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

[sharkshark]

d'oh... Not out on PS3 'till Thursday.

FWIW, this is the one game I've bought for my system that was purchased exclusively as a (second) BD player...

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm waiting for the inevitable 192/24-bit Blu-ray Beatle box

Though Rock Band's Queen pack sounds quite nice The game already has all the Abbey Road songs I feel the need to rock out to. I want Hey Jude damnit

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm waiting for the inevitable 192/24-bit Blu-ray Beatle box

I'm afraid it might be out of my price range, BUT I'd love to have that myself...

BTW, for those who interested, Blimey posted a link to Robert Harris's comments on "North By Northwest". It's a good read... which is why I posted it here for those who might otherwise have missed it.

~Alan

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm waiting for the inevitable 192/24-bit Blu-ray Beatle box

I'll just buy those as well...No need to wait...

[Anthony P]

Hi PM I asked this in the Digital bits thread, but I guess it is worth asking here as well

I don't know if this bothers other, but I just bought Transformers2 at FS and it came with a separate Steelbook case. the case was wrapped with an unglued back cover with specs.

can you ask studios (since they are all a bit guilty) when it is not a standard case with a back cover under plastic (be it steelbooks like this, digibooks, cardboard boxes like CE3K, Batman, Matrix.....) or plastic boxes like (ST) that they make the separate (usually glued on) sheet of paper a bit smaller so that it fits inside the case, I hate it when they get ruined (since they are sometimes not glued and the rest badly glued) and would rather be able to fit it in the box where it is safer.

I am sure I am not the only slightly annoyed by it.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For Bobby H. ( I hope you’re not feeling like Adolph these days)…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp9WMy4ihg

You purchased your 5D M2 primarily for stills, right?

Yeah. And I just spent close to $2000 upgrading my tripod and ball head setup to do HDR shots, seamless panoramas, etc. The 5D Mark II has high enough resolution to expose any weaknesses in a moderately priced tripod. My old Hakuba pan head model just couldn't get the job done. The new Gitzo and Really Right Stuff combo does a much better job. Dead rock solid. But my wallet is hurting.

BTW, that is a hilarious version of that Hitler video. I've seen another one involving font misuse that gets me rolling.

FWIW. Canon seems to have been listening to EOS 5D Mark II owners (or maybe worried too many would-be 5D MkII customers would pick a $1000 cheaper 7D instead). Today, they issued this press release:

Originally Posted by Canon Europe

London, 20 October 2009 – Canon today announces that it is currently developing a firmware update to the EOS 5D Mark II to enable the recording of high definition 1080p video at 24 and 25fps. The decision to develop new firmware to support these features has been taken following feedback received from cinematographers and photographers.

Introduced in September 2008, the multi award-winning EOS 5D Mark II was the first DSLR product to offer full frame 1080p HD video recording, opening up a multitude of new creative possibilities for photo journalists, news photographers and amateur filmmakers. Since then, Canon has continued to develop its groundbreaking EOS Movie functionality, firstly with the firmware update to the EOS 5D Mark II that enabled manual exposure control, and more recently by introducing a choice of video recording frame rates with the EOS 7D and EOS-1D Mark IV.

Canon currently expects the firmware update to be made available during the first half of 2010. An announcement regarding details of the update and its availability will be made closer to the release date.

Of course, the next thing 5D Mark II owners will ask for is 30fps and 24fps modes in both exactly those rates and 29.97 and 23.976 options.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I'm afraid it might be out of my price range, BUT I'd love to have that myself...

BTW, for those who interested, Blimey posted a link to Robert Harris's comments on "North By Northwest". It's a good read... which is why I posted it here for those who might otherwise have missed it.

~Alan

Before RAH’s whimsical review that’s linked there, I skimmed some of the previous posts on that thread, one of which offered the link to another outside review (that from *the beaver*).

It never ceases to amaze me how some viewers continue to use some previous home media incarnation of a feature film (such as a prior DVD or laser disc) as the ‘correct’ or ‘gold standard’ version in regards to color, contrast, “darkness”, etc. and then compare the Blu-ray to that……as evidence for whether they think some technician possibly dropped the ball on the restoration or transfer of the Blu-ray incarnation, completely ignoring the fact that when such differences in appearance are evident, the Blu-ray is often produced from a different (better) film source, or at the very least, the Director preferred source.

Not to mention the fact that not only is true black and true white set (which effect the whole spectrum of the overall ‘brightness’ or ‘darkness’ of the movie) by eyeballing the source, but also by utilizing a waveform monitor (including vectorscope) which are not subject to human visual misinterpretation !

Luckily, in this case, the viewers anecdotally quoted by *the beaver* are subjectively pleased with the overall image being “quite a bit darker” and having a “bolder color scheme” despite the reported difference between prior DVD editions.

[sharkshark]

respectfully, having read the review, I'm not sure that those facts were completely ignored, saved for the fact that they're tacitly acknowledged.



Subtle, sure, but in fairness to DVDB, which, lord knows, is a bastion of screen shot fun, they are very open to discussion (as evidenced from the forum quotes placed in that review), and I've found them far from beligerant or dogmatic in their review stances. Certainly, they've done a wonderful job over the years in teasing out the minute differences between editions, and have done so without coming across as pompous pricks. The same cannot be said for other review sites, my own meagre one included.

Now, that said, the reviewer brings up interesting comments about the preferred aspect ratio for Vista vision - I'm curious if you or RAH want to weigh in on what you would personally have picked among the choices (1.66/1.78/1.85) - not, mind you, that there's a heck of a difference in HT application, but it's at least a film-based discussion that keeps us mildly on topic.

This will be another quintupple, or maybe sextuple dip for me (heck, I've bought it I think 3 times on DVD already). It's a film that I love desperately, and I'm so pleased it's making its way to BD.

Back in the late 90s I saw the original DVD on a 60" rear projection and thought it looked AMAZING. I saved up and bought my first HDTV around that time (big Sony 60" CRT RPTV), so this title has a great role in my HT journey.

Now, let me reitterate how much we need Rear Window... 8k of Grace when she walks in the room, and he's sitting against the window.... Walking towards camera.... Leaning in for a kiss...Light softness from the camera filter, eyes sparkling....

*swoon*

[Bobby Henderson]

I don't know what the "preferred" aspect ratio of VistaVision may be. A full 8/35 film frame, sans soundtrack, is 1.5:1. Whatever ratio is "preferred," the image is being cropped a bit anyway.

Kind of makes me wonder about the Technirama process (VistaVision cameras fitted with anamorphic lenses). Did the use the entire negative and then optically enlarge/reduce to 5/70mm and 4/35mm?

[KubrickFan]

Paramount recommended the 1.85:1 ratio, although sizes between 1.66:1 and 2.00:1 could be used as well.
And you're right about those Technirama specifications. It was the same principle as with VistaVision, including prints.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

respectfully, having read the review, I'm not sure that those facts were completely ignored, saved for the fact that they're tacitly acknowledged.

Subtle, sure, but in fairness to DVDB, which, lord knows, is a bastion of screen shot fun, they are very open to discussion (as evidenced from the forum quotes placed in that review), and I've found them far from beligerant or dogmatic in their review stances......

You may be right, I really wouldn’t know as I don’t regularly read that site. I just followed the link provided on the page to get another outside opinion.

I was actually using the Beaver more as a vehicle to comment upon the widespread online accepted practice of using the previous home media incarnation (DVD) as some sort of gold standard or reference edition for “brightness/darkness”, contrast or color space – which in most cases is, at the very least, just plain bad science……at the most, completely ridiculous when dealing with incarnations based upon different sources – and then often using that inherently flawed comparison to constantly insinuate and ‘debate’ that some operator/post facility screwed up, which seems to be the *fashion* these days.

Then, of course, these misguided *comparison* 'debates' lead to the commonly held assertions that more highlight or shadow detail in a scene automatically means the “A” transfer is better and less highlight or shadow detail means the “B” transfer is worse or incorrect with the invariable battery of screenshots “to prove” the point. Again, this is a completely invalid assertion (i.e. more is better, less is worse) that has paraded around the internet as fact for years (or at least, ever since the Bram Stoker’s Dracula Blu-ray debuted), not to mention being a pointless exercise, unless you’re into guessing games or can read the filmmakers mind during a session in which you were not present.

P.S.
Another one I love is “but the color tone in the DVD looks ‘more natural’ than with the Blu-ray” – so the DVD must be correct.

[Dan S.]

What Penton said. As soon as people start discussing the superiority of color on a dvd over a BD, I quit reading what they have to say. I sincerely doubt the studios are being as careless as they would have to be in order to screw up as badly as some are inferring. It's not as if they are pumping out 100's of BDs at a time- they have time to get these right.


PS- Penton- Heading out on the MTB in a few for a great night ride, thought of you. I hope you're turning over the pedals enough to enjoy your autumn!

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Before RAH’s whimsical review that’s linked there, I skimmed some of the previous posts on that thread, one of which offered the link to another outside review (that from *the beaver*).

It never ceases to amaze me how some viewers continue to use some previous home media incarnation of a feature film (such as a prior DVD or laser disc) as the ‘correct’ or ‘gold standard’ version in regards to color, contrast, “darkness”, etc. and then compare the Blu-ray to that……as evidence for whether they think some technician possibly dropped the ball on the restoration or transfer of the Blu-ray incarnation, completely ignoring the fact that when such differences in appearance are evident, the Blu-ray is often produced from a different (better) film source, or at the very least, the Director preferred source.

Not to mention the fact that not only is true black and true white set (which effect the whole spectrum of the overall ‘brightness’ or ‘darkness’ of the movie) by eyeballing the source, but also by utilizing a waveform monitor (including vectorscope) which are not subject to human visual misinterpretation !

Luckily, in this case, the viewers anecdotally quoted by *the beaver* are subjectively pleased with the overall image being “quite a bit darker” and having a “bolder color scheme” despite the reported difference between prior DVD editions.

On a related note, it kind of reminds me of the "scientist" you questioned over at AVS a while back who claimed the red on the Godfather BD was incorrect despite what RAH and the filmmakers stated on the issue - he also claimed to work in the field. Of course, when you asked him what tools he used, he never responded.

[sharkshark]

...welllll (and, again, I'm just pointing out those exceptions that prove the rule, as it were), there have been historical cases where the director approved colour timing is, in fact, a poorer representation of the original cinematic presentation (read: Friedken). While I've not bothered with the "upgrade" to "French Connection", I think it more than fair to compare the DVD to the BD version of that film, given the radically different timing choices. Heck, I often have compared my two versions of LoA (2 discs and Superbit) with my Laserdisc.

We're in agreement, naturally, for 99% of cases. But, again, with Dracula things get, well, "murky", literally, where things that should, reasonably, be evident are lost in the black on a pro-calibrated setup. This is an older discussion (PM, last time I brought that up you complained about my Kuro's contrast ratio... ), and I don't want to rehash it. I simply wish to reserve the case for occasionally loking back to the previous format to see what's been tinkered with.

But, yeah, "natural".... rediculous.

[Kris Deering]

Penton,

Any word on whether "Inception" is going to be shot IMAX or 65mm? You mentioned something about this earlier but wondered if anything concrete has come about. IMDB is listing Super 35 with IMAX blow up.

[Jeff Kleist]

Nolan is huge on anamorphic, I'd be shocked if he shot Super35, so yes, I'd be suspicious of its accuracy. Then again if he's shotting this thing run and gun he may have gone S35 for weight issues

[Bobby Henderson]

Based on previous posts about the topic, much or all of Inception is being filmed in 35mm.

That still leaves some question whether parts, most or all of the 35mm footage is being shot anamorphic.

I've seen plenty of 35mm 'scope movies that were shot mostly anamorphic but had at least a few shots sprinkled in here and there that were spherical and cropped. Spherical lenses give the DP far more flexibility in how to stage, frame and light shots, but with the cost of increased visible grain.

Who knows what's happening with the rumored IMAX footage? Maybe there's other sequences we don't know about that are IMAX 15/65 based. Or maybe it's a bunch of 4K CGI stuff blown up to IMAX (like Transformers: the sequel). Or maybe it's just a bunch of bull.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

...We're in agreement, naturally, for 99% of cases. But, again, with Dracula things get, well, "murky", literally, where things that should, reasonably, be evident are lost in the black on a pro-calibrated setup. This is an older discussion (PM, last time I brought that up you complained about my Kuro's contrast ratio... ), and I don't want to rehash it. I simply wish to reserve the case for occasionally loking back to the previous format to see what's been tinkered with.

But, yeah, "natural".... rediculous.

It doesn’t get “murky” for Dracula either.
Because you (shark) have no way of knowing what should be truly black (and thusly how much of the production design detail should or should not be evident in the shadows) when a different Director-approved film source is used, unless you have some inside knowledge about this transfer.

You’re simply stating your own personal subjective preference (i.e. Blu-ray too black), not the filmmaker’s true intent or the accuracy of the transfer to the different film source used for the Blu-ray as compared to that for the DVD version. However, as you said, we’ve been through this all before……ad nausea, so let’s stop with Dracula. Suffice to say, I know the black level on the disc matches that of the Director approved Answer print used as the source.

I’ve seen this same flawed reasoning on the exact opposite end of the luma level spectrum (with white balancing) when people have compared prior DVD to Blu-ray renditions.

Give me a moment and I’ll see if the *Blu-ray too white* pics are still on my computer for that. I’m on this Halloween theme, first with a vampire and next with ghosts.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

...if any Beatles fans haven't bought it yet, you MUST get this:

http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/

For ANY of you who obsess about technical minutiae it's just incredible... Learn everything you ever wanted to know about 70+ years of recording history.... Astounding, monumental book.

Sure, that book is great. But if you really want to impress your friends, you can now get yourself a Masters degree in the Fab Four:
Beatles MA

[Penton-Man]

Compare these......