer setups) you could argue that using the black bar is better - notice how on the Tekkonkinkreet capture, the second line of text is much easier to read than the first:

[jd213]

Not sure if we understand each other here... in CIH, a 2.35:1 image will be zoomed to fill the 16:9 frame of a projector's output, and then an anamorphic lens will be used to stretch it back out to 2.35:1 again for display on a 2.35:1 screen. Meaning that the "exchanging bottles" part will be totally cut off.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by jd213

Not sure if we understand each other here... in CIH, a 2.35:1 image will be zoomed to fill the 16:9 frame of a projector's output, and then an anamorphic lens will be used to stretch it back out to 2.35:1 again for display on a 2.35:1 screen. Meaning that the "exchanging bottles" part will be totally cut off.

I know that. I was talking about CIW, not CIH.

[jd213]

I don't think that's nearly as popular of a setup in home theaters, and one wouldn't be able to use the 2.35:1 masking anyways since the lower line would be cut off. So having both lines completely within the picture frame would still be ideal for people with such setups.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by jd213

I don't think that's nearly as popular of a setup in home theaters, and one wouldn't be able to use the 2.35:1 masking anyways since the lower line would be cut off. So having both lines completely within the picture frame would still be ideal for people with such setups.

I have edited the post to reflect your concerns.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, to all newbies (at least of the male gender) I forewarn you now that there is an initiation exercise involved in reading and posting on this particular thread.
It involves………..
1. Trust
2. An eagle eye to avoid potential obstacles

3. Good sense of humor

Now back to our regularly scheduled financial crisis...

[Eternal_Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Grubert

If I can play devil's advocate for a minute here, placing subtitles at the bottom of scope-ratioed films also makes sense (...) the subtitles intrude upon and 'dirty up' the frame and ruin the carefully-chosen compositions.

Although I don't agree with this point of view, I can accept that some people may think so. That's why it's probably for the best if we get two sets of subs (one in the picture area, one in the black bars) so everyone can choose the placement that fits their setup/preferences.

Originally Posted by Grubert

Putting subtitles at the bottom minimizes that effect (and, in the case of one-line subtitles, totally eliminates it).

Films always need 2 line of subs, though, to handle scenes with fast dialogue etc.; so the effect would never really be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Grubert

You could argue that using the black bar is better - notice how on the Tekkonkinkreet capture, the second line of text is much easier to read than the first

Actually, I think it is even more annoying when one line is easier to read than the other...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Oh Lord, I’ve been alerted to yet another nonsense list on the internet, this time founded by scientists that imply they have a special knowledge of *grain*, transfers, or the Director’s intent.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935
One could go through this list, almost every fourth or fifth title by title and refute either some of the observations or the conclusions.

For instance, you’ll note that the movie 300 is listed as being in the
“Digital Camera Film List”.

Do these people make this stuff up or is it just a matter of ignorant bliss and having access to a computer? Who contributes this garbage, 5 year-olds?

Regarding 300…………..
The vast majority of the film was shot at high speed, between 50 and 150fps. That was the key reason why the movie was shot on film……in the first place, rather than with a digital camera as incorrectly listed in the thread.
I’ll elaborate on the grain associated with this particular movie later when I’ve got more time.

^ ^
Regarding the grain in the movie 300, I’m surprised that the *scientists* who allege to have attended the theatrical film presentation and/or those that imply they are experts in the identification of DNR artifacts, didn’t raise holy hell for getting cheated out of grain with the high-def home media editions of this title, as compared to the theatrical film version……..because, if they were true grain connoisseurs, they would have noticed the differences in 35mm. vs. Blu-ray (and HD DVD) versions.

Let me explain, as this is an older title that has been out of the mindset for awhile and many folks may have forgotten about it; however, this information is by no means a big industry secret as one of the filmmakers openly discussed this issue in a Q & A at an industry HD conference in March? of last year.

If the dnr *authorites* had ventured into the public theater to view this feature film and truly had accurate recollections, they would have noticed that the 35mm. version of this movie has wildly uneven grain throughout the course of the presentation. The grain per se was intentional but the incredibly uneven appearance was not (the filmmakers admittedly just didn’t have the time or the budget to “fix” it).
Sure the filmmakers intended a ‘gritty look’ but, they did not intend some scenes to look like swarming mosquitoes in heat. This appearance was somewhat *corrected* in the high definition home media versions – for which the filmmakers admittedly had more time to intentionally tweak the source……. and took advantage of it to do so.

So in essence, at least in regards to the amount of grain, the home media versions (less swarming mosquitoes) are not an accurate reproduction of the 35 mm. film theatrical presentation but they reflect continued work by the filmmakers(s) to correct a major issue (grain) that they were never satisfied with in the first place with the original 35mm. presentation.

In regards to the crushed blacks, clipped whites, lowered gamma and intentionally tweaked color saturation…….yes, the high-def home media versions are indeed a very accurate reproduction of the 35mm version of 300 given the inherent differences in colorspace between high-def consumer video and film.

[Penton-Man]

I see there’s a lot of talk here about subtitles and such.
I suggest if you want to lure paidgeek back here for at least a second look-see, you might be able to if someone makes a post with the words/phrases…….. ‘paidgeek and Rossi wins inaugural Indy Moto GP’.

Everyone has their own weakness, you just need to know what bait to use to lure in the fish.

[Eternal_Sunshine]

Paidgeek and Rossi win inaugural Indy Moto GP!*



*Paidgeek, sadly, not pictured.

[Deciazulado]

Now that we have Paidgeek back here

Originally Posted by jd213

I don't think that's nearly as popular of a setup in home theaters, and one wouldn't be able to use the 2.35:1 masking anyways since the lower line would be cut off. So having both lines completely within the picture frame would still be ideal for people with such setups.

With the higher resolution of Blu-ray, they could make the font smaller like it is on prints and have longer sentences in one line, effectively having "both" lines within the picture frame for CIH set ups which usually tend to be larger wider screens anyway. The obvious solution would be to have subtitles in the two positions: Within picture, and within black bars. That would make most people happy and be flexible, but for the exception that it may make navigating subtitle menus and options twice as "hard" for people, which is maybe the reason that a seemingly to us simple solution, is not being done?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I see there’s a lot of talk here about subtitles and such.
I suggest if you want to lure paidgeek back here for at least a second look-see, you might be able to if someone makes a post with the words/phrases…….. ‘paidgeek and Rossi wins inaugural Indy Moto GP’.

Everyone has their own weakness, you just need to know what bait to use to lure in the fish.

And Stoner didnt fall down this time

[Penton-Man]

People…………..
I see we’ve picked up a new Insider!.....................
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=63987

This is GREAT !
I’m so stoked I’m going to call Bill Hunt now and encourage him to either get back to posting on his thread or else have one of his journalists get the thread back in motion if he’s too busy.

Heck, Sarah could even chime in on how their cats are doing as we’re all animal lovers here.