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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by GoYanks

Hey, that's my dean! It's good to see she's getting rewarded for all her great contributions. Do you know what this was for specifically?

The Charles S. Swartz Award honors a person, group, company or technology that has made a significant artistic, technological, business or educational impact on post-production.

“Elizabeth M. Daley’s (http://cinema.usc.edu/faculty/daley-elizabeth.htm) prescient view, executed in an advanced curriculum, is producing some of the industry’s most important creative and artistic innovators. Through her work and ideas she is helping to set the stage for the industry of the future.”

USC School of Cinematic Arts
http://cinema.usc.edu/alumni/alumni-history/
Click on the speaker thingee to hear the sound.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ThatArtGuy

I'm just glad I got your Spider-Man set.

You earned it and I keep my word.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The fact is, as with the vast, vast majority of films that have gone through the DI process, with the feature film Seabiscuit, there is only one and I repeat one digital intermediate from which all the 35mm. release prints as well as the HD masters were sourced.
(with the exception of short test D.I.’s as noted in the addendum below).
So, the excessive digital noise reduction (or what you thought was digital noise reduction) that you complained about on the 35mm. release print, had already been baked in at the DI level and it should therefore be apparent in every type of deliverable…… be it for high-def home media or theatrical use.
You just can’t get rid of excessive dnr once its been baked in during the digital intermediate process but, you can make it a little less noticeable with your other most favorite pre-processing encoder tool…………sharpening, i.e. - edge enhancement.
Perhaps the HD DVD has had some sharpening applied that you still haven’t discovered?

Now you are really confusing me. EE does not make DNR less visible, on the contrary, by boosting messed up high frequency detail you make it even more in your face.
Oh, I see what you mean. DNR = soft images so EE makes them sharp again. Well, the DNR on the print was not just some softness, it was messed up and smeared grain structure and textures with weird temporal behaviour. Any (more) EE would make things a lot worse, not better.
Maybe I did not see DNR on the print? Hm. What else could it have been? A side effect of very sloppy high speed film printing? Some side effect from adding subtitles?
See, I'm not ruling out that this print was not representative of the look of the DI. What I know is that this print was the worst 35mm print I ever saw concerning artifacts that look like DNR. And "The Aviator" was the second worst. I have not seen any prints since then that were on this level. Whatever the reasons are.

I don’t know but, if you’re so inclined……. happy hunting while re-watching the HD DVD rendition again, this time with a magnifying glass.

Yes, I should watch the disc again. Concerning the magnifying glass, see this is just one of the routine comments from you that do not score any points with me. Because I know very well that the way I watch movies is not unreasonable or putting unreasonable expectations on the HD delivery system itself. I just happen to not watch on some monitor but watch like people watch in a very small art house shoe box. I watch on a 3.5m wide 16:9 screen in 1080p, sitting ~5.5m away. That's close enough to see full 1080p detail with 20/20 vision. That's close enough to see minor EE (and major anyway). That's close enough to see 1 pixel wide aliasing. Seeing 1080p detail is the basis for any serious evaluation of image quality (among other things). So if that is a magnifying glass to you so be it. But that glass is applied daily in cinemas all over the world and in post houses too. Are you arguing against that magnifying glass there too? Why do we have reference quality monitors and projectors everywhere in this industry when magnifying glasses are bad?
Comments like this are just not helpful.
How do YOU watch your HD material? Please do tell.
Addendum: You wrote: Sitting about 1 ½ PH away from my screen in my home theater upstairs, watching long sequences of shaky cam……
Sounds like you are a using a bigger magnifying glass than me, after all.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I gave up on that long time ago.
I’m answering you as a vehicle to provide a learning experience for other readers on this forum.

And why would you give up on me a long time ago? Have I ever rejected a sound argument as false?

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Let’s get something straight.
Don’t flatter yourself into thinking that you are ENTITLED to it being my responsibility to read each and every one of your posts to conclusion.
There is no member entitlement here like with Social Security, Medicare, etc.

I have no illusions of that kind.

I post here invariably as a sacrifice of my time to either my professional or personal (family) obligations. I don’t get paid for this and neither do any of the other insiders. I would hope that you would be more appreciative of the fact that you have received from me some rather sensitive and cutting edge news or industry information over the course of time.....

The same goes for me. I don't get paid for this, have a full job elsewhere, many hobbies and interests and it can become quite time consuming here. Exactly the reason why I wrote what I wrote.

not to mention much more technically accurate info than the hopeless speculative observations and theories presented and incessantly hyped way out of proportion on your favorite *science* forum--which even many of the movie reviewers (that used to read that forum) are now dismissing as a fringe group of video lunatics.

There is plenty about this in my posts, if you would read them to the end.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

And why would you give up on me a long time ago?.............

Because I feel that you are an artifact hunter (with a predisposed hypersensitivity to EE and dnr) having no real passion for the art of film or filmmaking……..or to put it more nicely, you have become a technician purposely looking for your favorite pet peeves in a motion picture.

Case in point………………
miha (that be you)
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...764#post266764

Tresh (that be the filmmaker who denies your accusation and isn’t even aware of what you’re talking about in the first place concerning his film)
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...003#post267003

You and the screenshot *scientists* completely discount the psychology of movie watching which is a big part of the movie experience.
This is how normal folks (even those ‘educated’ about digital processing tools) watch movies…………..
http://www.eri.harvard.edu/faculty/p...eos/videos.htm -just click on the top clip, i.e. “Network Points”.

They don’t search for artifacts.
If one has the time and inclination you can find an anomaly or artifact on just about all Blu-ray movies related to some stage of the pipeline be it from the principal photography and set design to the actual Blu-ray encoding itself.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Have I ever rejected a sound argument as false?

Even when there is a perfectly sound reason for some sort of digital processing……
short answer - weather and budget
long answer - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=104 )

you have a personal bias against this type of processing ……..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=114

The fact that you demonstrate the above mindset despite both a reasonable real-world filmmaking decision (by extremely successful and respected people in the business) and at the same time, never having seen the original source to begin with….. compromises your judgment regarding the true significance of the visual appearance of these processes.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Of special note/elaboration regarding the above, Sony Pictures Imageworks received their Award for Creativity and Innovation in Post Production for developing the stereoscopic 3-D postproduction pipeline used to produce Beowulf.

And to those budding cinematographers out there, LaserPacific received their Award for Creativity and Innovation in Post Production for a color calibrated end-to-end motion picture process that provides Digital Cinema quality dailies that look like film.

Something that Richard Crudo has been a long-term advocate of……………
http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...ghts/page1.php

Regarding the above ^.
This morning it was brought to my attention in a PM that the individual who deserves a great deal of the credit for pioneering the effort in making HD dailies look similar to film dailies in a calibratible and reproducible fashion is Daryn Okada, ASC……….

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0645401/
Kudos go to you too Daryn.

[iceman]

Originally Posted by ra1024

I was so disappointed to hear how every action shot in QOS used the drunken camera man approach. I haven't seen it but a lot of people on various forums are saying it's so bad that it's hard to tell what's happenning in the fight scenes.

I very rarely critize movies online, but I have to make a small comment on Quantum of Solace:

1. Unfortunately they do indeed use the drunken camera man approach. I was sitting quite close -but not too close- in the theater, and the drunken camera man approach combined with changing camera angle 3 times per second, made many of the action scenes unwatchable and most of the other action scenes really annoying.

2. Quantum of Solace must also break some kind of record when it comes to constantly changing camera angles even during normal scenes. This was definitely not something positive/pleasant and it was quite a contrast to older Bond movies.

3. Bond used to solve problems with a combination of finesse, wit, charm and violence, in Quantum of Solace pretty much everything is solved with violence.

Overall they have taken Quantum of Solace too far away from the original Bond concept to be acceptable for me. The movie wasn't bad, but it could have been much better.

[H9k_]

Originally Posted by iceman

I very rarely critize movies online, but I have to make a small comment on Quantum of Solace:

1. Unfortunately they do indeed use the drunken camera man approach. I was sitting quite close -but not too close- in the theater, and the drunken camera man approach combined with changing camera angle 3 times per second, made many of the action scenes unwatchable and most of the other action scenes really annoying.

2. Quantum of Solace must also break some kind of record when it comes to constantly changing camera angles even during normal scenes. This was definitely not something positive/pleasant and it was quite a contrast to older Bond movies.

3. Bond used to solve problems with a combination of finesse, wit, charm and violence, in Quantum of Solace pretty much everything is solved with violence.

Overall they have taken Quantum of Solace too far away from the original Bond concept to be acceptable for me. The movie wasn't bad, but it could have been much better.

Could not agree more on #1 and 2.

After reading about it here and then seeing it last night it was even more apparent than i imagined. Is there anyway we can get them to stop this nonsence. All it does is cheapen the film, they aint fooling no one with their shitty fast cut fights anyway.
I have never seen or read of anyone liking this kind of thing and it appears all hate it. So why are they doing it? seem to me as another tool to hide how incompetent they are.

Edit: Are DLP cinemas suppose to have some flicker? i counted atleast 3 times where there was "microflicker? " or some aliasing? There was some with the dark knight also but i was not sure if i imagined it or not

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

There is plenty about this in my posts, if you would read them to the end.

Well, now I purposely try to avoid reading your comments to the very end but, every once in a while (like this morning) somebody PM’s me what you preach on other boards, namely this knee-jerk reflex statement that just panders to the sensibilities of the artifact hunters that run the video INSANE asylum over there……………..

Originally Posted by mhafner

8K for this?
I must say, these people go for 8K scanning and talk about the finest BD content ever and then apply thick EE like this?? That's INSANE.

I stand behind this comment. The whole point of 8K scanning is to create a natural looking, smooth and highly detailed picture in 1080p that is FREE of digital artifacts such as ringing, haloes and obvious aliasing. So to go that expensive way and then sharpen the 1080p till white haloes show up is... What word do you prefer? Disturbing? Clueless? A small glitch? Inconsequential? Confused? Incomprehensible? Deplorable? Unneccesary? Avoidable? Absurd?...

^ You shouldn’t make bold statements like the above if you have never personally worked with an 8k source downrezed to HD.
Goodness, 4k -> HD downrezing can look good but, it can also introduce the artifacts you have described, if not performed very carefully.

Having never worked at 8k myself, I can just guess that these problems are compounded for the technician by going from 8k -> HD despite the fact that I presume Fotokem used a Sony HDCAM-SR recorder which is excellent in the sense that it allows excellent control of just about all scaling parameters such as chroma sharpness, luma sharpness, edge detection and about 20-25 more.

Again, I think you’re too quick to judge and condemn the compressionists in this case.
Once an image is captured at a specific resolution, such as 8k, there will always be technical compromises when changing that image’s spatial dynamics. These trade-offs all depend on the image’s spatial content and motion. If memory serves, there is an excellent paper (which actually won an award on this topic) that was published in the 4/06 issue of the SMPTE journal, by Gabriel Fielding and Chris Dumont from Eastman Kodak concerning the subject of sampling resolution and reconstruction artifacts.

P.S.
By the way, I noticed that Stacey chimed in to say that ……………

Originally Posted by sspears

I sit 2 x the width back (12' back) and did not notice any obvious EE.
Overall I think it looks fantastic.

That statement “scores points with me” as I know that Stacey has seen more high resolution acquisition than all the *scientists* in toto over there, as he is a 4k digital camera owner and user, combined with the fact that he has more first-hand knowledge of the appearance, significance and application of EE at the encoding level in his little toe than anyone else over there with perhaps the exception of/in conjunction with Ben W.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by iceman

I very rarely critize movies online, but I have to make a small comment on Quantum of Solace:

Hi Ice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxN_pbMOFk0

Hey, with you and Max contributing today, all we need is for Deci and some of the other mods/insiders to check-in promptly. Meanwhile, I’ll think of a way to encourage Deci to make a cameo appearance, while I’m responding to your comment.

I completely agree with your thoughts as to the visual imagery as I mentioned here several months ago…………………
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...089#post908089

The absolute worst combination for me being shaky cam plus rapid-cut editing.
I’ll try to find out if QoS beats Batman Begins’ 1.9 seconds *record*.

[Penton-Man]

Yo Deci, you listening or do they have your nose to the grindstone?
Just wonderin if this upcoming week your mind will be on this………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thls_tMuFkc

[Jeff Kleist]

Personally I believe Bond should be Bond and Bourne should be Bourne. I also found Supremecy to be a pile of shakeycam dung, and while Ultimatum was certainly an improvement, it needs to go back to the way the first one was.

I would welcome a return to the way Bond should be, but with ALSO a return to quality writing. The movies weren't broken, the writing staff was. Hire the best guys in Hollywood to write the script, then have someone like Joss Whedon take a pass at it to put in the trademark humor (and make sure people know how to deliver it)

I know the marketing people think that that time has passed, but evolution is not a one way street, but instead a series of tiny streams that find their way to the big river

[saprano]

Penton, deci, jeff, or anybody....after watching so may blu-rays i've noticed something regarding the PQ. why is it easier for blu to give stunning PQ in outdoor scenes? or at least it seems that way, i see this in almost all the movies i own. especially in the movie flyboys, the outdoor scenes like gardens, train staion's, or just in an open area look amazing. the movie was shot using a digital camera right? does that have something to do with it?

[Jeff Kleist]

There's a lot of detail in the great outdoors, lots of bright natural light making everything lit evenly which in turn results in great exposure

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by mhafner

I'm afraid the least you have to do is actually read what I say or we are wasting our time here (we as in you and me). And the second thing I expect from you are sound arguments, and a meaningful discussion. I'm rather immune to claims and assertions that make little to no sense. And the best way to lose credibility in my eyes is to spread propaganda, show clear biases or start patronizing me. If you are right I have no problem saying so. If you are not I have no problem as well. If you haven't too we can have a fruitful exchange. Otherwise I'm out of here for good. Life is too short. So many other things to enjoy and learn about...

You've been wasting the time of many that come to this forum. I talked to you in the Salo thread where you insisted that DNR manipulation has transformed the print provided by BFI into something the film was never meant to look like. Even though you had not seen the disc and did not have the disc at the time when you produced your critique.

So, yes, we shall agree that there are plenty of claims and assertions that do not make any sense.

Dr.A

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I would welcome a return to the way Bond should be, but with ALSO a return to quality writing. The movies weren't broken, the writing staff was. Hire the best guys in Hollywood to write the script, then have someone like Joss Whedon take a pass at it to put in the trademark humor (and make sure people know how to deliver it)

That's precisely what I don't understand. QoS was written by the same team who wrote CR (or so we're told). And we know Paul Haggis is a talented creator.

So what happened there? Some of the suits decided to cut back on dialogue and story? Marc Forster's involvement? Hence the 106 minutes running time??

After the great effort that was CR, I just don't get how you get into trouble again with the same team behind... I thought they got it...

They obviously want to make more money this time around in the US. But do they understand that after a bitter taste in the mouth (previous Brosnan's Bonds), people need time to recover and have faith again. The same thing happened with Batman Begins. People needed time to get past previous Batman films and B.O. returns just soared with TDK.

They should have stayed with what was successfully rebooted in CR and this one would have benefited but more importantly the third one since it would have two strong efforts behind. (now the trick would be to get a 3rd film right. A difficult task )

[thebluemax]

Sorry if this has already been answered, but when is

"LAWRENCE OF ARABIA" going to be released

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

Sorry if this has already been answered, but when is

"LAWRENCE OF ARABIA" going to be released

A new complete restoration has been recently budgeted I think and will be done soon (or is being done).

So I would guess maybe sometimes in the second half of the year in 2009 at the soonest or 2010. But I'm only guessing here. Someone might a more precise answer to give you.