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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Technical achievements perhaps unrealized and definitely unappreciated by some viewers of The Dark Knight, given the characteristics of the captured imagery –

The visual effects guys had to be extremely innovative in order to make the VFX flow seamlessly during the course of the film. To which I think they were very successful in accomplishing this task, whether you view the movie either at home or did so in IMAX. This film really deserves an Academy Award nomination (voted on by their peers) for Special Achievement in Visual Effects.
Let me elaborate on the technical hurdles involved which were so challenging for these specialists.

The depth of field (even in broad daylight) for IMAX capture is pretty much non-existent (on profile shots, if an actor’s nose is in perfect focus, his ear will not be) and scope material also has a very shallow depth of field when you use long lenses like Wally P. did, plus add in the inherent softening and elongated shapes of the imagery captured by scope lenses, and you’ve got yourself one heck of a challenging technical scenario for the visual effects folks to work under and make their stuff fit and fit well - which required these people to write a completely new set of tools for SHAKE to mimic the inherent camera characteristics I’ve described above.

Plus, add in the fact that the IMAX footage was scanned at 8192 x 5975 and then downconverted to 5616 x 4096 (according to a colleague of mine at DKP), the resolution at which the post work was performed, and the visual effects people had to be even more meticulous so that their stuff would flow seamlessly and look real.

Also, come to think of it, the special effects folks should also get a tip of the hat, because for viewers familiar with this movie, believe it or not, the large explosion of the hospital and the scene with the flipping of the truck were in-camera (in other words, for real!) and not CGI……really, really quite remarkable work there also.

If you like the geek stuff, there are many superb technical achievements in this film that one has to watch closely for and educate yourself about in order to appreciate,……which apparently are going completely unnoticed by some *scientists* because they spend so much of their time and energy searching for digital processing artifacts in some sort of perverted game of …….....

http://www.oscar.com/nominees/?pn=nominees

Also, for those that missed this morning's announcements, TDK also picked up a nomination for Cinematography which was a truly collaborative effort between Wally P. (who spoke about the home edition of the movie in Pioneer’s clip at CES……https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2268)

and the vision of Christopher Nolan.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The only Scorsese movie getting released on Blu-ray anytime soon is Raging Bull, which streets on February 10. I don't know any of the particulars about that disc. I just hope MGM does a great job with the release.

I agree. However, I will say, other than the Patton and Longest Day situation, MGM and Fox catalog titles I've watched look very film-like with grain intact. I've been quite pleased.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by scott1256ca

1. BD (or 2k) created with "most accurate transfer possible", i.e. what you did with Godfather (which I quite liked by the way). In fact, why not use Godfather as the example. Pick any scene from it you like. So some scene from the Godfather on either BD or 2k

My question was, on playing back on a high end setup, would the processed scene look convincing if played back next to the original?

The Godfather(s) are grain dependent, which would not make them good candidates for your test, with the worst being the old NY and old Italy scenes in GF2.

Take a "normally shot, exposed, processed film" and with the proper software and technicians, de-grain and re-grain and not have obvious differences. You get into problems with what I call stagnant or hanging grain, that simply hangs on the image. As long as the grain, which is basically a digital noise pattern, moves continuously it can look quite natural. For "stagnant or hanging grain" take a look at The Untouchables.

[Penton-Man]

People have inquired what I think about the Bolt news covered by Josh here………….
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2321.

I love the symbolism of streeting a Blu-ray before a DVD and I would hope that Disney promotes that difference (at least subtly) in their television advertisements for the Bolt title, in order to highlight that preferential fact to the mainstream public so as to bring further visibility to the Blu-ray format in these harsh economic times.

On the above note, I can say without reservation that it has been decided by another major Hollywood studio (other than Disney) to put a future release out on Blu-ray the Friday before the street date for the DVD.
I think it is prudent to take baby steps first in the process of planned obsolescence of an obsolete format.

[dred]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...to put a future release out on Blu-ray the Friday before the street date for the DVD.
I think it is prudent to take baby steps first in the process of planned obsolescence of an obsolete format.

Change we can believe in!

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

People have inquired what I think about the Bolt news covered by Josh here………….
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2321.

I love the symbolism of streeting a Blu-ray before a DVD and I would hope that Disney promotes that difference (at least subtly) in their television advertisements for the Bolt title, in order to highlight that preferential fact to the mainstream public so as to bring further visibility to the Blu-ray format in these harsh economic times.

On the above note, I can say without reservation that it has been decided by another major Hollywood studio (other than Disney) to put a future release out on Blu-ray the Friday before the street date for the DVD.
I think it is prudent to take baby steps first in the process of planned obsolescence of an obsolete format.

QOS perhaps?

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As far as good available off the shelf regrain applications used in post, some people use Shake with Filmlight's plug-in TrueLight Kodak Vision Premier and select whichever Kodak Eastman film grain stock option they desire (such as Kodak 5229, 5293, etc.) which is available in the library.

I've have always been curious about regrain tools and processes. Could you name other ways of doing it and perhaps the best way to do it? (if those things can be that black and white)

I always wondered what they used in Planet Terror for example, or 300 to match the grainy film capture to the extensive digital creations. Or what would Spielberg's team use to (re)grain the VFX or to match grain and such considering he loves film and grain so much...

Gabriel

[BorrowedTime]

Penton,

I've been seeing a lot criticism on the web and in print about the nominations of this year's Acadamy Awards, and to an extent the Golden Globes. The sentiment seems to be that these two events have become slightly eliteist (sp?) with regards to the films that are getting nominated, at least in recent history. More than one editorialist (since most of these articles I'm reading can be regarded more as op-eds rather than news) has lamented the exclusion of "The Dark Knight" in the Best Picture and Best Director categories, if for no other reason because it is based on a comic book, or because it is a blockbuster (which according to one article earned more in 6 days than the 5 best picture nominees combined, to date).

It's suggested that viewership of the Oscars will stay low, despite the inclusion of Heath Ledger's nomination in the best supporting actor category.

As a voting member of the Academy (at least I thought you hinted to this last year, if I'm mistaken, forgive me), what are your thoughts on this?

[jcarys]

Doesn't it make sense that the nominations for what are considered the best movies in their categories would be elitist? I think it's time we took this word back to it's original definition, and stop with the political class angle of the pundits on TV.

This is not to say that the Oscars are a perfect system for reward artistic achievement - I hope by now people understand some of the biases.

I would prefer that elites weigh in to the process. If it's just a matter of voting with dollars, we already know that TDK was tops for 2008. If it's just Joe Blow and the kids voting, it won't be long before Mall Cop gets an Oscar.

[Bobby Henderson]

I always wondered what they used in Planet Terror for example, or 300 to match the grainy film capture to the extensive digital creations.

I know in the case of Planet Terror and 300 an application called Fusion (from Eyeon Software) has been used for all sorts of compositing work. It's a native 64-bit PC/Linux application that has all but killed Apple Computer's business in selling Shake. There is a lot of different plug ins available for Fusion. There's a pretty impressive reel of sample work at the company's web site.

The existence of Fusion doesn't mean film productions aren't also using other tools as well. Autodesk's various high end compositing and finishing systems (Flame, Inferno, Lustre, etc.) get a lot of use.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BorrowedTime

Penton,

I've been seeing a lot criticism on the web and in print about the nominations of this year's Acadamy Awards, and to an extent the Golden Globes. The sentiment seems to be that these two events have become slightly eliteist (sp?) with regards to the films that are getting nominated, at least in recent history. More than one editorialist (since most of these articles I'm reading can be regarded more as op-eds rather than news) has lamented the exclusion of "The Dark Knight" in the Best Picture and Best Director categories, if for no other reason because it is based on a comic book, or because it is a blockbuster (which according to one article earned more in 6 days than the 5 best picture nominees combined, to date).

It's suggested that viewership of the Oscars will stay low, despite the inclusion of Heath Ledger's nomination in the best supporting actor category.

As a voting member of the Academy (at least I thought you hinted to this last year, if I'm mistaken, forgive me), what are your thoughts on this?

I already gave some thoughts about the Academy Award nominations yesterday….…….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...57#post1541957.

Some additional thoughts on the matter would be that I don’t think the membership is “elitist” in their selection process for Best Picture at all. That just sounds like a sour grapes characterization by fans of a certain film (fill in your personal unselected favorite).

The voting membership generally doesn’t give a hoot what critics like or dislike with a film and doesn’t much care how a film has done at the box office. Their largest concern seems to be in finding the time to actually attend a screening or watch a screener so that they can make an informed decision given their personal likes and dislikes. Plus, if “politics” were significant, it is inconceivable to conclude that The Reader (with all its political muscle ) would be selected over The Dark Knight for Best Picture.

I think the greatest cause for the dis-connect between the Best Picture selections made by the Academy membership and some typical movie-goers is the age discrepancy between the two groups and the fact that actors constitute the largest voting bloc (roughly ¼). The AMPAS does not reveal data as to the average age of its voting membership but, most people would put that figure somewhere in the 50’s. Now, do you really think that the average 50 [plus or minus] year-old, working in the business (or having worked in the business) has the passion for the same motion picture storytelling as does the average 20 [plus or minus] year-old? I think not.

Actors have been referred to the as “the tail wagging the dog” in regards to their influence in the Best Picture nominations and the eventual winners of all the categories. Actors became actors because they have a passion for drama and they have less inherent interest in films characterized by action and imagery or animation.

It is what it is. There is nothing sinister, clueless or negatively “elitist” going on here. The only negative “elitism” I see is some people like editorialists being so high and mighty as to promote the idea that their personal picks are superior or somehow more *right* than those of Academy voting membership having personal experience with some aspect of the filmmaking process.

P.S.
If “editorialists” are lamenting the Golden Globe nominations too, then feel free to have them blame about 100 journalists residing in Hollywood and environs that make a living by successfully writing for media outside the U.S.

P.S. #2
I see you’re a member of the Folding@Home team.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BorrowedTime

Penton,


It's suggested that viewership of the Oscars will stay low, despite the inclusion of Heath Ledger's nomination in the best supporting actor category.

As a voting member of the Academy (at least I thought you hinted to this last year, if I'm mistaken, forgive me), what are your thoughts on this?

Academy voting members don’t cast their ballots with television viewer-ship of the ceremonies in mind.
If that was of primary concern, why not just fill out the ballots for Best Picture each year in the same sequence as the best domestic opening box office receipts. AMPAS would get fabulous TV ratings because that would probably guarantee that at least one favorite of most film fans would be on the nominated “Best Picture” list.

If I’m not mistaken, this year I think it went………
#1 The Dark Knight
#2 Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
#3 Iron Man
#4 Twilight
#5 Quantum of Solace

But then, I assume the online “editorialists” would cry ‘exploitation’ by the Academy voting membership rather than “elitism”.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

I've have always been curious about regrain tools and processes. Could you name other ways of doing it and perhaps the best way to do it? (if those things can be that black and white)

I always wondered what they used in Planet Terror for example, or 300 to match the grainy film capture to the extensive digital creations. Or what would Spielberg's team use to (re)grain the VFX or to match grain and such considering he loves film and grain so much...

Gabriel

I think you’re best bet at getting a thorough explanation of how these tools work is just to Google the word “regrain” or maybe something like the phrase “temporal degrain” or “temporal denoise” and you can probably find a nice pdf overview as well as a step by step tutorial to read at your leisure…..in fact, try “The Foundry” website as I think they may have an online support tutorial for the regrain function for the do-it-yourselfers.
Give me a moment and I’ll find you an exact link.

High-end facilities use very sophisticated platforms with highly flexible software that can regrain images either by sampling existing grain or by selecting stored film stock options in the software.
There are several good apps (Premier Pro, After Effects, FCP) out there with several good plug-ins (other than the one I mentioned previously) giving the ability to regrain.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Give me a moment and I’ll find you an exact link.

Furnace plug-in for FCP -
http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/pkg_over...7-4F10921B66DA

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

QOS perhaps?

That’s not the title I was thinking of, plus unfortunately, I’ve said all that I can and I’m not at liberty to divulge any more information to you guys.

Sorry, Doc.

[BorrowedTime]

Thanks for the reply Penton.

Personally, I didn't care either way about what movies are nominated, but the sheer amount of press given to this subject made me curious about the thoughts from someone inside the industry like yourself, since there is very little (if any) counter-arguements, so to speak, within those same publications in defense of what pictures were nominated and why.

Thanks again for your response, I really appreciate it.

[rlsmith]

The discussion about TDK and the Oscars generally should be put into a historical context.

First, the Oscars has generally been criticized for being a pawn of the big studios, giving its attention to the expensive studio pictures over the indie and foreign films that many felt were advancing the art. I personally applaud the fact that the Academy voters seem to be looking beyond the economic concerns of the big studios in recent years. [I certainly would have found room for TDK and Wall-E in this year's awards however.]

Secondly, certain kinds of genres have always been neglected. Horror, science fiction, and suspence come to mind. The original King Kong received zero (0!) nominations, as did original Frankenstein; Bride of Frankenstein received 1 nomination. The original Day the Earth Stood Still received zero nominations as did The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. All of these films have been extremely seminal in terms of later film making, and have made their way into our cultural consciousness.

Alfred Hitchcock's movies (generally seen as "suspense pictures") have been especially ignored. Only one, Rebecca, won the best picture Oscar, and likely more because it was produced by Academy favorite David O. Selznick. Hitchcock never won for best director. Vertigo, Hitckcock's masterpiece among masterpieces, was nominated for 2 minor awards and won zero; today it is the subject of a huge amount of film scholarship and consideration (deservedly so).

Only 1 animated film has been nominated for Best Picture, Beauty and the Beast. The existence of an award for animated feature probably means that no other animated picture will make it. If Wall-E doesn't deserve a nomination for Best Picture, I don't know what does.

Thirdly, actors and actresses in genre pictures, including sci-fi, horror, and even musicals and comedies, are at a distinct disadvantage to flashy performances in straight dramas. For example, Judy Garland lost to Grace Kelly in 1954, in a move I have never understood (and I like Grace Kelly and her performance in The Country Girl. Of course, her performance in Rear Window is better, but that is a Hitchcock film!)

Finally, I would also add that I disagree with the way the technical awards are made. IMHO, the awards should be for how the effects integrate into and assist the story, not just how flashy the effects themselves are. David Fincher's Zodiac, for example, had relatively sedate effects and photography, but did an amazing job of recreating San Francisco in that period. Similarly for Milk this year. But these films are likely to lose to bigger and more bombastic special effects.


I would say that, over time, the awards have gotten better and have come closer to recognizing the merit of the productions under consideration overall. The fact that films like Milk, Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine can be nominated for Best Picture is a huge change and for the better. Obviously, the Academy voters have failed to understand the achievement that TDK represents, but you can't win them all.

We are even doing a lot better with appreciating genre pictures. TDK did, after all, receive 8 nominations, and looks likely to win an acting Oscar. That is a far cry from the 0 nominations for King Kong!

[GabrielB]

Thanks for your answer Penton. I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

High-end facilities use very sophisticated platforms with highly flexible software that can regrain images either by sampling existing grain or by selecting stored film stock options in the software.
There are several good apps (Premier Pro, After Effects, FCP) out there with several good plug-ins (other than the one I mentioned previously) giving the ability to regrain.

I do some work at a video facility and we've experimented with regrain solutions for some projects. (actually we went to post-prod facilities that were more experienced with this regrain stuff). We've been not too satisfied with the results. I think one place used Shake with its software features (no plug-ins?!?) and The Fountry does ring a bell (Nuke??). I don't know if it's the tools used or the people who applied them... (this post-prod stuff is not my area of expertise.)

Maybe I should post this somewhere else but since you opened the subject a little bit.

Now there is this project we're working on that is becoming like a test platform. We'd really like to nail this add grain stuff. (we're working from RED digital capture) Most of what I've found from online resources have been discussions about matching grain. Not often creating grain from scratch, applied to a digital capture.

Anyways just wanted to know what to look for when we ask around.
For the more professional end results, one would absolutely need to use platforms like Flame, Fusion or Nuke? Any specialty plug-ins besides the ones you mentioned?

Again sorry if this is off topic. We've been speaking around and we've never really gotten the information we wanted and these facilities don't have 100% artificial grain render in their demos...

cheers

[rlsmith]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Academy voting members don’t cast their ballots with television viewer-ship of the ceremonies in mind.
If that was of primary concern, why not just fill out the ballots for Best Picture each year in the same sequence as the best domestic opening box office receipts. AMPAS would get fabulous TV ratings because that would probably guarantee that at least one favorite of most film fans would be on the nominated “Best Picture” list.

If I’m not mistaken, this year I think it went………
#1 The Dark Knight
#2 Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
#3 Iron Man
#4 Twilight
#5 Quantum of Solace

But then, I assume the online “editorialists” would cry ‘exploitation’ by the Academy voting membership rather than “elitism”.

This list is a very far cry from the best 5 films of the year and is far far worse than the list that they had. Indiana Jones? National Treasure 2 was much better and very similar.

If the Academy just wants people to watch their show, then they have truly lost it.

[Penton-Man]

^
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear so I’ll use different wording.
I believe that the television ratings of the Academy Awards Ceremony has little or no bearing on the voting process by the rank and file Academy membership, as they believe in keeping the Art in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The Board of Governors (upon recommendation of the respective committee) takes care of the Science part in AMPAS……….
http://www.oscars.org/awards/scitech/winners.html