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

[aramis109]

Since we're talking about 35mm and I'm waiting on a Silverado review, Penton do you have any insight on the DI for that movie? 2k, 4k? Was just curious more than anything else.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Which seems odd since anamorphic would fully use the 4K resolution better than the S35 (which would be more like 3K, especially only 3-perf)

Budget shouldn't be an issue since plenty of low budget productions can use anamorphic, even Drew Barrymore's directorial debut about roller derby (Whip It) is.

[Bobby Henderson]

The big challenges with shooting anamorphic are the more exaggerated differences in depth of field and the larger size and somewhat more limited range of the anamorphic lenses themselves. Basically it's a lot easier to shoot spherical.

Nevertheless, when anamorphic 35mm is shot well it can easily outclass the capabilities of Super35. The larger negative is simply going to provide greater capability of capturing a more detailed, more colorful image. Likewise, 5-perf 65mm and 8-perf 35mm can trounce 4/35 anamorphic 'scope. But again, the even bigger negative gives you even lower depth of field or the need of getting much more powerful lenses to get the same comparable amount of light shining onto that larger negative.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Since we're talking about 35mm and I'm waiting on a Silverado review, Penton do you have any insight on the DI for that movie? 2k, 4k? Was just curious more than anything else.

Silverado was produced in the mid 80's, DI's are a fairly recent development.

It was shot Super35, and when compared to Pale Rider (made around the same time), the literal lack of 'scope hurts it.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Silverado was produced in the mid 80's, DI's are a fairly recent development.

It was shot Super35, and when compared to Pale Rider (made around the same time), the literal lack of 'scope hurts it.

I'm showing my very rudimentary knowledge on the subject, aren't I? I was just assuming that since they did a blu release that it'd get a DI as part of the process. Still, hearing that it may not look as good as I was hoping is a bit disappointing.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Which seems odd since anamorphic would fully use the 4K resolution better than the S35 (which would be more like 3K, especially only 3-perf)

3-perf has the same taking area as 4-perf.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Should be right up your alley, Squid. Let's say... you and Ms. Barrymore are on the same Page.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Should be right up your alley, Squid. Let's say... you and Ms. Barrymore are on the same Page.

LOL. Did you see Hard Candy yet?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

LOL. Did you see Hard Candy yet?

I have a horrible, embarrassing confession to make.

I rented it, hemmed and hawwed a bit, failed to find the inspiration and returned it unwatched.

Don't hate me.

Now, I must do my own penance.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I have a horrible, embarrassing confession to make.

I rented it, hemmed and hawwed a bit, failed to find the inspiration and returned it unwatched.

Don't hate me.

Now, I must do my own penance.

Hey, I've done that before. Just wasnt in the mood for what the mailman brought. Sat on it for a couple days and sent it back.

Try again someday, as there are some shocking twists to a disturbing story.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by aramis109

I'm showing my very rudimentary knowledge on the subject, aren't I? I was just assuming that since they did a blu release that it'd get a DI as part of the process.

Some older catalog titles do receive a precise film scan and digital intermediate treatment. Bladerunner and South Pacific are a couple of examples. Many other movies do not get a film scan and DI treatment. Instead the best or most readily available existing HD master is used as the Blu-ray source. That usually means an older HD master originally intended for DVD authoring (as well as HD cable/satellite delivery) is reused again for Blu-ray, often with less than stellar results.

I don't know for certain why movie studios choose to do scan & DI work for one title while using a decade old HD telecine master on another title, but I'm fairly certain the studios forecast how much money they expect to make from the catalog title. If their forecasts aren't positive enough to justify the extra cost of a new film scan and DI treatment then they won't do it. Perhaps as Blu-ray becomes ever more popular and the format's customer base grows much larger movie studios will re-visit a lot of catalog releases and give them new HD masters using current, state of the art technology.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

3-perf has the same taking area as 4-perf.

Only when the Super 35 frame is opened up for 1.85:1 composition. A great deal of Super35 work is cropped down to 2.39:1 which still yields a significantly smaller area of negative than anamorphic 'scope on 4-perf 35mm.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Only when the Super 35 frame is opened up for 1.85:1 composition. A great deal of Super35 work is cropped down to 2.39:1 which still yields a significantly smaller area of negative than anamorphic 'scope on 4-perf 35mm.

I wasn't comparing the taking area of 3-perf Super35 with the taking area of 4-perf 'Scope; I was comparing the taking area of 3-perf Super35 with the taking area of 4-perf Super35.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Some older catalog titles do receive a precise film scan and digital intermediate treatment. Bladerunner and South Pacific are a couple of examples. Many other movies do not get a film scan and DI treatment. Instead the best or most readily available existing HD master is used as the Blu-ray source. That usually means an older HD master originally intended for DVD authoring (as well as HD cable/satellite delivery) is reused again for Blu-ray, often with less than stellar results.

I don't know for certain why movie studios choose to do scan & DI work for one title while using a decade old HD telecine master on another title, but I'm fairly certain the studios forecast how much money they expect to make from the catalog title. If their forecasts aren't positive enough to justify the extra cost of a new film scan and DI treatment then they won't do it. Perhaps as Blu-ray becomes ever more popular and the format's customer base grows much larger movie studios will re-visit a lot of catalog releases and give them new HD masters using current, state of the art technology.



Only when the Super 35 frame is opened up for 1.85:1 composition. A great deal of Super35 work is cropped down to 2.39:1 which still yields a significantly smaller area of negative than anamorphic 'scope on 4-perf 35mm.

Thanks for following up and answering this further. I appreciate the insight.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

...I don't know for certain why movie studios choose to do scan & DI work for one title while using a decade old HD telecine master on another title, but I'm fairly certain the studios forecast how much money they expect to make from the catalog title. If their forecasts aren't positive enough to justify the extra cost of a new film scan and DI treatment then they won't do it. Perhaps as Blu-ray becomes ever more popular and the format's customer base grows much larger movie studios will re-visit a lot of catalog releases and give them new HD masters using current, state of the art technology. ...

So, following this thought forward, the price for a blu-ray scan is currently higher than for a DVD scan, but should fall with time, no? That provides for a choice: release a property now on blu-ray using an existing scan, or delay until scan prices fall enough to make a new scan palatable. The question is, how to make that choice.

Thoughts, anyone?

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

So, following this thought forward, the price for a blu-ray scan is currently higher than for a DVD scan, but should fall with time, no? That provides for a choice: release a property now on blu-ray using an existing scan, or delay until scan prices fall enough to make a new scan palatable. The question is, how to make that choice.

Thoughts, anyone?

Anything worth doing is worth doing right (my two cents).

There is no good reason not to do a new scan, despite the cost, since a new scan not only provides a better blu-ray image, but also serves as a high resolution digital archive of the film.

...

On the other hand, if I was a studio executive, I probably wouldn't authorize a new scan of "Ernest Goes To Camp"

[Jeff Kleist]

So, following this thought forward, the price for a blu-ray scan is currently higher than for a DVD scan, but should fall with time, no? That provides for a choice: release a property now on blu-ray using an existing scan, or delay until scan prices fall enough to make a new scan palatable. The question is, how to make that choice.

Thoughts, anyone

No one has been scanning under 1080 for a decade or more, at least at the studo level. They started archving in HD in the mid-90s. Better technology is simply the issue

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No one has been scanning under 1080 for a decade or more, at least at the studo level. They started archving in HD in the mid-90s. Better technology is simply the issue

So, put another way, a 1080 scan from today is so much better than a 1080 scan from the late 1990s that blu-ray afficianods would complain? Wow.

It would be interesting to see a three way comparison of a single frame: (1) scan from today, (2) scan from late 1990s, (3) non-1080 scan from the early 1990s/late 1980s. Oh, well, probably not going to happen.

[Sometimes, we all wish for too much.]

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

So, put another way, a 1080 scan from today is so much better than a 1080 scan from the late 1990s that blu-ray afficianods would complain? Wow.

It would be interesting to see a three way comparison of a single frame: (1) scan from today, (2) scan from late 1990s, (3) non-1080 scan from the early 1990s/late 1980s. Oh, well, probably not going to happen.

[Sometimes, we all wish for too much.]

Well, you can compare the first release of THE FIFTH ELEMENT with the remastered re-release.

Vincent

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I wasn't comparing the taking area of 3-perf Super35 with the taking area of 4-perf 'Scope; I was comparing the taking area of 3-perf Super35 with the taking area of 4-perf Super35.

I don’t have the time now, as I would have to delete (in a bunch of places) the title of the feature film as well as some things like the filmmaker, etc. for privacy issues, but if people would like, I could post a detailed post production spec sheet going from Super35mm 2.40 common top (.945x.394) -> 4k post -> video/digital cinema versions and even data back ups.

The sequences and terminology might prove interesting to some of you cinephile geeks as you’ve probably never read such stuff.

Let me know and remind me, if interested.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

So, put another way, a 1080 scan from today is so much better than a 1080 scan from the late 1990s that blu-ray afficianods would complain? Wow.

You don’t have to go back to the late 1990’s.

As late as the summer of 2007 (and even later in some instances), many post facilities were using CRT’s as their monitor in the preparation of HD masters. These CRT monitors were disguising most of the down-convert artifacts (as well as any [operator-induced] excessive grain reduction or sharpening[ee] ), despite the fact, that they had long been considered (and rightly so) thee Gold Standard.

This all started to change in 2007, when an astute Sony engineer and Mastering Guru submitted this tech report on the subject which was published in the 6/07 SMFTE Journal (see last 3 paragraphs)………
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1