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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

In that post you linked to on the Spanish forum (my, Grubert, you DO get around... ) the concern was with the discs Seabiscuit, Kill Bill and The Good Sheppard. Forgetting the silly politics, were there in fact any issues with those transfers that now, a year later, that you'd yourself comment upon?
Ditto for Trek (that you've not seen, right?), or Good/Bad/Ugly...

Shark, I’m really hesitant to revisit those titles again as I’ve already written repeatedly about them somewhere on this thread or forum before (at least in regards to the principal photography and post production decisions) and unless I’m called into action again to save lives or stamp out an autoimmune disease……….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=112

I would prefer not to go back and reiterate what I’ve said previously. I don’t remember The Good Shepherd that well anyway. If you’re worried about Seabiscuit on Blu-ray since it’s streeting in a week or so…..just based on past reviews of the hd dvd version by red ants during the days of the format war, I doubt there is much to be negatively concerned about because the hd dvd disc ranked in the category known as “CREAM OF THE CROP - 4.5 Stars And Above - Reference HD DVD Picture Quality” on your *screenshot science* forum– although, for the record I have not seen the upcoming Blu-ray edition myself.

I really like the motion picture and for me, and home theater, CONTENT RULES but, to keep things in perspective I personally love da animals and when you combine that with an underdog story, you’ve always got me hooked.
Yesterday, I spent much of the day debating with my local horsemen (and women) friends, the merits of a filly running with a colt in a super competitive horserace (and its potential catastrophic consequences) despite the fact that a filly won the Preakness in Ball-mur yesterday and made recent history in doing so.

I don’t know anything much about the Star Trek stuff, and I have seen neither that nor Good/Bad/Ugly on Blu-ray yet.

[Constitution 101]

Hey there Penton. I'm fairly new to this thread and judging by your posts you've a working knowledge beyond most that I've read. I've been into this stuff since the old laserdisc days(which my mom referred to as "big movie cd's"). I've enjoyed your insights thus far and was wondering in what capacity you're a "hollywood insider"? Hope that's not to personal.

[Penton-Man]

Not at all.
Already answered that question since you're new to this thread.

See………….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ice#post937381

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Not at all.
Already answered that question since you're new to this thread.

See………….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ice#post937381

What in your professional opinion is the main cause the studios don't always get the transfers "right" the 1st time? To an outsider it seems w/ modern technology there shouldn't be a large number of "bad-looking" blu-rays. It definitely appears to be the main source of frustration for blu-enthusiasts. Do they need to consult Penton/Digital Bits/etc. and come up w/ an industry standard that's satisfactory to video experts or something to that effect? Is that just a crazy suggestion? Maybe a consortium of some sort. The number of bad PQ reviews by this site's official movie-reviewer and all the posts on sites like this(AVS etc.) make me think the issue's coming to a head...

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

What in your professional opinion is the main cause the studios don't always get the transfers "right" the 1st time? To an outsider it seems w/ modern technology there shouldn't be a large number of "bad-looking" blu-rays. It definitely appears to be the main source of frustration for blu-enthusiasts. Do they need to consult Penton/Digital Bits/etc. and come up w/ an industry standard that's satisfactory to video experts or something to that effect? Is that just a crazy suggestion? Maybe a consortium of some sort. The number of bad PQ reviews by this site's official movie-reviewer and all the posts on sites like this(AVS etc.) make me think the issue's coming to a head...

There is no standard.

RAH

[bt12483]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...Yesterday, I spent much of the day debating with my local horsemen (and women) friends, the merits of a filly running with a colt in a super competitive horserace (and its potential catastrophic consequences) despite the fact that a filly won the Preakness in Ball-mur yesterday and made recent history in doing so.

Hey Penton, I was born and raised in "Ball-mur".

Question: How do you know how we say Baltimore? And should I throw a "hon" in there for you?

Aren't you a west coast guy?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

What in your professional opinion is the main cause the studios don't always get the transfers "right" the 1st time? To an outsider it seems w/ modern technology there shouldn't be a large number of "bad-looking" blu-rays. It definitely appears to be the main source of frustration for blu-enthusiasts. Do they need to consult Penton/Digital Bits/etc. and come up w/ an industry standard that's satisfactory to video experts or something to that effect? Is that just a crazy suggestion? Maybe a consortium of some sort. The number of bad PQ reviews by this site's official movie-reviewer and all the posts on sites like this(AVS etc.) make me think the issue's coming to a head...

My friend you have a very jaded opinion of the current state of affairs.
It’s sad because I think you should be feeling much more fulfilled in your high definition home theater hobby rather than being so focused on a few ‘lemons’ that have been produced.

I would strongly suggest that you go back to the beginning of this thread and start reading from page 1 to play some catch-up. Another recommendation would be to read the other Insider’s threads here from the beginning for pertinent information, as all the “insiders”, regardless of their area of expertise have been vetted as being true “experts” -- rather than hobbyists parading around as wana-bee compressionists on *science* forums.

If you force me to give one cookbook answer as to why some Blu-rays don’t/didn’t come out as optimally as they could have, I would say that the “main cause” would be that in the last few years, high quality digital display products have become readily available to consumers at very affordable prices. Consumer displays emphasize a different set of characteristics than displays and set-ups historically used in the professional mastering of motion pictures. That has all changed now (and fairly recently in the grand scheme of the history of the format) as flat panels (esp. the Panasonic 11 series) instead of CRTs have become commonplace in post houses as well as Blu-ray encoding/authoring facilities and studio QC departments.

The problem is that depending on the year and the implementation of the ‘switch-out’ there are many HD masters that were produced with that old technology, not to mention the fact that some of those old masters were produced from old telecine machines which are technologically inferior compared to modern day scanners like the Northlight2.
Anyway, then it becomes an economic/business decision with some content providers whether or not to go back and redo a particular title and exactly where to start.

A new video master?
A new film master?
A complete film restoration followed by the above two production steps?

Overall, I think that the current state of affairs of what has been presented to the public is not nearly as bleak as your post would suggest and a few anomalies in the process should not detract from your overall home viewing experience.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There is no standard.

RAH

As usual Constitution 101, RAH is correct ^ as to there being “no standard” and I doubt that there ever will be one. The situation is just too multi-factorial and subjective and probably far too complicated to ever be practically implemented.

For instance, the current *science* rage is with ee and dnr. Suppose (and this is not unheard of by any means), the transfer facility creates an edge map which is scaled by a gain factor (boosted) which increases edge contrast and the booted edge map is added to the original image to yield a final image (the “scan”) having a higher apparent sharpness – in short, unsharp masking is used to offset scanner MTF losses when they scan the 35mm. or 65mm. available film element(s). A little excessive boosting will show up as ‘halos” to halo hunters viewing the Blu-ray product but, will be very difficult or even impossible to see on release prints at your local Multiplex.
Would this Blu-ray not qualify as passing some “standard” because of some halos or some ‘edginess’.

You have a 35 mm. film which shows inconsistent grain from scene to scene (hell, this is common), so, no big whoop for the theatrical presentation because the inconsistent grainy appearance is mitigated due to film to film optical printing (or the film-out after a DI process) and the inherent nature of theatrical presentation with its weave, optics and projector light output further on down the chain……..BUT,

the high quality HD master that you make from that DI readily shows in excruciating detail that inconsistent grainy appearance from scene to scene throughout the motion picture, so, a mild grain reduction pass (dnr) is applied prior to Blu-ray encoding to make the grain appear as consistent as it did on the theatrical release prints. However, some video lunatics see dnr artifacts as a result of that grain reduction process…….would this Blu-ray not qualify as passing some “standard” because of dnr applied by the compressionist prior to encoding?

Believe me, the permutations are endless and the two cases (ee and dnr) I’ve outlined above are not ‘hypothetical’ but, have already happened.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bt12483

Hey Penton, I was born and raised in "Ball-mur".
Question: How do you know how we say Baltimore? And should I throw a "hon" in there for you?
Aren't you a west coast guy?

I lived on the East Coast(if you use that term very loosely)for quite some time in my younger days. From North to South……Philadelphia and environs, Baltimore and environs, Washington, D.C., Arlington, Charlottesville, Atlanta, Coco Beach, Florida < no known children sired there.

Even did some hard time on the Gulf Coast….Naples, Fl.

As to the greater Baltimore area, I spent some of my best formative years eating hard shell crabs and drinking beer at Phillips Seafood in the Baltimore area…..lived in Anne Arundel County, when “at home”.

[sharkshark]

Excellent post above, well argued...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Would this Blu-ray not qualify as passing some “standard” because of some halos or some ‘edginess’.

...well, no, unless (of course) the resulting fix was heavy handed resulting in a picture much more egregious than necessary.

There's got to be some sort of baseline of quality expectation for us consumers, else the notion of "high definition" (the so-called "look and sound of perfect", if you recall) becomes sullied not by the condition of the films themselves, but by compromises (legitimate from a business perspective or not) made by the studios/distributors of these films.

Let's put it this way, Criterion LDs and DVDs are/were more expensive than many, but they were held in turn to a higher standard. Similarly, there are certain baseline expectations about what to expect when shelling out for BD, especially for those of us that actually pay to own these discs... This isn't a board room argument for those shelling out cash, nor some academic excercise using our free test discs given by the studios to evaluate them for the masses (I say this, without irony, as a sometime acredited film critic that gets to see some stuff for free). A crisis in confidence would, you'd agree, hurt the eventual rise to dominence of BD over DVD. That said, what some are worried about is that decisions are made involving techniques that either soften the image, modify grain, or make it "pop" in order to avoid a posible fate where a more accurate transfer is, against all rationality, considered by the average consumer to be worse than the modified version accepted for release. Your argument about the Casino Royale transfer is indeed compelling, where an educated director made the call about the tweaking the level of grain on BD in order to replicate the cinematic experience more fully, rather than relying upon strictly what popped out during the scanning process (ignoring all the other colour/luminosity tweaks that of course are equally part of the timing/mastering process).

All that said, there are those of us who look to people like yourself, generous with their time, and clearly both knowledgeable AND with access to acurate information, to be at the forefront of not only being frank and open regarding the challenges of particular transfers, but decisive when decisions are made that in fact do harm to the BD presentation in ways that simply should not be supported by buying the disc. RAH (among others) has enough distance, I take it, to be able to slam the Patton disc (one that comes to mind, among several). I take it, given your role as a studio player, that the very access you have that gives you the ability to see fact from fiction, excessive DNR versus crying Wolf, prevents you from being quite as vocal or forthright as those you criticise.

In the end, in advance of purchase, we look to those to give it to us straight, warts and all, to be able to make an educated decision. Heck, I bought Patton anyway, warts and all, and I'll buy it again when it's redone. It's Patton. What the hell. I'd rather for lesser films, however, that the baseline is raised as high as possible, and for masterpieces that the studio guys know will sell anyway that the utmost care is taken at every stage of the process.

It's getting better, as you've suggested, but in turn it's been sometimes no where near as good as it should be, and this, in my opinion, should not be underestimated by those here, just as it shouldn't be overestimated by those acused of crying wolf.

Fair?

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As usual Constitution 101, RAH is correct ^ as to there being “no standard” and I doubt that there ever will be one. The situation is just too multi-factorial and subjective and probably far too complicated to ever be practically implemented.

For instance, the current *science* rage is with ee and dnr. Suppose (and this is not unheard of by any means), the transfer facility creates an edge map which is scaled by a gain factor (boosted) which increases edge contrast and the booted edge map is added to the original image to yield a final image (the “scan”) having a higher apparent sharpness – in short, unsharp masking is used to offset scanner MTF losses when they scan the 35mm. or 65mm. available film element(s). A little excessive boosting will show up as ‘halos” to halo hunters viewing the Blu-ray product but, will be very difficult or even impossible to see on release prints at your local Multiplex.
Would this Blu-ray not qualify as passing some “standard” because of some halos or some ‘edginess’.

You have a 35 mm. film which shows inconsistent grain from scene to scene (hell, this is common), so, no big whoop for the theatrical presentation because the inconsistent grainy appearance is mitigated due to film to film optical printing (or the film-out after a DI process) and the inherent nature of theatrical presentation with its weave, optics and projector light output further on down the chain……..BUT,

the high quality HD master that you make from that DI readily shows in excruciating detail that inconsistent grainy appearance from scene to scene throughout the motion picture, so, a mild grain reduction pass (dnr) is applied prior to Blu-ray encoding to make the grain appear as consistent as it did on the theatrical release prints. However, some video lunatics see dnr artifacts as a result of that grain reduction process…….would this Blu-ray not qualify as passing some “standard” because of dnr applied by the compressionist prior to encoding?

Believe me, the permutations are endless and the two cases (ee and dnr) I’ve outlined above are not ‘hypothetical’ but, have already happened.

What you are describing seems to apply mostly for new productions but to me it seems there is very little criticism and controversy around the PQ of new titles as of late, TDK being the notable exception.

To me the situation looks as if some studios consistently produce excellent results with regard to the quality of new AND catalog releases while other studios do not yet seem to be quite there.

Or to bring some postive aspects into the debate: From what I have seen lately with regard to non-animated releases Sony and Fox might as well handle ALL releases on Blu-Ray with their recent track record for both new and catalog titles
And while clearly the process that ultimatley leads to a great Blu-Ray release might be a complicated one that cannot easily be explained with the formula of no EE and no DNR why is it that some studios consistently get things right and others don't ?

And no, this is not a serious proposal but it sums up how happy I am with the work of some studios vs what other studios are putting out there or rather what they are not giving us.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I expect you and Torsten (heck, you can run over there during lunchtime) to keep a close eye on the situation for fans of the film like….SquidPuppet, Deci, pro-bassonist, Josh and other interested members here whose handles I don’t recall offhand.

Hey, Germany is not THAT small and our lunchtimes not that long Wiesbaden is still almost a 4 hour drive for me and I guess they would not even want me to look at the Metropolis elements, not that I would blame them

This is a great chance though and maybe Torsten knows a little bit about the people/companies handling Metropolis and what they have worked on before ?
I know that his company did a great job on M and I guess he would be interested in what happens with Metropolis.

And to add to my previous post: Despite being somebody who might be considered a bit picky: Less than 5% of Blu-Rays from the big 6 (studios) that I watched since January 2008 were what I would call less than satisfactory in picture quality and this is a great quota by any standards - precentages for classic and catalog will be higher but still this is a very good overall quota imo.

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

My friend you have a very jaded opinion of the current state of affairs.
It’s sad because I think you should be feeling much more fulfilled in your high definition home theater hobby rather than being so focused on a few ‘lemons’ that have been produced.

I would strongly suggest that you go back to the beginning of this thread and start reading from page 1 to play some catch-up. Another recommendation would be to read the other Insider’s threads here from the beginning for pertinent information, as all the “insiders”, regardless of their area of expertise have been vetted as being true “experts” -- rather than hobbyists parading around as wana-bee compressionists on *science* forums.

If you force me to give one cookbook answer as to why some Blu-rays don’t/didn’t come out as optimally as they could have, I would say that the “main cause” would be that in the last few years, high quality digital display products have become readily available to consumers at very affordable prices. Consumer displays emphasize a different set of characteristics than displays and set-ups historically used in the professional mastering of motion pictures. That has all changed now (and fairly recently in the grand scheme of the history of the format) as flat panels (esp. the Panasonic 11 series) instead of CRTs have become commonplace in post houses as well as Blu-ray encoding/authoring facilities and studio QC departments.

The problem is that depending on the year and the implementation of the ‘switch-out’ there are many HD masters that were produced with that old technology, not to mention the fact that some of those old masters were produced from old telecine machines which are technologically inferior compared to modern day scanners like the Northlight2.
Anyway, then it becomes an economic/business decision with some content providers whether or not to go back and redo a particular title and exactly where to start.

A new video master?
A new film master?
A complete film restoration followed by the above two production steps?

Overall, I think that the current state of affairs of what has been presented to the public is not nearly as bleak as your post would suggest and a few anomalies in the process should not detract from your overall home viewing experience.

Thank you for this explanation. It's great to be able to read these insights from the "other", non-consumer side. This is valuable background information for any discussions that may "demand" better pq and "less processing".

Btw i completely agree: The vast majority of Blu-rays i've seen is stunning and simply a pleasure to watch. But then again i tend to get drawn into the films and "forget" to look for flaws...

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

My friend you have a very jaded opinion of the current state of affairs.
It’s sad because I think you should be feeling much more fulfilled in your high definition home theater hobby rather than being so focused on a few ‘lemons’ that have been produced.

I would strongly suggest that you go back to the beginning of this thread and start reading from page 1 to play some catch-up. Another recommendation would be to read the other Insider’s threads here from the beginning for pertinent information, as all the “insiders”, regardless of their area of expertise have been vetted as being true “experts” -- rather than hobbyists parading around as wana-bee compressionists on *science* forums.

If you force me to give one cookbook answer as to why some Blu-rays don’t/didn’t come out as optimally as they could have, I would say that the “main cause” would be that in the last few years, high quality digital display products have become readily available to consumers at very affordable prices. Consumer displays emphasize a different set of characteristics than displays and set-ups historically used in the professional mastering of motion pictures. That has all changed now (and fairly recently in the grand scheme of the history of the format) as flat panels (esp. the Panasonic 11 series) instead of CRTs have become commonplace in post houses as well as Blu-ray encoding/authoring facilities and studio QC departments.

The problem is that depending on the year and the implementation of the ‘switch-out’ there are many HD masters that were produced with that old technology, not to mention the fact that some of those old masters were produced from old telecine machines which are technologically inferior compared to modern day scanners like the Northlight2.
Anyway, then it becomes an economic/business decision with some content providers whether or not to go back and redo a particular title and exactly where to start.

A new video master?
A new film master?
A complete film restoration followed by the above two production steps?

Overall, I think that the current state of affairs of what has been presented to the public is not nearly as bleak as your post would suggest and a few anomalies in the process should not detract from your overall home viewing experience.

I was chuckling when I saw you use the word "jaded". I think that's a bit over the top. For the most part, I'm happy w/ the large majority of my blu-rays. Nor do I think the post implied things were "bleak" either. First, let me qualify my unprofessional analysis by admitting I've only been a member for 2 months now. The general impression I get from all the posts I've read is people are waiting for such-and-such a blu-ray to be re-released & done the "right way" the second time. I didn't write those posts, I just read them. It's entirely possible, however, my impression is wrong. I fully concede my perceptions aren't infallible. Maybe it's just human nature for people to post their complaints rather than the transfers they love. I've read about 100 reviews by this site's official movie reviewer and got the impression a good amount of these are less than stellar. If you read MY reviews, they're largely positive. Perhaps over the next few months, my opinion(which in your professional estimate is totally inaccurate) will be changed/amplified/corrected. I'm completely open to that. I've no axe to grind, just trying to learn and absorb as much as I can. But I gotta say, so far I see more talk about waiting for the better re-release(Star Trek, T2, etc.). Again, just my two cents based on the large volume of film transfer posts I've read.

[Bobby Henderson]

The underlying problem is every movie is different. It may be possible to deliver a fantastic looking Blu-ray version of one catalog title while another is going to look only so good regardless of how much work is done with it.

So many variables are involved. Every movie production has different methods and choices made with regard to cinematography. It is a subjective medium. Add to that any difficulties the production had in getting certain shots. Budgetary and time constraint issues come into play. One movie to the next is not shot with the same level of "standards."

Most new movies are going to look excellent on Blu-ray. They have the benefit of state of the art film and digital technology and digital intermediate use as a standard of feature film work flow. It's more difficult for older catalog titles to have the same quality. The farther you go back in time the less advanced film stocks become. Certain elements get damaged or fade with age. With some catalog titles the rights get tossed from one company to the next and to the next which can create organizational nightmares in tracking down the best elements to use in creating a new Blu-ray. And then it just comes down to money.

Most catalog titles are going to have a limited level of consumer appeal and limited level of sales potential. That greatly increases the likelihood the movie studio will use an old HD broadcast master as a source rather than spending a lot more money to create a brand new master using the most modern techniques available.

In the end, you have to take it on a movie by movie basis. Sometimes we'll get lucky and see the studio "remaster" a title like The Fifth Element and deliver a new disc that looks far better than the first BD release. In the case of a movie like The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, a feature shot in 2-perf 35mm Techniscope over 40 years ago, what you see on Blu-ray is probably about as good as it will get.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

...But I gotta say, so far I see more talk about waiting for the better re-release(Star Trek, T2, etc.).....

Yes, but it is generally the same five or so posters that jump from
forum to forum twenty-four seven making multiple posts. Not a valid
consensus by any stretch. Sales is the only valid measurement, and
the Star Trek sales are going well.

Hell hath no fury like a red ant scorned.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As usual Constitution 101, RAH is correct ^ as to there being “no standard” and I doubt that there ever will be one. The situation is just too multi-factorial and subjective and probably far too complicated to ever be practically implemented.

For instance, ...

Or ...

Now, this is a great post!

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by BluDomain

Yes, but it is generally the same five or so posters that jump from
forum to forum twenty-four seven making multiple posts. Not a valid
consensus by any stretch. Sales is the only valid measurement, and
the Star Trek sales are going well.

Hell hath no fury like a red ant scorned.

see, that may be true (I still think this debate can be had without the dehumanizing epithets, but there you are...), but it still may also be the case that some of these transfers are flawed. In other words, even someone who didn't gulp the kool aid for any format, or relies upon screenshots to make their point, can accurately come to the conclusion (inadvertently, perhaps)that a particular transfer isn't up to snuff.

Recognizing the problem discs and correcting them, moving FORWARD in quality control rather than backward, is of course the key. When Bill Hunt tells his readers to hold onto your previous disc of Terminator 2, you've got an issue that's potentially getting worse, not better.

...the new 1080p video presentation is much softer looking than the original... and yes, film grain (and fine image detail) appears to have been digitally scrubbed from the image. I definitely prefer the original Blu-ray image. These are simply the perils of life in the new high-definition age it seems.

And, yes, just as dismissing the Star Trek films "out of hand", as he discusses, would be wrong, it's equally valid that there are those that criticisms of these transfers out of hand based on who is doing the criticism. It seems no matter who was responsible for the restoration/mastering, there can be discs that are simply, for a discerning viewer whose only agenda they bring to the table is to get the most film like experience possible, unacceptable. And that sucks.

Sales, unfortunately, are not going to dictate whether or not a transfer is satisfactory - in fact, good sales on a title that many of the more, uh, "fastidious" among us would find to be appalling could, with the wrong execs, prove just the opposite. Similarly, poor sales for something like, I dunno, Grand Prix on the previous HD format has seeming prevented its impending release on Blu (they're certainly not in the rush they were for, say, The Matrix. GP looks -amazing-, yet sales paled, I'm sure, to even the most wretchedly transferred sci-fi genre flick.)

So, I think the format is well on its way to maturity, practices being more and more entrenched, yet the same old rhetoric ("red ants", "screen shot science" etc.) is being used to deflect, in my uneducated and humble opinion, from a building crisis in confidence regarding the treatment of catalogue titles, and the motivations for making decisions regarding the preservation of film look versus the compelling argment to be made to satisfy a generation of HD viewers raised on video games and NFL broadcasts.

And -that-, I believe, was the argument being made in that obscure Spanish forum, no? It seems to me it still is a valid one, even if disagreed with, and should be debated, rather than slamming those voicing oposition, respectfully or not, to the entrenched opinions that often get expressed on these AV boards.

Happy Victoria Day, everybody...

ps. Can you believe is was TEN YEARS since I was standing in line for Phantom Menace?! Eesh...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

That said, what some are worried about is that decisions are made involving techniques that either soften the image, modify grain, or make it "pop" in order to avoid a posible fate where a more accurate transfer is, against all rationality, considered by the average consumer to be worse than the modified version accepted for release.

Damn you worry about everything!

The *decisions* that you allude to have been portrayed by many on the internet as some sort of conspiracy to cater to the Playstation 3 crowd, gaming crowd, or mainstream high definition TV crowd, however you want to term it.

With the exception of one, I’ll say that again…..ONE….. studio which had that philosophy in place, there is no studio wide conspiracy to rob people of their daily dose of bran (grain).
It’s all baloney. The *decisions* that have been made in the past, have been related to different people at different institutions being at different locations on the learning curves with different instrumentation and the use of old HD masters.

In essence, the studios which have shown the greatest success in putting out the most transparent product on Blu-ray and few or no ‘lemons’ are those that are in excellent communication with the outside contractors they use and watch them like a hawk so that nobody drops the ball. This becomes logistically difficult because the studio quality people often find themselves running all over town (frequently) to accomplish this to view material in person and then, add the fact that there is constant turnover with people being either laid off or moving to other jobs and then you have to start from square 1 and ‘re-educate’ everyone all over again.

The most aggressive hawk(s) I know in the business are Grover and his sidekick Michael.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

RAH (among others) has enough distance, I take it, to be able to slam the Patton disc (one that comes to mind, among several). I take it, given your role as a studio player, that the very access you have that gives you the ability to see fact from fiction, excessive DNR versus crying Wolf, prevents you from being quite as vocal or forthright as those you criticise.

Wrong.

If you want to bring RAH into this, I would suggest you ask him how much time, effort and relentless criticism I submitted to the powers that be at Warner Home Video regarding the release of one of their fairly recent titles……which could have been so much better in terms of picture quality, unbeknownst to many ‘evaluators of picture quality’ on the internet……..Ken Brown aside.

Hell, one guy over there at WHV won’t even return my phone calls anymore.