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

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I know and I posted this earlier today, as soon as I got to my computer this a.m………
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...=1#post1137370

This is a perfect example of why paidgeek refused to answer or even wanted to listen to queries about release dates as all he could do was reassure everyone that the techie people hadn’t put a ‘stop-ship’ on this or that title…… and ultimately there are a myriad of reasons why movies can get delayed or pushed back.

Cause of the game delay?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ThatArtGuy

Penton,

The Spider-Man Trilogy came in today, opened by customs of course. I knew it would come today since they ALWAYS deliver the first day after a weekend, with an added day for Labor Day last week. (I *reeeaaally* hate CanadaPost. I miss the USPS.)

One question though, why were they all in HD-DVD cases? :P

Somebody in Canadian customs must be a diehard residual red ant !
Thanks for confirming you received them.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Aygie

Cause of the game delay?

Yes, the movies are done and have been done for a while......and I suggest you search out paidgeek's old posts to get some hints as regards to their PQ quality.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yes, the movies are done and have been done for a while......and I suggest you search out paidgeek's old posts to get some hints as regards to their PQ quality.

I thought thats why, shame, i was looking forward to introducing my daughter to Ghostbusters on Blu.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yes, the movies are done and have been done for a while......and I suggest you search out paidgeek's old posts to get some hints as regards to their PQ quality.

Since the time of Paidgeek's remarks, HDNet Movies has aired both films, and I know I will be pleased with the Blu-ray releases as I was quite pleased with the PQ on those airings.

~Alan

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by ThatArtGuy

I *reeeaaally* hate CanadaPost.

Congrats. You're now Canadian.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Essentially, he’s telling the *scientists” that some of dem speckles that they’re seeing and have been admiring as being grain and thusly “true to the Director’s intent” on their blown-up screenshots is nothing more than resolution-decreasing chroma noise (10-bit 4:2:2 > 8 bit 4:2:0 video), for example on the title A Passage to India.

I don't know how anyone could presume to judge video quality on a BD based on any screen shot even if that chroma noise factor wasn't an issue.

MPEG-4 AVC and Microsoft's VC-1 format both use liberal amounts of inter-frame compression. That alone will make any still screen-grab from Blu-ray a flawed image.

Unless someone is viewing the original, uncompressed high definition master or is viewing a Motion JPEG2000 encode for D-cinema they're not going to be looking at something where every movie frame is a discrete, separate image.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

For every DNR action there is an equal an opposite DGE (digital grain enhancement) reaction?

Maybe that means will see a new breed of DGE "scientists" putting previously released and soon-to-be released discs under investigation and through PhotoShop? Why do I envision Godfather going through this?

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I don't know how anyone could presume to judge video quality on a BD based on any screen shot even if that chroma noise factor wasn't an issue.

MPEG-4 AVC and Microsoft's VC-1 format both use liberal amounts of inter-frame compression. That alone will make any still screen-grab from Blu-ray a flawed image.

Unless someone is viewing the original, uncompressed high definition master or is viewing a Motion JPEG2000 encode for D-cinema they're not going to be looking at something where every movie frame is a discrete, separate image.

When we're talking about the obsessive-level comparisons where tiny grain differences are over-analyzed for signs of potential processing, I 100% agree.

But a screenshot isn't worthless. For instances of extremely excessive noise reduction (let's just say Patton since that's the most talked about disc in regards to this), a screenshot showing the waxy veneer over actors' entire faces is able to showcase the problem. I'm not saying that's exactly how the film looks in motion, or that you can definitively judge every pixel. But the screenshot is definitely trustworthy in regards to basic questions like "has grain been significantly reduced in this image." There's no way an entire screen's worth of grain and high-frequency detail magically appears once that frame is put in motion with the surrounding frames.

Now I'm not at all advocating the obsessive over-analysis of images, and some of the stuff seen both here and at other forums is absolutely ridiculous. But at the same time, it pangs me to hear people completely dismiss screenshots as useless just because they aren't AS useful as some people think they are.

[Anthony P]

That level of variety is different in cities not as huge and cosmopolitan as Montreal.

agree, which is why I added "(though I think in this respect it is beyond the norm here)" I used to travel a lot with my old job and when it comes to food/eating out we are extremely lucky.

Someone willing to put forth the effort could make just as good a meal at home.

the person might not have the right equipment or talent, so the example does not work in that way.

If a giant-sized city like Montreal doesn't have decent commercial movie theaters, then that sounds like a big opportunity for a competing movie theater company willing to do the job right.

it depends on your definition of decent. I am guessing it is not worst then other areas but the average theatre has relatively speaking less resolution then BD http://www.hometheaterblog.com/homet...ution-of-film/ you look at the film negative and you say "wow there is so much more to see" but the cinema does not show the original negative and it becomes " there is a bit more to see" and then when you consider that you don't actualy see the film but a projcted image from it and there is loss (always is) due to the projector it becomes " there is roughly the same as BD, if it is above average"

You're talking about film done wrong versus Blu-ray shown on high end

yes and no, it is not "film done wrong" but "film done the noramal way in a normal theatre" but yes it is BD done right (both by the studio and a proper home)

The reality is that usually I would go to a theatre once or twice a year, but I do do BD right (as well as my pocket book can afford) at home and it is not a delusion that chances are that it will look better here then at the theatre. The problem is (and why I said you are as bad as the people you are chastizing) when you say that someone can't be a film afectionado, like quality and beleive they have better A/V at home. Chances are these people (self proclaimed or not) will put in the effort at home to have a proper set-up. (then again I did see a post/review of somoen that was comparing stuff on his small 720p TV and talking about artifacts withought understanding that either his TV or player is downscaling so he has no way of knowing if the artifacts where on the disk or in his set-up)

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

When we're talking about the obsessive-level comparisons where tiny grain differences are over-analyzed for signs of potential processing, I 100% agree.

But a screenshot isn't worthless. For instances of extremely excessive noise reduction (let's just say Patton since that's the most talked about disc in regards to this), a screenshot showing the waxy veneer over actors' entire faces is able to showcase the problem. I'm not saying that's exactly how the film looks in motion, or that you can definitively judge every pixel. But the screenshot is definitely trustworthy in regards to basic questions like "has grain been significantly reduced in this image." There's no way an entire screen's worth of grain and high-frequency detail magically appears once that frame is put in motion with the surrounding frames.

Now I'm not at all advocating the obsessive over-analysis of images, and some of the stuff seen both here and at other forums is absolutely ridiculous. But at the same time, it pangs me to hear people completely dismiss screenshots as useless just because they aren't AS useful as some people think they are.

..

[Anthony P]

I don't know how anyone could presume to judge video quality on a BD based on any screen shot even if that chroma noise factor wasn't an issue.

I always found it even more ridiculous when they would compare pics of displays.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

The other thing you have to consider is what computer monitor people are using. Josh Z indicated that he couldn't even see a difference between the Chroma DNR sample and the other! The difference is quite noticeable, at least on my 24" 1920 x 1200 BenQ monitor. I couldn't even fathom someone not being able to see the differences, but that just goes to show how crappy some monitors are.

Even here at work on this 17-inch eMachines CRT I could see a difference. Granted, the first comparison was subtle. The second comparison (which if I remember correctly, JZ actually saw) was fairly apparent.

As for the first comparison and Josh Z's inability to notice it isn't saying a lot... we are talking about Josh Z here...

~Alan

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Premium theaters are much nicer, but it isn't as easy to find them. I know where a couple are, though, in the so cal area. You pick your seats, they have waitresses come to you for your orders, etc. All of the costs are much more expensive, but it's largely worth it. Figure about 20 each, the concessions even more overpriced, and tipping is expected...

Yeah, I'll wait a couple months and get the BD on everything but MUST SEE IMMEDIATELY type pics (Dark Knight has been the only one in about a year).

I moved from the US to Singapore 4 years ago and for the most part the Theatres here are nice. I do not go to the theatre all that often but there are a couple of things that I thought was a big improvement over the US theatres.

1. they seem to be better sound proof. Seldom to I hear the action movie next door seep through the walls.

2. All are assigned seating. This does mean I only plan to see movies in advance and never just wing it, but it also means that I always have a good seat. I will plan 1 or 2 days ahead or the morning of the movie, go online and purchase my particular seats I want. If they have nothing in the area I like, I check a different theatre or plan for another day. But at least I never buy a ticket, walk in and see only the front 2 rows or only seats next to the walls open.

I wish every place did that

[Bullseye]

The biggest problem i find with American cinemas is that mobile phones appear to be permitted. Thats a no no in Ireland. Also the seating level incline is quite shallow and therefore if there is someone of equal height as yourself sitting in front of you viewing the movies is difficult. Of course this is not a problem witm IMAX screens.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

The other thing you have to consider is what computer monitor people are using. Josh Z indicated that he couldn't even see a difference between the Chroma DNR sample and the other! The difference is quite noticeable, at least on my 24" 1920 x 1200 BenQ monitor. I couldn't even fathom someone not being able to see the differences, but that just goes to show how crappy some monitors are.

Josh Z (AKA HD DVD fanboy #7 on the Top 10) has more problems than just his monitor...

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

The other thing you have to consider is what computer monitor people are using. Josh Z indicated that he couldn't even see a difference between the Chroma DNR sample and the other! The difference is quite noticeable, at least on my 24" 1920 x 1200 BenQ monitor. I couldn't even fathom someone not being able to see the differences, but that just goes to show how crappy some monitors are.

That is a valid consideration, but things of this nature are really unavoidable. Monitors vary in quality, TVs / projectors vary in quality (as well as the lighting in the viewing room), people's eyes vary in quality, etc.

It is very hard, if not impossible, to definitively prove or convince someone of something about issues below a certain threshold - there will always be outside variables. But for larger, more visible issues, screenshots + a little common sense can be a workable solution for internet-based discussion. If it's something that ACTUALLY distracts during a normal viewing (i.e., not something you had to freeze-frame, zoom, check bitrates, run low-pass filters on, etc.), then it's probably something that can be discussed in a reasonable fashion without worrying that one person's equipment is inferior or something.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

The biggest problem i find with American cinemas is that mobile phones appear to be permitted. Thats a no no in Ireland. Also the seating level incline is quite shallow and therefore if there is someone of equal height as yourself sitting in front of you viewing the movies is difficult. Of course this is not a problem witm IMAX screens.

I find cell phones the least of problems going to theaters. Instead, someone always seems to kick the back of my seat a few times and people never shut-up - they act as if they are watching a movie on their couch at home while they stuff their face and get fatter on their candy, heavily buttered popcorn and Pepsi.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

When we're talking about the obsessive-level comparisons where tiny grain differences are over-analyzed for signs of potential processing, I 100% agree.

But a screenshot isn't worthless. For instances of extremely excessive noise reduction (let's just say Patton since that's the most talked about disc in regards to this), a screenshot showing the waxy veneer over actors' entire faces is able to showcase the problem.

Well neo, you have a good head on your shoulders (I read your post about people being “reasonable” ) so this is not directed to you but, rather as my general thoughts on the matter – from the perspective of somebody who actually has seen/been involved with people *making movies* and *evaluating source material*.

Technically, regarding facial appearance………….
Keep in mind, people should realize that there are caveats with more modern motion pictures……if in fact, people truly consider Directors’ intent to be of greater importance than any personal preference for some facial appearance that they may like or dislike.

I believe I first commented generally on the situation here last May…….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3158

And this is a specific example for which I know to be true………..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3614

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well neo, you have a good head on your shoulders (I read your post about people being “reasonable” ) so this is not directed to you but, rather as my general thoughts on the matter – from the perspective of somebody who actually has seen/been involved with people *making movies* and *evaluating source material*.

Regarding *evaluating source material*………..

I already mentioned weeks ago that the only people of true importance, those being the home media tech gurus in the major Hollywood studios, don’t use screenshots to asses for any real or perceived problems with an encode. They pop the Blu-ray disc in a Blu-ray player and watch the sequence in real-time to get an idea of its true eye-to-brain appearance or significance.

Consumers who watch movies…….to truly view the movie for entertainment purposes (which are why movies are made in the first place) watch and think in terms of 24 fps, not in frame by frame screenshots. This fact is not lost upon filmmakers either.

For example, I was speaking about Seabiscuit on the last page. As a major determining factor whether or not to go the digital intermediate route or go through the traditional photochemical route, the DP conducted tests in which he shot five race horses in various scenes and employed several post houses (unbeknownst to them) to run the Super 35 test footage through their digital intermediate processes and also to have Technicolor do a traditional photochemical print. These tests were shown to a group of American Society of Cinematographers at the ASC clubhouse in Hollywood back in the day.

They were displayed in real-time, not frame by frame or even slow speed projection to the group of cinematographers. Unofficially, everyone in attendance preferred the digital intermediate processes from Efilm, Cinesite and Technique compared to the optical test from Technicolor.

And do you know what was the major determining factor for which post house should get the DI contract ?

A real-time workflow.
Essentially, at that particular time, Technique was the only post house of the three, that could color correct in real-time compared to the other facilities and back then, as well as to this day, it is felt by filmmakers and colorists that working in real-time is critical to get a feel for a scene, because viewing it in real-time, one will see it differently rather than viewing it at 4 or 6 fps…… much less single frame screen grabs.

The importance of working in real-time as well as viewing in real-time can not be overemphasized as to how our brain perceives imagery during sincere motion picture watching.