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

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...B.T.W. - 33 floors above, Sir Howard has his executive suite, so I guess you could claim we were also “disingenuous” to the boss too!.......and he’s a Knight!

So, if the old LOA being viewed was bad, then technically, you've turned out a knight on a dog like that?

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Was LOA filmed in three-strip technicolor?

I was impressed by the tools demonstrated in The African Queen extras. In particular, while I knew of the need for tools to align the three negative layers in 2D, I had not anticipated the need to warp these layers in 3D at times.

For whomever was involved, you have my kudos for both noticing that need, writing the tools, and taking the time to use them.

There was never a 65mm technicolor production.

LOA was shot on Eastman Color Negative (5250) and the negative was cut several times and also overprinted among other things. RAH and Penton-Man surely would be able to expand in more detail about the problems with this title.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...
In the case of the LOTR screenshots, WB legal is certainly not stupid...

If they are truly worried about repeated screenshot abuse with their Blu-ray movies directly causing consumer confusion or dilution of intellectual property rights then all it would take would be a warning letter to the ownership or their legal representatives. ...

... I mean, in the past, WB legal has pursued a website poster who happened to be a 15 year-old fan of Harry Potter for far less egregious behavior, at least as far as I'm concerned.

And WB does continue to be a bit over the top IMHO.

During the February school vacation, I took my daughter to see the Harry Potter exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science. Mostly a lot of costumes, some furniture or props. Could be duplicates because extras exist on set to prevent filming delays.

The surprise was that no pictures were allowed. When I asked why, the answer was that it was in their contract. When I pressed further, the answer was "artistic license". I think this was a bit excessive for fans (kids) who had clearly paid their fees in the special exhibit tickets that were twice the price of a movie ticket.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Hearing and reading about what they did to Out of Africa I am preparing for the worst - I am honestly considering not to buy any more Universal Blu-Rays before they show some respect for their catalog titles because I expect a studio to also make some kind of effort in that area.

Would you believe that Universal so far has released exactly zero movies to Blu-Ray that have been made before 1980? Even Paramount is getting better now so it is time for Universal to get with the program and step up their game as imo among the majors they are at the bottom of the barrel with regard to both quality and quantity of catalog releases.

So while I am still keeping my fingers crossed that Spartacus will mark a turning point in their classic/catalog release policy but I am not optimistic that this will be the case.

The comments about Out of Africa were very disappointing. Spartacus and Traffic were both ripped apart for their HD DVD transfers. With Traffic apparently an improvement, I do remain hopeful, albeit slightly, that they improved Spartacus. Since this is the 50th Anniversary, I don't see them planning another BD down the road. I mean, this is the best time to market that film.

The Criterion DVD of Spartacus was released in 2001. Were they even making HD masters at that time? I thought I read that Universal used their old DVD master for the HD DVD.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No, I mean that they should be snagging from decoded output. I'm going to hypothesize that Xylon is either using some really crappy software, or that he often pauses on the inbetween frames that for whatever reason aren't being properly resolved. The shots on BD.com look like what I see on my 56" calibrated set and 24" calibrated monitor. Xylon's do not. ...

Never having seen Xylon's pix, I'll ask: What format is he posting? If it is .jpg, he may have a crappy encoder or too lossy. No one has mentioned this part of the screencap process, and it can be major.

Why doesn't anyone use JPEG 2000?

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by penton-man

...some blu-ray transfers are fantastic…some are *ok* but they’re always interesting to see if you truly love movies.

+1

[Jeff Kleist]

Never having seen Xylon's pix, I'll ask: What format is he posting? If it is .jpg, he may have a crappy encoder or too lossy. No one has mentioned this part of the screencap process, and it can be major.

He's using PNGs if memory serves. That's not the problem.

[4K2K]

No, I mean that they should be snagging from decoded output. I'm going to hypothesize that Xylon is either using some really crappy software, or that he often pauses on the inbetween frames that for whatever reason aren't being properly resolved. The shots on BD.com look like what I see on my 56" calibrated set and 24" calibrated monitor. Xylon's do not. ...

He's using PNGs if memory serves. That's not the problem.

If Xylon uses PNGs which are lossless and blu-ray.com uses JPEGs which are lossy. Shouldn't that mean that the PNGs should be the ones that should best match what is on the blu-ray disc, assuming the decoding is done correctly?

Is there more than one way to decode a frame for a frame capture from VC1 or AVC 1080p24 video or is there just one way? Could any differences be in converting to RGB colour and PCs colour ranges? Why doesn't blu-ray.com use PNG since that should give a more accurate representation of what is on the disc since it's lossless?

If Xylons captures are wrong couldn't blu-ray.com loslessly using their system capture the same frame as one of the frames he has captured so that any differences or problems could be seen?

[Jeff Kleist]

Bandwidth. PNGs are megabytes in size. Also the BD.com shots aren't trying to be "scientific" tools

The differences between them is not a compression issue after capture

Don't just take my word for it. Do your own comparisons

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If Xylon uses PNGs which are lossless and blu-ray.com uses JPEGs which are lossy. Shouldn't that mean that the PNGs should be the ones that should best match what is on the blu-ray disc, assuming the decoding is done correctly?

Is there more than one way to decode a frame for a frame capture from VC1 or AVC 1080p24 video or is there just one way? Could any differences be in converting to PCs RGB colour? Why doesn't blu-ray.com use PNG since that should give a more accurate representation of what is on the disc since it's lossless?

If Xylons captures are wrong couldn't blu-ray.com loslessly using their system capture the same frame as one of the frames he has captured so that any differences or problems could be seen?

We post screenshots for completely different reasons than Xylon. He uses screenshots to make a case for the quality of a transfer in motion. We rely on the text in our video reviews to set that context, and simply use screenshots to give our readers an idea of what to expect from a disc (as well as making our review layout sharp and snazzy ). There are times that screenshots can be quite misleading. Sometimes they look bland, but the film looks great in motion. There are also times that screenshots look fantastic, but the transfer stumbles.

Xylon attempts to paint a picture using choice frames. I could dig up some of the same shots he sometimes uses and proceed to tear apart a transfer - but the only time I use a problematic shot is if 1) the issue I'm discussing is noticeable when the film is in motion and 2) amounts to a persistent problem (not just a blink-of-the-eye mishap, which I might mention in my text but not post as a screenshot being used to give an impression of the overall quality of a transfer).

That being said, when we capture shots, they're captured as PNG files. The site's database converts them into JPEG files. The differences between the two are so negligible -- oftentimes so imperceptible -- that it shouldn't be cause for any concern. The same issues appear in both, the severity of any issue remains clear in both, the same high quality imagery graces both, and the perfection of a top-tier transfer is equally evident in both. Ours just load faster and don't suggest they're the be-all end-all of a video review

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Cinema Squid

I have to agree with Xorp's fundamental point that software is not intrinsically inferior to hardware. You have to keep in mind that codecs almost always start their public life as a series of mathematical papers and a reference *software* implementation. The hardware is a subsequent cost- and performance-driven engineering exercise that implements this fundamental spec and there is nothing special or magic about that. Encoding for disc authoring is almost always done in software if I am not mistaken, so it's hardly reasonably to think the much simpler task of decoding in software (esp. offline or non-realtime decoding) is somehow necessarily flawed.

I did not say that it is, and I did not defend Peter that said it (even though to some extent it is true, but only enough to confuse the issue). The problem with what the person I quoted was that he wrote that there cannot be a difference, which he used to defend his point that there can’t be a difference between player and what the screen cap guy posts. Every implementation no matter what you call it can end up with a slightly different look once decoded. As for the original comment. The issue with PC is that you cannot know nothing about anything. Anyone can look and dissect the Sony or the Pany or the Samsung or Toshiba.... player, if they wanted to know the capabilities and if they have any issues (actually the original Samsung did have one issue and I waited for the FW upgrade that came out in Sept 2006 before looking at buying it). But with someone’s PC it is different, you don't know what is under the hood (CPU, bus, memory....), you don't know what other SW is running on it and what effect it might have (i.e. anti-virus just started a scan and so the processor was busy so it did not compute some of the decoding correctly), you don't know anything about his HDD (how full how defragmented….). In the end no one can say what is lost because of the set-up (which is true for any set-up but more so on a computer running an emulator)

Also everything is HW and SW, right your stand alone BD (or DVD) player might have chips designed for the exact purpose to play back as perfectly as possible but it is still SW that does the decoding just that the chip and config was designed for the job from the get go.

As for “You have to keep in mind that codecs almost always start their public life as a series of mathematical papers and a reference *software* implementation”, yes, but what is the point. The issue is not that there are mathematical rules or that they can’t be implemented. The issue is that in order to decode “correctly” you need to decode each frame at a fraction of a second (for 24p that would mean 1/24th of a second) if all the data does not reach in time, if all the calculations are not done, that image still needs to be created and sent out so the outcome won’t be correct, and then for the next frame (if it is p or b) you start off with that previous messed up frame, and if all goes well this time you have the messed up frame, if not it becomes more messed up.

[Cinema Squid]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The issue is that in order to decode “correctly” you need to decode each frame at a fraction of a second (for 24p that would mean 1/24th of a second) if all the data does not reach in time, if all the calculations are not done, that image still needs to be created and sent out so the outcome won’t be correct, and then for the next frame (if it is p or b) you start off with that previous messed up frame, and if all goes well this time you have the messed up frame, if not it becomes more messed up.

One minor point, it is not necessary to decode in realtime when using software - it can be done offline with each frame taking as long as it needs to decode properly.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Cinema Squid

One minor point, it is not necessary to decode in realtime when using software - it can be done offline with each frame taking as long as it needs to decode properly.

in theory, I agree with you, but who do you know that does that, no one does it in real life so why bother with it. An uncompressed movie will be around 1TB and that will be just video (obviously depending on length it can go beyond 2TB, I don't know anyone that keeps these uncompressed versions on their HDDs and have not heard of any SW for home that gives you that choice.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

in theory, I agree with you, but who do you know that does that, no one does it in real life so why bother with it. An uncompressed movie will be around 1TB and that will be just video (obviously depending on length it can go beyond 2TB, I don't know anyone that keeps these uncompressed versions on their HDDs and have not heard of any SW for home that gives you that choice.

That is alot of space, even though my pc has 1.6 TB of memory, using more
than half of that for one movie is out of control.

[Cinema Squid]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

in theory, I agree with you, but who do you know that does that, no one does it in real life so why bother with it. An uncompressed movie will be around 1TB and that will be just video (obviously depending on length it can go beyond 2TB, I don't know anyone that keeps these uncompressed versions on their HDDs and have not heard of any SW for home that gives you that choice.

Ah, well I did not mean that the entire video be decoded to the hard drive which would be pretty silly as you say - just that frames do not need to be delivered in realtime to the viewer program in something like a DirectShow decoding graph and you can watch it sans-audio at something less than the native framerate without dropping frames.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

We post screenshots for completely different reasons than Xylon. He uses screenshots to make a case for the quality of a transfer in motion. We rely on the text in our video reviews to set that context, and simply use screenshots to give our readers an idea of what to expect from a disc (as well as making our review layout sharp and snazzy ). There are times that screenshots can be quite misleading. Sometimes they look bland, but the film looks great in motion. There are also times that screenshots look fantastic, but the transfer stumbles.

Xylon attempts to paint a picture using choice frames....

Well said.
Also on that note, recently it seems Xylon often posts comparison *PIX* with little or no accompanying statement as to what the ‘problem’ is with a particular Blu-ray movie and exactly what he is accusing the particular studio of. Many times he leaves those accusations up to the other screenshot scientists in-training to post their public allegations.

Perhaps he has learned after suffering foot-in-mouth disease with his past inaccurate conclusions and assertions laced with hyperbole which have been later quoted and shown him a fool...

- perhaps he just enjoys throwing raw meat out into the water and watching the sharks go into a feeding frenzy

- perhaps he thinks that by posting a pic without a direct accompanying statement, that mechanism will insulate or immunize him from being pursued by a particularly aggressive studio legal dept. - for libel, or copywright infringement. I don’t know.

The problem is that the ownership of some audiovideo forums are more interested in accumulating viewer hits to promote their website to their advertisers than in doing ‘what is right’ to avoid needless consumer confusion, in many cases with those screenshot witch hunts. We saw this same exact ‘moderating’ during the format war exemplified by the biased protectionism of Amir and even his disciples. All I can say is that every night before they go to bed, they should be thanking God for Section 230…
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...ns-decency-act

I do like the idea of implementing the #2 requirement as stated here…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3172627

as it puts the onus on the individual screenshot poster to state exactly what his point is and also demands the pic poster to state how that particular screenshot relates to the poster’s impression of the entire Blu-ray movie.

And, as you essentially noted, Blu-ray.com, from the get-go, has alerted its readership as to the technical merit of screenshots and how the rank-and-file membership as well as the reviewers of this forum should use them, i.e. as an illustrative aid with qualification. I’ve been told that the ownership and/or moderators of other forums like HTF and HDD have also done and continue to do the same, i.e, remind their readers of the pitfalls of screenshot analysis.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

My Siamese thinks he's a dog, does that count?

I like cats , they sure as hell enjoy watching TV with you more than dogs because of their superb eyesight.

But can they be Heroes too?…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#36746513

[Jeff Kleist]

Just for one day Simon likes faces so he likes to sit on the table in front of the TV and look at the people. He doesn't tend to fall for wild kingdom though

[Penton-Man]

Vincent P. -
Wait for the second video from NBC Nightly News to load.
It's about "Stamps" the feret...a story with a happy ending.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Blu2U

Maybe that is why we will never see Lost Horizon (1937) on Blu-ray?

Hey! I want that! At least, I thought I did. Why wouldn't I? I just bought a copy of Sunrise on Blu-ray, and despite being a unrestored transfer of a film from 1927, people still rave about it.