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

[Jeff Kleist]

While you're up in Vancouver, stick your head in over at Bridge Studios and scope out how Stargate Universe is going for all of us. I have a cookie a spoiler

There's a bunch of 24 alumni working on that show as well

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

As you know, I'm pretty set against normal ad hominem stuff that's littered throughout these fora.

it was not ad hominem (and I am against people using it incorrectly, as an ad hominem), it was an insult plain and simple (I don't know the guy and I don't know if it was called for or not- and outside the topic at hand). Ad hominem are rarely insults, an ad hominem is bring up as an aspect of the person which is irrelevant to the conversation. If the guy is a tool (or an idiot or... most things people would consider insults) then it is relevant and if the guy is not, then it is just wrong. At worst an insult adds nothing at best it gets people to wonder why someone flung them (like in this case with you).

As for what is an ad hominem the best way is a few examples (hope others don’t mind, since they would be not allowed on this forum, and the same thing we see before all movies none of these represent y views)

person A: Slavery is bad…..
person B: You don’t like slavery because you are black

person A: abortion should not be allowed….
person B : you think that because you are Christian

person A: abortion should be allowed….
Person B: you are saying that because you are pregnant and want the choice


Most people won’t consider calling someone black an insult and calling someone Christian or pregnant is definitely not insulting them (well I guess if she is not pregnant and you point out she looks due soon, she might not be too happy). Unless person A brought those facts into the conversation (My great grand father was a slave, God says abortion is a sin, I don’t want this kid….) person B decided to skip person’s A’s argument to bring up something irrelevant that could prejudice the situation.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Ad hominem are rarely insults, an ad hominem is bring up as an aspect of the person which is irrelevant to the conversation. If the guy is a tool (or an idiot or... most things people would consider insults) then it is relevant and if the guy is not, then it is just wrong. At worst an insult adds nothing at best it gets people to wonder why someone flung them (like in this case with you).

To quote our beloved Wiki, knower of all things, edited easily, but a quicker link than to OED:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

...in other words, whether or not you =like= Xylon, or Amir, or Penton, or whomever, it's complete irrelevant, rhetorically, whether or not their points are correct. Naturally, then, responding to a claim with "well, he's an idiot" is a specious counter argument, and insufficient to make one's point.

(Similary, of course, the reverse would also hold, but that falls under argumentum ad verecundiam )

So, my claim stands, that it's really easy to simply dismiss any argument by criticising the character of the person making it (particularly under the guise of anonymity) rather than addressing issues with the arguments themselves.

However your point still stands, in part. Again from wiki:

Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.

...this points not only to the shifting meaning, but does split "insult" from the ad hominem fallacy. Still, by implication, I was suggesting that the "tool" line at least reminded me of a (not-unproven) position, that internet forums are rife with ad hominem arguments in place of reasoned analysis. The fact that they're ALSO rife with insults, and that many of these insults do not fit into the analytical rubric of "ad hominem" as currently employed by leading theorectical rhetoricians doesn't invalidate my claim.

If my adressing of Vincent's post (a post deleted before I could read it) proved in the end to NOT to fall under any form of ad hominem, I could be acused of Non Sequitur, taking the "tool" comment as something merely insulting. In this rare case, anyway, I'm not sure I've been led astray onto paths unrelated...

Anyhoo, fun posts. And for those afraid of my posts and dismissive of all such nonsense, I hope the big words didn't hurt too much...

*Zing!*

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well shark, after reading what somebody PM’ed me today (3 links from *science*), it seems that “eNoize” is going for the “shameless and inexcusable” award.

Cool, I think I'll start working on that award. I wonder what to put atop the podium?

It's a larger argument, whether the filmmaker's right at all times, and certain a more sophisticated one than is often treated to during, say, screencap debates.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to not like the new transfer, and there -may- be issues evident on this title (I've yet to see it) that could, in theory, pass through QC and even the most stringent involvement of the filmmakers, compresionists, etc. resulting in a degraded image in some scenes.

I'm not saying this has happened, just that it's well within the realm of possibility that despite the best efforts of all certain scenes could have limitations in accurate grain reproduction with the final product.

That's a far cry, naturally, from hyperbolically jumping on the "THIS SUCKS" bandwagon.

I've not followed that AVS thread, nor do I plan to, but from the couple posts you've cited by 'steel_breeze', he's at least trying to make an argument, providing specific examples (debates about screencaps and their eficacy as examples aside), and in the end looking for an even -better- (if possible) representation for the source as film.

Alas, I'll not tread further, these are not my own arguments, and I'll not defend them further. Suffice it to say, I'd propose having a discussion with the person quoted far sooner than I would with the recipient of your award.

Yet again, there should be a mantra - every compressed HD video release is to varrying degrees a visual compromise. While the director's and/or DOPs involvement doesn't make it perfect and immune from all scrutiny, but it does at least give it some precedence that should be respected.

Penton, you've got the discs, see anything that steel_breeze is talking about in motion during those scenes on your PJ setup? Should be easy to spot what he's talking about if that's the case...

And, just to kick THIS one back up, you really don't think some of those scenes with superimposed writing in Dracula are a wee bit darker than comfort would probably allow, even if FFC did approve them?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

and here, on the same page, where he is basically calling Bill Hunt a liar in regards to all the filmmakers’ involvement………………
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=102

I LOVE the DVD screencap to show what "natural film grain" looks like...

~Alan

[Anthony P]

..in other words, whether or not you =like= Xylon, or Amir, or Penton, or whomever, it's complete irrelevant,

but why, isn't always.

Naturally, then, responding to a claim with "well, he's an idiot" is a specious counter argument, and insufficient to make one's point.

agree, but sometimes it is the point. If, like several posts back someone makes a list (of idiotic comments or lies) and then points out that he is an idiot or liar then that is justified because people need to look at info that is trustworthy. Even though a conman is not always a conman you need to take the person making a statement into consideration.

Also there are many fallacies (like "Appeal to Authority" ) and all of them are specious (meant to convince while not adding anything to getting to the truth), you can't call them all ad hominem.

So, my claim stands, that it's really easy to simply dismiss any argument by criticising the character of the person making it (particularly under the guise of anonymity) rather than addressing issues with the arguments themselves.

agree that character assassination does not help, but in some cases it makes sense. (like , from what you said in the first post, this case)

Still, by implication, I was suggesting that the "tool" line at least reminded me of a (not-unproven) position, that internet forums are rife with ad hominem arguments in place of reasoned analysis. The fact that they're ALSO rife with insults, and that many of these insults do not fit into the analytical rubric of "ad hominem" as currently employed by leading theorectical rhetoricians doesn't invalidate my claim.

it is logic not rhetoric. They are in essence diametrically opposed. Logic is supposed to be about getting to the truth and gaining knowledge (what philosophers and true scientists use), rhetoric is not about that but winning an argument (like lawyers, truth comes second).

Tool, idiot, liar.... cannot be an ad hominem, Let's call A the person insulted and B the person making the insult (if we call it that)
1) if you agree/ think it, when you read A's post then you are already dismissing what he is saying (so you won't be biased by B)
2) if you don't know A but always agree and blindly trust B because "he is always right" then anything he said would be right and you would disagree with A no matter if the insult was there or not
3) if you think B might be right but want to make sure, you do like you did, and find out more about A and make an informed decision if the insult was warranted
4) if you think B is insulting and his comments useless then you just dismiss it
5) if you agree and believe A then you won't care what B has to say.

so in the end it does not have an effect like an ad hominem.

an ad hominem is about mucking the waters by bringing something true to the argument which will bias but have no connection to the argument made (real insults seldom do that). On the other hand due to the nature of the beast (internet forums) "discrediting" makes sense. Most posts are veiled calls to authority "grain should not be there", "so and so said so"..... and the proper way to show the fallacy of a call to authority is to discredit the authority (i.e. to get back to the original comment A said I saw GB and it looks wrong, B said A is a tool {he thinks every movie on BD looks wrong}- there might be better and more elaborate ways then just "he is a tool" but in the end that was used to point out the person was not an "authority" which logically is valid, the issue is that once you get on forums, chances are that the person making the "insult" most likely has pointed out more then once the issues with that authority, so either he does not bother anymore and it is assumed people know why he used the term in that context or he makes a long post enumerating why (which gets tedious after a while)

PS don’t get me wrong, I don’t think every premise with an insult is valid or justified, but some are.

[aygie]

Penton/Jeff i don't normally ask for release dates but was hoping you could shed some news on Lost Season 3 in the UK? The US version has been out for a while and seasons 1+2 have just been released in both territories but no season 3 for the UK!

is there a reason for this?

Thanks

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I think it's perfectly legitimate to not like the new transfer, and there -may- be issues evident on this title (I've yet to see it) that could, in theory, pass through QC and even the most stringent involvement of the filmmakers, compresionists, etc..

It's not a perfect world. In any film and in any transfer of any film one who is looking may and shall find something "wrong;" one who watches the film to enjoy the film...not so much.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

It's not a perfect world. In any film and in any transfer of any film one who is looking may and shall find something "wrong;" one who watches the film to enjoy the film...not so much.

Absolutely, but it's a balance - clearly, the more zealous fight for the best we can get (erm, the "look and sound of perfect-ish"), and when it falls short, it's worth commenting.

It's not worth, however, crusades, rants, boycotts, hissy fits, etc., etc...

You are entirely correct - at some point, for the love of God, watch the damn movie, turn off your "PQ" brain, and enjoy it!!! (may I add, regardless of what colour the shiny disc case comes in... )

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

it is logic not rhetoric. They are in essence diametrically opposed. Logic is supposed to be about getting to the truth and gaining knowledge (what philosophers and true scientists use), rhetoric is not about that but winning an argument (like lawyers, truth comes second).

Ah, poor, poor Cicero, always getting the shaft... We could go on and on about Rhetoric, but I take your point that the "tool" comment, out of context, may well have been mere insult (entirely deserved by the normally quite agreeable Vincent, it seems).

Incidentally, my M.A. was on film theory and rhetoric, and how epistemological notions of "foundational truth" played little to no role in creating interesting criticism. Critics pull "cues" out of film in order to draw conclusions, and these cues are at best arbitrary and neutral in terms of specific critical import apart from the role of the critic themselves. Others, however, see these cues from one predominant position, masking all differences in favour of a unified theory of cinema.

However, if there's no "truth" inherent in the cues themselves, how do you moderate the discussion, preventing a "free for all" of idiotic, unhelpful ideas? We're left with those "totallizing" theories, ones that purport to have the definitive answer on the nature of cinema (Marxist, Jungian, etc.), being dismissed on rhetorical rather than epistemological grounds. In short, if there's no foundational truth by which to judge a critical argument, the only basis is on the style and flourish of the rhetoric, whether it's =convincing= rather than being true. You're then locked into the "how do I then get rid of the crap?" argument, ignoring those, uh, "tools" that just provide little to the conversation. This, I felt, was the key, those critics who felt they had =the= answer were basically ending the conversation. Thus, if all you've got is "conversation", and you've got some prick saying "Eureka! It's all about the Vagina!", then that can be dismissed on the very grounds that are meant to keep the conversation flowing.

This is a terrible summary, but I thought you'd find it amusing... It's been a while since I engaged in this type of banter, I enjoyed it very much...

[Jeff Kleist]

Penton/Jeff i don't normally ask for release dates but was hoping you could shed some news on Lost Season 3 in the UK? The US version has been out for a while and seasons 1+2 have just been released in both territories but no season 3 for the UK!

is there a reason for this?

I don't have any contact with Disney UK, but if I had to guess they missed the season 3 promotional window, and Lost 1 and 2 are "new"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Penton, you've got the discs, see anything that steel_breeze is talking about in motion during those scenes on your PJ setup? Should be easy to spot what he's talking about if that's the case...

Well, I don’t have the time or inclination to read that whole thread and I don’t care to comment any further on what “steel_breeze” was talking about in the link that was sent to me via PM and which I posted on the last page, as that fellow doesn’t seem to have any bad intentions, he’s just plain wrong.

“eNoize”, on the other hand, not only insults RAH’s competence and Bill Hunt’s honesty but also speaks ‘authoritatively’, when it is apparent (at least to me) that he has never even been in a non-linear color grading suite, or much less knows how these tools work. The only thing I would agree with is what he says here, i.e. about "finding another line of work because he sucks at this"……………
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=107

“Hey, what happened to the clouds” – Well, just maaaaaybe, László Kovács really didn’t bloody care about the clouds in that scene to begin with, when he sat with the mastering technician for the Blu-ray production.

“Not properly calibrated contrast and gamma” – I have no idea what “eNoise” means by this statement. It’s nonsense.

“Unnatural film grain interpreted as film grain due to the higher contrast level” –
“Unnatural” to what?........The release prints? The DVD?
Setting the highlights during the making of the video master at 100 IRE as opposed to 90 IRE?
That is a completely subjective observation and the personal decision of the filmmaker….. not the telecine operator or digital colorist or some hobbyist by the name of “eNoize”. With that unnatural/natural philosophy, I guess that rules out photochemical push processing for any motion picture because you’re taking that “natural” film grain in the OCN and making it “unnatural” by that alternative development process during post.

For cripes sake, one could extend this “natural/unnatural grain” argument to natural/unnatural colors and natural/unnatural contrast, etc. with motion pictures.
For instance, you might as well label Gran Torino as plagued with “unnatural color” because Clint chose the digital equivalent of a type of photochemical bleach retention process during the D.I.. and gosh, the colors are “unnaturally” desaturated along with the overall “unnatural” contrasty look of all the imagery of that particular feature film.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

While you're up in Vancouver, stick your head in over at Bridge Studios and scope out how Stargate Universe is going for all of us. I have a cookie a spoiler

There's a bunch of 24 alumni working on that show as well

Hmmm.

Star Trek - Stargate (original)
Star Trek: TNG - Stargate SG-1 (big successful series based on the original)
Star Trek: DS9 - Stargate Atlantis (centered around a base)
Star Trek: Voyager - Stargate Universe (on a ship far from home)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I LOVE the DVD screencap to show what "natural film grain" looks like...

~Alan

I didn’t do the work on this Blu-ray, paidgeek may have mentioned some tidbits about it in his past posts while he was posting here in ’07 but, personally looking at the top illustrative screencap as compared to the bottom for this specific scene, I would guess that Lazlo probably felt the video master that DVD was sourced from, was flat and suboptimally colored. So, if the new HD master derived from the archival IP still showed that drab *look* then they tried to adjust things to be more in line with what his vision was for Ghostbusters and the technician first adjusted the pedestal level so the blacks were 0, increased the gain to about 100 IRE., and adjusted the gamma up to a level found acceptable to the filmmaker by looking at certain points of interest to him (obviously, NOT the clouds ) in that still image.

Finally, they color balanced the image by adjusting the red, blue and green pedestal and gain controls by using the RGB waveform and also eyeing the image on the screen, which is why the actor finally has a lime green collar rather than some puke colored off-green collar.

People have to understand that there is no ‘contrast boosting knob’ that the technician ‘turns to 10’ when you produce a new HD master. There are multiple adjustments which are sliding, modulating type controls that you generally feather left or right or up and down all the time asking the filmmaker if he/she likes this or that, i.e. is this too much or too little, etc. It’s almost like an eye exam where your optometrist places a lens in those glasses they fit you with and asks “better?” and then puts a different strength lens in and asks “better…..worse?”.

Screenshot *scientists* can post this screenshot or that screenshot and circle this or that and make ridiculous assertions regarding the film source, the transfer equipment, the competence of the technicians or the filmmakers involved but, the bottom line is they do not have access to split screen images of the film source and the HD master and certainly are not the filmmakers who made these judgments based upon directly viewing that material.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

And, just to kick THIS one back up, you really don't think some of those scenes with superimposed writing in Dracula are a wee bit darker than comfort would probably allow, even if FFC did approve them?

You know, I can just see myself as being the vendor (either the waiter, the hair stylist, etc.) and you being the dude ‘paying’ for his dinner or perhaps the lady in the chair ‘negotiating’ her haircut/highlights in one of these following situations…………….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY

You own a Kuro right?
Yes, I would say that for you, a couple scenes in BSD may prove challenging to watch because for those great blacks you’re getting, you’re sacrificing dynamic range. This from Pete, a well respected industry profession hired to do consultant work for people in the business and who speaks at industry conferences such as HPA routinely…………
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_c/PioneerPro111FD.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

While you're up in Vancouver, stick your head in over at Bridge Studios and scope out how Stargate Universe is going for all of us. I have a cookie a spoiler

There's a bunch of 24 alumni working on that show as well

Hey, when are you going on your trip, again?
No sense in calling SPHE for paidgeek, as he’s taking a long July 4th weekend to travel north to Laguna Seca to watch the MotoGP stuff that Squid and Doctorossi get all excited about every couple weeks.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, I got a pic this morning of one of Maya’s (pronounced My-Yuh, like in the Disney movie, Eight Below) pups. The quality is suboptimal as I had to use a pocket-sized digital camera. I worked my arse off to get this shot having to crawl thru thistle around a patch a poison oak.

I had previously placed some dog food (beige colored) in a black cardboard container for enticement….. which you can see at the pups feet.



For some perspective, the black container with the dog food measures 14” in length showing how small the little fella really is. If they have the time and opportunity, Deci, Ice, Jeff, Jason ? or one of our other industrious mods/members may be able to re-post the pic for non-members also to see, as it seems that yesterday for some reason, our non-membership here jumped to almost about 3x (~6,000) to what it normally has been running.

I wonder what caused that.
Anything new happen around here recently ?

Thanks for the heavy-lifting ^ Deci.
The pic looks good.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I don't have any contact with Disney UK, but if I had to guess they missed the season 3 promotional window, and Lost 1 and 2 are "new"

Thanks, its such a strange one i don't see why they didn't repackage the US version and release with S1+2, maybe they'll do it when Season 5 comes out.

Cheers again.

[Doctorossi]

Hey, Bobby- do you know anywhere I can find a listing of the particular RealD cinemas equipped with the newer higher-gain screen material? I suspect my preferred installation is so equipped because screen brightness has not at all been an issue for me there. I can't reliably calculate foot-Lamberts in my head with too much precision, but there's some very satisfactory brightness there and I'd love some idea of how my theatre might compare to others.

[Jeff Kleist]

I didn’t do the work on this Blu-ray, paidgeek may have mentioned some tidbits about it in his past posts while he was posting here in ’07 but, personally looking at the top illustrative screencap as compared to the bottom for this specific scene, I would guess that Lazlo probably felt the video master that DVD was sourced from, was flat and suboptimally colored. So, if the new HD master derived from the archival IP still showed that drab *look* then they tried to adjust things to be more in line with what his vision was for Ghostbusters and the technician first adjusted the pedestal level so the blacks were 0, increased the gain to about 100 IRE., and adjusted the gamma up to a level found acceptable to the filmmaker by looking at certain points of interest to him (obviously, NOT the clouds ) in that still image.

Reminds me of all the complaints that the motel sign in Terminator is blown out on the latest transfer and now unreadable, funny, the scene looks better than it ever did before and it's Cameron approved (doh!)

[quote[Hey, when are you going on your trip, again?
No sense in calling SPHE for paidgeek, as he’s taking a long July 4th weekend to travel north to Laguna Seca to watch the MotoGP stuff that Squid and Doctorossi get all excited about every couple weeks.[/quote]

I leave Wed, but I'll be in town a full week, leaving sometime on Thurs for my brother's place in San Diego. I'll be running around causing trouble Monday Tuesday and Wed tho, cause my gig is done Monday morning

Thanks, its such a strange one i don't see why they didn't repackage the US version and release with S1+2, maybe they'll do it when Season 5 comes out.

I'd say they'd hold it until season 6 and the megabox hits. Least that's what I would do unless 1 and 2 do above expectation (looks like 1 did well first week at least, 2 not so much, but I expect it'll pick up when people recover a bit financially and hopefully don't lose the rebate )