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

[Penton-Man]

David, you would have to ask Jeff what they specifically did. I don’t know if they produced new film masters (scans) or were producing multiple new video masters (HD masters) from an older scan, ………..or both.

[Penton-Man]

Shark, I really should make note that some people in the industry don’t use the acronym ‘DRS’ to apply to a dirt and scratch remover and simply call it ‘dust busting software’ by ‘x’ or ‘y’ manufacturer and actually refer to ‘DRS’ as the semi-automated tool to remove larger physical imperfections such as tears, warps, glue marks, mislights, and larger scratches.

Both terms are sometimes thrown around interchangeably during conversations but, if you ever read about these tools or attend a conference in which they are discussed, just be cognizant of the ambiguity in the terminology and pay attention to the context in which they are being referred to.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Shark, I really should make note that some people in the industry don’t use the acronym ‘DRS’ to apply to a dirt and scratch remover and simply call it ‘dust busting software’ by ‘x’ or ‘y’ manufacturer and actually refer to ‘DRS’ as the semi-automated tool to remove larger physical imperfections such as tears, warps, glue marks, mislights, and larger scratches.

Both terms are sometimes thrown around interchangeably during conversations but, if you ever read about these tools or attend a conference in which they are discussed, just be cognizant of the ambiguity in the terminology and pay attention to the context in which they are being referred to.

And this, my friend, is why I linger in your thread...

cheers. Just watching practice session of the Oz GP race. Alas, I'm required to get my full BBC feed in a circuitous way (local TV shows the race, but none of the practice/pre-race coverage).

Thanks for the clarification, I guess I was the only one to not know what you meant. Or, at least, to admit as much...

[Cinema Squid]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Shark, I really should make note that some people in the industry don’t use the acronym ‘DRS’ to apply to a dirt and scratch remover and simply call it ‘dust busting software’ by ‘x’ or ‘y’ manufacturer and actually refer to ‘DRS’ as the semi-automated tool to remove larger physical imperfections such as tears, warps, glue marks, mislights, and larger scratches.

I believe that "digital restoration service/software/system" is the most common expansion of 'DRS'. I could be wrong since I'm just a hobbyist, but I hate to leave a good acronym hanging in the breeze like that!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

And this, my friend, is why I linger in your thread...

Admit it.
You just hang out here for the YouTube clips......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P1erlGV5Jk

[Beta Man]

I'll read over the posts you linked to.

If you could provide me with the link to the posts in the LOTR Thread, it'd be greatly appreciated, although I'll begin to try to find them.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Penton-Man, somebody wanted me to ask you:

Please give me the name of a bluray that looked terrible in screen caps but turned out to be fantastic when in motion.

Baraka is another example. The usual avser's Xylon, Kram Sacu, etc trashed it.. False claims of DNR, etc (despite the actual people who worked on the transfer interjecting the truth).. Just one of countless examples that they really don't know what they are talking about.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Just one of countless examples that they really don't know what they are talking about.

what, like this?


re: Not liking Lebowski? Well, you're wrong, clearly. You should watch it in HD (you know... buy a player that can play the disc while waiting for the BD already...) And NCFOM is a work of genius, one that, maybe, you'll learn to like one day.

The issue with Baraka was that people were drawing incorrect conclusions about the causes for the screenshot anomalies, not that there weren't any anomalies to begin with. But, of course, I assume you knew that...

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The colors and ‘darkness’ of Bram Stoker’s Dracula went down by the *screenshot scientists* as a complete screw-up by the technical personnel at SPE because they didn’t understand what a Director selected and approved Answer Print meant or, they just believed this respected professional (read #3 under Miscellaneous Crew) to be an outright liar……….http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0041447/

I'm sorry but Dracula is really crap. Forget screenshots for a second, watch the Superbit DVD on one display, and watch the Blu-ray on a identical display at the same time. Massive parts of the set completely disappear in the darkness on the Blu-ray. Overlayed text is made impossible to read and is nearly invisible. Why would they bother to make those sets or effects if the viewer would never see them?

Even Josh Z who you say is one of the credible posters over there agrees:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=550
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=568

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I'm sorry but Dracula is really crap. Forget screenshots for a second, watch the Superbit DVD on one display, and watch the Blu-ray on a identical display at the same time. Massive parts of the set completely disappear in the darkness on the Blu-ray. Overlayed text is made impossible to read and is nearly invisible. Why would they bother to make those sets or effects if the viewer would never see them?

Even Josh Z who you say is one of the credible posters over there agrees:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=550
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=568

“Really crap”, eh?

Well yes, I do admire JoshZ, as I stated before - for his clear thinking on the usefulness of screenshots and most importantly because -

“Josh spent his formative years dreaming of becoming a great filmmaker with a shelf full of Oscars and the adoration of millions. After slogging through four years of film school, he managed to spend several thousand of his own dollars to make a short film that was hated by everyone who saw it... That's right, all four of them. Coming to the realization that filmmaking is a grueling, tedious, and wholly unsatisfying process, Josh decided to put his film school degree to good use... by taking a job in the mutual fund industry. Rather than sinking into a deep depression, Josh has instead decided to become very bitter about life in general.”

But to directly answer your question regarding Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I say -don’t be sorry…………get EVEN!

I would suggest you and/or JoshZ contact one or all the following people who now work in some aspect of the motion picture business or its ancillary endeavors (archivist) following their formal education(s) and vigorously complain to them about the Blu-ray edition of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, after carefully reading every word of this and the links which I have included for further background.

Posted at http://www.dvdempire.com –
Kim Aubrey, who works for ZAP Zoetrope Aubry Productions LLC and worked on the Blu-ray transfer of this title, took some issues with some of the statements in our Empire Review.

In the interest of "fair play" and making sure our customers had all the facts, we thought it fair to include his comments here:

Kim Aubrey: If the electronic transfer of the film that you are seeing reveals grain structure...that is, if you are SEEING the film grain, then by definition, you are seeing all of the sharpness that was captured by the film camera. We can’t manufacture sharpness or definition in the telecine process. It is true that in the standard definition home video era, it was common to dial in some electronic edge enhancement to overcome the limitations of NTSC Video and television receivers of that era. And it was common in pre HD transfers to “filter out” the grain giving movies more of a “TV look” which was considered desirable at that time. But the “detail enhancement” they used in that era was erzatz definition....fake. An illusion of detail. Again, if you are seeing “tons of grain” then you are seeing a faithful reproduction of the film element.

American Zoetrope, Francis Coppola’s company does not own (and has never owned) the facilities to do feature film telecine mastering...aka the film transfer. The studio that OWNS the title (in this case Columbia-Sony) owns Dracula and they commissioned and paid for the new transfer in 1996 because they believed that the old one was wanting. I agreed with them. I was post production executive on the film in 1991-1992 and I always was horrified at what the home video and TV editions of Dracula looked like because they were so far from what Coppola and Ballhaus had done for the original release prints. So orange-y. So bright. Zoetrope’s role in the new transfer was to make sure that the transfer colorist had access to a pristine original “final answer print” to screen and refer to. A final answer print is a vaulted 35mm film print in Sony’s possession that bears a signature from the original production indicating that the director or director of photography was satisfied with the color timing and that this print was to be the gold standard...the reference for all 35mm release prints to be compared with and accepted/rejected. It was a controversial answer print at the time. It was dark. The soundtrack was considered very avant-garde. Coppola was breaking rules. Some critics appreciated it, others did not.

Response from the Head of the team that produced the Blu-ray edition…..https://forum.blu-ray.com/242792-post3678.html

Another ‘outside’ of Blu-ray.com review to offer you as a second opinion…………http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...d#post_3243332

And when you contact them, please remember to tell them that BSD is really crap, or better yet, really dark crap.

[Xorp]

I really, really, really want to believe them, but there's just so much picture missing that it's almost insulting to the crew that worked hard on the sets and other aspects of the film's design. There's dark and then there's crushed.

Anyway, sorry to bring up this beaten to death topic. I'll stick with the Superbit DVD and shutup about it.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I really, really, really want to believe them, but there's just so much picture missing that it's almost insulting to the crew that worked hard on the sets and other aspects of the film's design. There's dark and then there's crushed.

Anyway, sorry to bring up this beaten to death topic. I'll stick with the Superbit DVD and shutup about it.

Yes, I'm jumping in here (sorry) but you haven't indicated what set you are watching this on, whether you've had it calibrated, etc.

I agree that Dracula's a pretty damn dark film, and looked to one scene in particular (where the writing was superimposed on film) on a pro calib'd projector (hi, Dennis) and found it... well... dark. Like, more than GFII dark.

On the fancy new projector, it's apparently a lot better. I've yet to see it on my Kuro. So, humbly, I'd suggest rather than just slinking away, take from Penton's links a "teaching moment", thinking this might be one title that either pushes your equipment past its limit (non-subjective), or gives you an image that you don't prefer (subjective). If in fact this is a faithful transfer of a very-hard-to-transfer film, one that's purposely dark and requires even more adherence to a properly calibrated display, then two things will happen - many (most?) will never see the film in a decent light, and screencaps will, almost certainly, look like ass. Frankly, I bet there are more HDTVs calibrated properly than Computer screens...

I've pushed Penton on Dracula myself, for reasons I've outlined above, but I hope you see that dismissing the title entirely (ie., "real crap") isn't so helpful in this case.

Note that Patton is a totally different beast - Penton, see above, has shown that there was a breakdown in procedure, as somebody "down the line" made the call to dial up settings that shouldn't be (ie, not some grand studio conspiracy).

However, what's I think not being recognized is that, frankly, in the end we don't care. We bought a title that was not treated with the respect that it deserved. Unlike the studio people (or, frankly, the reviewers), we buy our discs. When they're an inferior product, we're allowed to vent frustrations, and, in the end, the studio is responsible for all QC for these titles. Fox should do the right thing with this particular (Coppola-related) title. We're not talking some obscure title, or one that doesn't have its source materials in good enough shape to expect an excellent transfer (ie., we're not drawing blood from a rock here).

So, in short, I think it's fair of Penton to call you out here for hyperbole - note that he's been refreshingly honest of late with the indication that certain titles really do deserve to be treated better than they have been, and allowing for the possibility of screw ups that make it to retail.

It sounds to me, based on this and previous comments, that Dracula looks the way it does because that's how they wanted it to look. Baraka has some funkiness that's "not DNR" but due to downsampling, but, again, that's trivia, and is especially weird given how the disc was marketed (as little more than eye candy). Patton is a mess, yet still superior to my previous DVD copy (not saying much, and hardly ameliorates that for many people). As for LOTR? Well, I've yet to see a full review that doesn't really love the transfer, noting some softness but hardly finding the same disgust that many have found from a few specific shots.

Anyhoo, who the hell am I, just some shmo that shows up here and drinks at the font of a caustic, belligerent, clearly intelligent and insightful studio hack that deems the likes of us worthy of entertaining. I just wanted to say the above in the hopes that rather than going away from the topic, you'd discuss specifically your issues with this title, providing some details about your setup and what specifically you feel is the issue. I assure you, you'd not be alone in buying that disc and thinking "this is crap!", the question is, what made it so (your system, artistic choices of the filmmakers, etc.) There remains the position that while you think it looks crap, it might actually be the result of something other than the disc/transfer itself.

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Yes, I'm jumping in here (sorry) but you haven't indicated what set you are watching this on, whether you've had it calibrated, etc.

I agree that Dracula's a pretty damn dark film, and looked to one scene in particular (where the writing was superimposed on film) on a pro calib'd projector (hi, Dennis) and found it... well... dark. Like, more than GFII dark.

Sorry for bring "science" into this, but I've analyzed frames (correctly captured) I have taken from the Blu-ray in Photoshop and often large parts of the image are indeed completely gone, akin to cropping. They aren't "hidden" a dark transfer that needs a high quality calibrated display to bring out, they are simply nonexistent. There is only the color black (RGB color code 000000) in the dark areas.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

As for LOTR? Well, I've yet to see a full review that doesn't really love the transfer, noting some softness but hardly finding the same disgust that many have found from a few specific shots.

read the one on this site.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Xorp

Sorry for bring "science" into this, but I've analyzed frames (correctly captured) I have taken from the Blu-ray in Photoshop and often large parts of the image are indeed completely gone, akin to cropping. They aren't "hidden" a dark transfer that needs a high quality calibrated display to bring out, they are simply nonexistent. There is only the color black (RGB color code 000000) in the dark areas.

read the one on this site.

No need for sorry, that's exactly the stuff that I was looking for you to provide... Better than a blanket "it's crap", isn't it? Any specific scenes/screen grabs that you can point to? I know it's a long beaten horse, but the specifics of issues with Dracula, rather than the hyperbole/defensiveness that drove much of the discussion before, might be useful in this case.

I actually hadn't read the review here yet (just posted tonight). Interesting, seems far more negative than, say, Bill's on the Bits, or especially DVDTalk's...

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I really, really, really want to believe them, but there's just so much picture missing that it's almost insulting to the crew that worked hard on the sets and other aspects of the film's design.

I find it insulting that you claim insult on their behalf. They were hired for a job, and Coppola did with their work as he liked, which was his right as director. Frankly put, anyone that makes sets, costumes, props, etc. knows that many, many, MANY of their small details will never be seen on the final product. It's the nature of the business.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'll read over the posts you linked to.

If you could provide me with the link to the posts in the LOTR Thread, it'd be greatly appreciated, although I'll begin to try to find them.

Seems another mod has graciously deleted them.
They dealt with feces, anal intercourse and a major Hollywood studio.

I'm told the poster has been since suspended until he gets back on his civility meds.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I really, really, really want to believe them, but there's just so much picture missing that it's almost insulting to the crew that worked hard on the sets and other aspects of the film's design. There's dark and then there's crushed.

You like the word "really".

True black and true white are set (which effect the whole spectrum of the overall ‘brightness’ or ‘darkness’ of the movie) not only by eyeballing the source, but also by utilizing a waveform monitor which is not subject to human visual misinterpretation.
This is rather a typical practice in the business………

https://forum.blu-ray.com/2454266-post10889.html
The BSD Blu-ray is spot in with the Director selected Answer print for true black, without a doubt.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by captveg

I find it insulting that you claim insult on their behalf. They were hired for a job, and Coppola did with their work as he liked, which was his right as director. Frankly put, anyone that makes sets, costumes, props, etc. knows that many, many, MANY of their small details will never be seen on the final product. It's the nature of the business.

Correct.
The set designers never really know definitively everything which will be clearly visualized, out of focus, out of frame. So, they design as if all possible will be captured and seen by the audience.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

........Also, bear in mind that when most folks on forums like use terms like "same master" they really mean that both images were derived from the same telecine prior to subsequent digital cleanup manipulation and compression. Naturally, by definition, the VC1 compressed blu-ray would utilize a different master than the MPEG2 file for the HDTV broadcast if by "master" one means the compressed master. Or if "master" means uncompressed, were the two compressed files derived from the same uncompressed master without any differing manipulation between the two? Or was an uncompressed video file given some addition DNR/DRS scrubbing before being compressed for Blu-ray, but left unmanipulated for HDTV, so that two different uncompressed "masters" exist between the two, but both still sharing the same original digital source?

I say all of this only because when Warner assured the bits that "a new master" was used, without an explanation of what that really means, it may or may not change the fundamental of what's being proposed by folks who are seeing surprising similarity of the BD and HDTV image (indicating that the two in some way share a common source), noticing that the BD image appears to suffer however from some unfriendly DNR/DRS that's removed visible fine picture detail.

David, I read your response on the main LOTR thread, and as I said before, you would have to ask Jeff exactly what they meant by “new” masters and if he spoke with technical or marketing personnel.

I will say that I would assume that he meant they at least took the archival D5 or hopefully HDCAM SR 4:4:4 tapes (see under “VIDEO/DIGITAL CINEMA VERSIONS” for the spec workflow starting from a 4k scan, for example- https://forum.blu-ray.com/2325081-post10654.html) and subsequently digitized that material onto their network. Then, with the aid of some commercial DRS software system (and perhaps even some proprietary video restoration tools)…..removed dirt, fixed scratches, tears, chemical stains, etc. and possibly some flicker issues. This is not cheap and still costs thousands of dollars.

I’m guessing that the ‘multiplicity’ came into play with the challenge of tweaking the colors/contrast and they tried that several different ways before they picked their final look (HD master).

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

David, I read your response on the main LOTR thread, and as I said before, you would have to ask Jeff exactly what they meant by “new” masters and if he spoke with technical or marketing personnel.

I will say that I would assume that he meant they at least took the archival D5 or hopefully HDCAM SR 4:4:4 tapes (see under “VIDEO/DIGITAL CINEMA VERSIONS” for the spec workflow starting from a 4k scan, for example- https://forum.blu-ray.com/2325081-post10654.html) and subsequently digitized that material onto their network. Then, with the aid of some commercial DRS software system (and perhaps even some proprietary video restoration tools)…..removed dirt, fixed scratches, tears, chemical stains, etc. and possibly some flicker issues. This is not cheap and still costs thousands of dollars.

I’m guessing that the ‘multiplicity’ came into play with the challenge of tweaking the colors/contrast and they tried that several different ways before they picked their final look (HD master).

I don't want to be impolite or come off rude or anything. I WILL buy this set, that's not a question. What I want to know is if there will be a better release down the road I can eventually replace this set with or not.