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

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Blu-ray will NOT be the way to see LoA for the first time.

Think 70mm!

I'd love to see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 70mm again. Last time (my fourth time seeing it in 70mm) was back in 2002 at the Zeigfeld in New York.

Vincent

[sharkshark]

Ah, pissing on Xylon. Fun. I swear that were threads chastising RAH for giving his trademark remarks about a particular disc only to find out he was reviewing on a 30" CRT, but maybe on I'm crack. At the least, I'm far too lazy to search for those posts...

Anyhoo, any comments about this:

Oftentimes, 1080p remastering shines a beacon on basic rudimentary production techniques used in classic films. Mattes, backdrops, and rear projection work are more noticeable, and special effects can lose their mystique. When upgrading 'Top Hat' (1935), Feltenstein was shocked to see how dirty the floor was on which Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers danced. That dirty floor will be clearly visible when the Astaire-Rogers films make their Blu-ray debut in 2010, as will the wires that support the Scarecrow in certain scenes of 'The Wizard of Oz.' Age-related specks, scratches, and grit, however, will be erased.

?

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...ke_Heart!/2502

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I swear that were threads chastising RAH for giving his trademark remarks about a particular disc only to find out he was reviewing on a 30" CRT, but maybe on I'm crack. At the least, I'm far too lazy to search for those posts...

You may be referring to a period during which the largest monitor to which I had access was a 50" Pioneer that I used in my hotel room in LA. While it produced a superb image, the size at 50" was just on the cusp of allowing problems to reveal themselves. I believe the title in question may have been Pan's Labyrinth.

When people simplify screen size with viewing distance, they tend to overlook the fact that at a certain size, a screen can still only resolve a certain amount of detail in an image. 50" seems, in many cases, to be the size above which the truth is seen. At 30" a screen is virtually worthless for judging an image, but until recently most post facilities were still using only screens of that size. While this tended to work for SD mastering, it cannot for high definition -- or at least I find it of little use.

RAH

[cipher]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

Wow... OK.

I just want to thank RAH for his most honest comments on HTF. Things like this - in my view - can only help the issue.


In light of this discussion concerning Amadeus, can we finally ask the question now??

--> What the hell is going on at WB and why is it taking them so long to finally get their acts together?!?


It's not just Amadeus. I look at their recent releases and all of them are processed with DNR and EE (Pelican Brief, A Time to Kill, Being There, History of Violence, etc.)

I know a lot of you guys (Penton, Jeff K, Bill H, etc.) are working with them to make things change and understand that this may be delicate. Comment as you wish...

I posted this thread at the end of 2008 that was my own breakdown of the various studios comittment to Blu-Ray as measured by their investment in certain disc manufacturing parameters. I tried to word my post as carefully as possible, so that my point would not be misinterpreted, but the clear result of my "analysis" was that Warner Brothers was clearly behind all the other studios in these objectively measureable areas. Take a look at the following tables which were included with my original post:

Percentages for all studios...

Studios       Disc Size  |      Audio       |      Video
           BD25    BD50  |  Lossy  Lossless |  MPEG2  AVC/VC1
All-time   41.99   58.01 |  22.22   73.88   |  19.85    80.15
2008       33.64   66.64 |  19.31   80.69   |  5.30     94.70

Percentages by studio...

Studio            BD50     |     Lossless    |        MPEG2
           All-time  2008  | All-time  2008  | All-time  2008
Disney      77.78    100   |  100      100   |   11.11    0
Paramount   69.44    94.87 |  52.78    97.44 |   31.94    0
Sony        77.40    90.91 |  100      100   |   26.82    1.27
Fox         61.82    83.05 |  100      100   |   30.56    5.26
Universal   69.23    69.23 |  100      100   |   0        0
MGM         47.62    64.29 |  100      100   |   38.10    21.43
Lionsgate   50.00    63.64 |  61.11    100   |   32.69    0
Warner      58.01    55.34 |  43.19    52.73 |   3.92     1

When one looks at these figures AND the various DNR/EE issues on many of their releases one begins to see that WB's aim with Blu-Ray is quite a bit below that of the other studios. There were posts from Jeff and others last year that WB had gotten the message, and changes were being made, but it's hard to believe this is true when its still continunig in Feb 2009. I don't want turn Penton's thread into an argument of these particular items, so please read my entire thread to see my opnion on these issues, however, the main point I'd like to make is this type of analysis is only one side of the quality equation.

What is more interesting to me at the moment is if anyone knows if the other studios have an opinion on WB's apparently lackluster approach to Blu-Ray. On the one hand, you might think this would please them if they themselves are consistenly releasing a superior product. However, I suspect most of the studio's home media divisions are actually upset as the numerous poor WB releases are likely to cause more damage when new consumers buy these releases and wonder something like "why all the fuss about Blu-Ray. It's only marginally better than DVD". That said, sometimes we are too passionate and close to this topic so maybe WB's "Blu-Ray for J6P" is the most financially sound approach. That would be truly sad.

I know there was a closed-door Blu-Ray meeting held late last year, but nothing was revealed about the discussions as I think there were NDA's signed by the registrants. I wonder if one of the topics that came up was the other studios thoughts on WB's comittment to Blu-Ray? Hints anyone?

[Jeff Kleist]

So, dobyblue or Jeff Keist, what sayeth the folks at WB home media about this?
Make a phone call will ya, because if memory serves, one or both of you guys were in the loop on this title since the beginning. Amadeus got a brand spankin new encode and WB easily has the capability as well as the inhouse skill to do its own masters……….so, whaz up?

They did a new compression, but that doesn't mean they ran a new master from the 2-disc SE a few years back. Doby was more on top of that one than I am, but that would be my guess

Change often is a slow process, because there's always people in positions of power who don't see a reason, or feel they will be negatively affected by said change, despite the fact it's for the good of most or all.

[BluDomain]

It amazes me that when a catalog title moves to
number one on Amazon the critics come out of the
woodwork. Then some others that don't even
make the top 100, there is nary a peep. It would
kind of be nice to really know which post houses
were juggling for the contract AND at what price.

Amadeus was excellent on my 12' screen. Really
can't comment much on the audio as I keep the
sound level lower than most I suspect. Lossy or
Lossless levels too high pisses my dog off to no
end.

Anyway here is some more fodder for the Warner
Bashing Club.
George Feltenstein of Warner Home Video
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...ke_Heart!/2502

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Anyhoo, any comments about this:
?
Oftentimes, 1080p remastering shines a beacon on basic rudimentary production techniques used in classic films. Mattes, backdrops, and rear projection work are more noticeable, and special effects can lose their mystique. When upgrading 'Top Hat' (1935), Feltenstein was shocked to see how dirty the floor was on which Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers danced. That dirty floor will be clearly visible when the Astaire-Rogers films make their Blu-ray debut in 2010, as will the wires that support the Scarecrow in certain scenes of 'The Wizard of Oz.' Age-related specks, scratches, and grit, however, will be erased.

Well, that exactly fits in line with what I said here (last sentence of last paragraph) meaning that Blu-ray is “unforgiving”………..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ng#post1618975

If you’re referring in particular to the wire removal, this sort decision is made on a case by case basis with communication between the studio’s mastering guru and any living knowledgeable caretakers of the film, such as the Director or Director of Photography………….if the studio takes the time, makes the effort and incurs the expense to do so, as was done with Munchausen, as per the Director’s (living) request to maintain the cinematic illusion.

With regards to The Wizard of Oz, both the Director and Cinematographer are deceased, so I am not surprised that according to your quote, the content provider will be leaving the wires visible on the Blu-ray edition.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

There may be other members here that actually have two displays (at least ISF calibrated) which are of grossly different sizes who can chime in as to their own personal anecdotal experiences of viewing the same content on each sized display (Kris Deering?). I think Robert may even have a “big” and “small” display in his own home and could (if he hasn’t already) view Amadeus on both sized displays at the appropriately coordinated seating distance and give his thoughts.

I don't have two displays (at least ISF calibrated) which are of grossly different sizes, nor do I own or intend on viewing "Amadeus" but I do want to comment on what you said:

A few months ago, I upgraded from a (cheapie) 30-inch CRT to a 46-inch Sony LCD (KDL-46W4100) which I'm VERY happy with, but I have found multiple movies to come off VERY differently between the two types/sizes.

The great looks greater!
The bad looks worse!

What really surprises me though is how some films which came off as extremely unimpressive on the smaller CRT, look more deserving of forgiveness than it did on the CRT.

While my equipment is not "up to snuff" compared to some professionals, nor is my knowledge of film, I can say that PQ can TRULY be dependent on what you are viewing it on.

I guess I'll have to go back and re-watch some of my Blu-ray movies... with fresh eyes. Though the fact that I'm 100% drug free might keep me from re-watching "The Fountain" any time soon as I'm of the belief that it requires you to be stoned to completely understand the film!

~Alan

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

When people simplify screen size with viewing distance, they tend to overlook the fact that at a certain size, a screen can still only resolve a certain amount of detail in an image.

With fixed-pixel digital displays on which raster overlap cannot be produced? I don't understand how your assertion could even be possible. What am I not getting here?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

50" seems, in many cases, to be the size above which the truth is seen. At 30" a screen is virtually worthless for judging an image, but until recently most post facilities were still using only screens of that size. While this tended to work for SD mastering, it cannot for high definition -- or at least I find it of little use.

Again, if your screen is displaying the entire picture information reasonably accurately, which a good 30" monitor should be able to do, the idea that any larger a screen would necessarily have any inherent advantage doesn't make any sense to me, relative viewing distances being equal. How could it?

To this end, I find it quite intriguing that your defense of this assertion appears to be entirely anecdotal and you aren't describing any principles at work which might explain a scientific basis for your experiences. Mind you, I'm not trying to imply anything about the validity of your claim when I say this.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

Oh yes -- indeed the theatrical cut of Amadeus is the Oscar winning film and should have been included on the disc.

+1

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

With regards to The Wizard of Oz, both the Director and Cinematographer are deceased, so I am not surprised that according to your quote, the content provider will be leaving the wires visible on the Blu-ray edition.

According to the BBC's Click technology programme (used to be called Click Online) they are removing the wires from older movies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/7525143.stm

It must be tempting to use computers for more than just clean up - maybe even to improve old special effects that are less than convincing by today's standards?

Chuck Dages, who works in Warners' emerging technologies department, said they were able to remove the strings operating the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz.

"Bad special effects are different than correcting or changing the story. In some instances it's just a natural thing: now we can do it, let's do it," he said.

Shouldn't special effects be left exactly as they looked originally in the very best cinemas or have dual versions that you can always watch with the original and the updated versions (I'm not talking about that movie, I'm talking about all movies in general including recent ones)

[4K2K]

It seems like the studios are spending millions of dollars and loads of time working on the very old movies to be able to put them onto Blu-ray. Though there are good very old movies, and it's good that both old and newer movies are being released on Blu-ray, isn't it true that very old movies don't sell as well as newer ones on Blu-ray, and that newer movies won't need all those millions spent and hours spent on restoration for them to be put onto Blu-ray? The studios usually release the current years biggest new films at the same time as the DVD and spend millions doing very old films.

Couldn't the studios (especially the UK ones) work backwards in years, starting at the current year's releases just releasing everything that hasn't had a UK Blu-ray release yet for releases from 2009, then 2008, 2007 etc. until they release everything. They could still have another department working on the very old films too - and my idea would mean even more money would be made available to do the restoration on those films too.

My point is that, because newer titles are selling more and need little or no restoration, they should very quickly, at minimum expense be able to put all titles released from 2009-2000 onto Blu-ray. After that they could release all from 1999-1990, then keep going through the years like that till they've released everything. It wouldn't even cost much in authoring because for many titles (ie. the ones that weren't the biggest blockbusters) they could probably be able to release versions with little or no extras, and they could even make even more money by re-releasing many titles later on, but with many more bonus features - but using the HD masters from the original BD release.

Wouldn't this mean that there would be a huge number of titles available very quickly on the Blu-ray format, all with a very high quality picture at minimum expense to the studios and would make the most profit?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

According to the BBC's Click technology programme (used to be called Click Online) they are removing the wires from older movies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/7525143.stm

"Bad special effects are different than correcting or changing the story. In some instances it's just a natural thing: now we can do it, let's do it," he said.

Good link! Ties into this:

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Still, as we get further and further away from the expertise with chemical film stock as the move to digital plows forward, I worry that a similar sensitivity will begin to lapse, and the "fix it" mentality will trump reason and aesthetic sense in order to present things in the "best" (but not most accurate or historically sensitive) light. When this goes awry, we're left with restorers or disc mastering engineers tweaking a little here, a little there, and ending up with our favourite whipping boy, dear Mr. Patton.

Note that my comment isn't just about the the expertise of the professionals doing the restoration, but the expectations for shiny, digital productions by consumers as they make the jump to BD. With the jump to digital SLRs, camera phones, megapixel wars and home video, we're becoming "film stupid", further and further removed from this archaic photochemical technology. Hollywood producers, DOPs and Restorers are far more intimate and aesthetically committed to film than consumers are, with many of the most vocal and knowledgeable voices in the HT community often never stepping foot into a multiplex (why bother when you've got a fully digital theatre at home with the caliber of those found on this and other fora?). I'm sure many people here haven't seen the vast, vast majority of their collection on the big screen, and even if they have, they haven't done so under optimum projection conditions to appreciate the nuances of projected celluloid.

Is it not at least conceivably in the best interest of studios, even in the long term, to make the most dramatic jump in quality from DVD possible, for the average film viewer? Why would the studios not tweak things just enough (saying all the while they're not doing "too much" and "respecting the wishes of the filmmakers, may they rest in peace") to make the picture "pop" on the average LCD set, while still hopefully maintaining usability on large format home screens? Sacrifice grain, and hide vintage effect "mistakes", at least to a certain extent, all to make the image more palatable for the average consumer.

So, crunch time...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

With regards to The Wizard of Oz, both the Director and Cinematographer are deceased, so I am not surprised that according to your quote, the content provider will be leaving the wires visible on the Blu-ray edition.

Which is it - Penton, Sir, if you were the executive in charge of this release, would you "fix" or clean up wire rigs and apparati? Would you clean up the flying monkeys, but leave the scarcrow alone? RAH? What's your call on this release? No longer a hypothetical about doing the work on a classic film without the director or DOPs involvement, what say you of such revision/restoration going on right now? This release is in the pipeline, being readied for release, with or without these fixes in place. Should we care, or is this all but a tempest in a tea pot, and these things were meant to be fixed or masked anyway, and certainly the fixes will be done with great care and dexterity? And, for the sake of expanding this discussion, what to do with the soundtrack? Electronically enhanced surround? Original tracks? Should original audio soundtracks be the norm on these titles, even if they don't have the "gee whiz" factor of contemporary surround mixes?

What's your preference for the archive master version of the print? For BD? Why should there even be a difference between the two? Or is this all just BS, and we should simply accept that film isn't art in the Kantian sense (the "genius" of the artist creating the "beautiful"), it's a product, one that should be improved over time as its sold yet again to another generation of consumers? After all, there ain't no Show if there ain't no Business...

"It's not paranoia if everyone's out to get you."

[Slec]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Good link!



So, crunch time...

Which is it - Penton, Sir, if you were the executive in charge of this release, would you "fix" or clean up wire rigs and apparati? Would you clean up the flying monkeys, but leave the scarcrow alone? RAH? What's your call on this release? No longer a hypothetical about doing the work on a classic film without the director or DOPs involvement, what say you of such revision/restoration?

If this title is being worked on, it won't be discussed. If they comment on it, any comment they make is purely academic, as that would (to me) signify they are not directly involved. One brush stroke won't cover a policy on catalog treatment. Each title is probably being looked at, and special attention is being given to classics. LOA would be treated differently from Wizard of Oz, which would be treated differently from Strangelove or Citizen Kane. Maybe i'm reading this history of this thread wrong but it's tough to take a post about a pinpoint event and broaden it to all films. Too many studios and too many variances come into play.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Which is it - Penton, Sir, if you were the executive in charge of this release, would you "fix" or clean up wire rigs and apparati? Would you clean up the flying monkeys, but leave the scarcrow alone? RAH? What's your call on this release? No longer a hypothetical about doing the work on a classic film without the director or DOPs involvement, what say you of such revision/restoration going on right now? This release is in the pipeline, being readied for release, with or without these fixes in place. Should we care, or is this all but a tempest in a tea pot, and these things were meant to be fixed or masked anyway, and certainly the fixes will be done with great care and dexterity? And, for the sake of expanding this discussion, what to do with the soundtrack? Electronically enhanced surround? Original tracks? Should original audio soundtracks be the norm on these titles, even if they don't have the "gee whiz" factor of contemporary surround mixes?

What's your preference for the archive master version of the print? For BD? Why should there even be a difference between the two? Or is this all just BS, and we should simply accept that film isn't art in the Kantian sense (the "genius" of the artist creating the "beautiful"), it's a product, one that should be improved over time as its sold yet again to another generation of consumers? After all, there ain't no Show if there ain't no Business...

For me this is quite simple. Examination of a 1939 dye transfer print, which in most cases would be far clearer than the memory of cast and crew members after seventy years should they survive.

I would surmise that between the quality of the optics used to create the printing matrices, the matrix grain, and the combination of mordant and the way that the dyes would have imbibed to the blank, that it would not have had a high enough resolution to expose the production artifacts.

Can't locate an original print of WoZ. Check any surviving print from the era against a 4k scan of the original negatives. Gone with the Wind would do nicely, and for that we know that originals survive.

I believe wires would not have been seen.

RAH

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

With fixed-pixel digital displays on which raster overlap cannot be produced? I don't understand how your assertion could even be possible. What am I not getting here?



Again, if your screen is displaying the entire picture information reasonably accurately, which a good 30" monitor should be able to do, the idea that any larger a screen would necessarily have any inherent advantage doesn't make any sense to me, relative viewing distances being equal. How could it?

To this end, I find it quite intriguing that your defense of this assertion appears to be entirely anecdotal and you aren't describing any principles at work which might explain a scientific basis for your experiences. Mind you, I'm not trying to imply anything about the validity of your claim when I say this.

Many people can't even tell the difference between standard def and hi def on a 30 inch monitor...

So how can it be used to prepare a hi def title?

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by iDarren

Many people can't even tell the difference between standard def and hi def on a 30 inch monitor...

So how can it be used to prepare a hi def title?

By sitting closer.

Everything else being equal, watching a 30"-diagonal image at 3 feet is like watching a ten-foot-diagonal image at 12 feet. Viewing distance is 1.4x screen widths in both cases.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Doctor, yup, that’s the theory but, I don’t believe it is as cut and dried as people make it out to be. Don’t be so quick to discount Robert’s observations.

In practice, often times in the DI suite, I find that sitting say for instance, 2PH away from an ~ 24 inch display, is not the same as sitting 2PH away from the identical 1080p material projected on an ~ 110 inch screen for critiquing aspects of picture quality other than ‘color’.

There may be other members here that actually have two displays (at least ISF calibrated) which are of grossly different sizes who can chime in as to their own personal anecdotal experiences of viewing the same content on each sized display (Kris Deering?). I think Robert may even have a “big” and “small” display in his own home and could (if he hasn’t already) view Amadeus on both sized displays at the appropriately coordinated seating distance and give his thoughts.

For instance, this LCD is of probably higher quality (and cost) than will be found in most peoples’ homes……….
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-BVML230/

However, no matter how close one sits to this screen ^, we’ve found that it is just too darn small to use for Blu-ray mastering/encoding jobs.

I wanted to only quote part of your post but all of it is right and important and I think part of the explanation that some transfers seem to slip by.

I have a few displays and screens ranging in size from 20" to around 200" diagonal plus I have experimented with the same projector at different zoom settings and therefore screen sizes and there is something to be said for absolute size. Part of it surely is because we do not usually look at pictures through one but through two eyes which makes the divider between the in between eyes distance to the screen width vastly different for smaller and larger display sizes. So it is also my impression that the relative viewing distance tells only half of the story and I have said long ago that I would advocate mastering at about 1 screen width or closer on larger screens for all Blu-Rays not that anybody would listen to me

And something a bit off-topic that I'd like to say with regard to Xylon: He cannot win with you - now he is (a bit too) nice to a so-so transfer and that is not right either I do not write this because I think that he needs or wants to be defended, this is just an observation that came to my mind.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Grubert

By sitting closer.

Everything else being equal, watching a 30"-diagonal image at 3 feet is like watching a ten-foot-diagonal image at 12 feet. Viewing distance is 1.4x screen widths in both cases.

Which logically would then also equate to viewing a 2k master on a specially produced iPhone with 1920 x 1080 pixel array, and holding it very close.

In the real world it doesn't work this way.

Even examining a daily print under a microscope does not give one all the information that can be resolved by projecting on a large screen.

My eyes are reasonably well trained, but on my 30" Sony HD CRT, a very high quality piece of glass, it was very difficult to see the overall loss of resolution on the Patton Blu-ray. It was not until I viewed at around 50" that the problems came to light and became progressively worse as size advanced.

In much the same manner, a 70mm print projected on a moderate size screen, will not look appreciatively higher in resolution that a 35 scope print, although the 70 has about four times the resolution.

Project both on a large screen, and while the 35 image will begin to fall apart, the 70 will shine.

RAH

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Which logically would then also equate to viewing a 2k master on a specially produced iPhone with 1920 x 1080 pixel array, and holding it very close.

In the real world it doesn't work this way.

Even examining a daily print under a microscope does not give one all the information that can be resolved by projecting on a large screen.

My eyes are reasonably well trained, but on my 30" Sony HD CRT, a very high quality piece of glass, it was very difficult to see the overall loss of resolution on the Patton Blu-ray. It was not until I viewed at around 50" that the problems came to light and became progressively worse as size advanced.

I respectfully disagree. I haven't watched Patton, but I watched Dark City, and you couldn't miss the plasticine faces, both on an 80"-diagonal image projected from a 1080p LCoS, and on a 26" LCD (with 768p resolution, at that), at the respective appropriate viewing distances.

Look at what Warner's Cathy Quiroz is using for dirt and scratch removal on the article 4K2K gave us:

In much the same manner, a 70mm print projected on a moderate size screen, will not look appreciatively higher in resolution that a 35 scope print, although the 70 has about four times the resolution.

Project both on a large screen, and while the 35 image will begin to fall apart, the 70 will shine.

RAH

That's like saying DVD and BD look alike on a smaller screen. They do, because you're sitting too far.

That is not the issue.