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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

....Meanwhile, no need to 'butt in', shark. Surely to the chagrin of some, this remains a public discussion.

As long as you don’t speak of or hint the result of the Arsenal match today on this forum before I get a chance to watch it on my DVR, I’ll be a happy man.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As long as you don’t speak of or hint the result of the Arsenal match today on this forum before I get a chance to watch it on my DVR, I’ll be a happy man.

On that matter, my lips are sealed.

Incidentally, Penton, I tried (I really did!) to have a notable opinion (an endeavor that's not usually a challenge for me) on the D-Box thang, but I just couldn't come up with any feelings.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As long as you don’t speak of or hint the result of the Arsenal match today on this forum before I get a chance to watch it on my DVR, I’ll be a happy man.

Weird, I was literally about to comment on the match... I'll hold off, then.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ll try to see if I can wrangle one of the data wranglers from District 9 to share with you all some of his experiences on the set with accumulating and passing on the plethora of data files to editorial for that motion picture.

Ok, I'll bite... do -you- prefer D-box screenings? Got D-box in your own HT?

I'm usually game for tacky add-ons for tentpole pics (hello, 3D), but I frankly think this shakybutt tech is, well, a wee bit silly...

Meanwhile, National press up here is frothing over Camerons "A$$holegate" incident at LAX.

Sad, but true. At least Octomom or Balloon boy weren't Canadian, or else we'd be wringing our hands aobu them...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I'm usually game for tacky add-ons for tentpole pics (hello, 3D), but I frankly think this shakybutt tech is, well, a wee bit silly...

In a very general sense, I can say that I have a general preference for the maintenance of some psycho-perceptual "distance" between myself and a movie's content (ie. I want to have some perspective on it, not in it). For this reason, I suppose I would lean slightly away from stuff like D-Box. For the same reason, I also lean a little away from surround sound. Yes, I said it.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Meanwhile, National press up here is frothing over Camerons "A$$holegate" incident at LAX.

Is Cameron still Canadian or is he just ex-Canadian? I'll have to Google this incident- sounds not-very-juicy-but-trumped-up-with-reactionary-hype.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

For the same reason, I also lean a little away from surround sound. Yes, I said it.

And you can't UNsay it...

Shocking. Deplorable even. You're wrong.

Is Cameron still Canadian or is he just ex-Canadian? I'll have to Google this incident- sounds not-very-juicy-but-trumped-up-with-reactionary-hype.

Well, it's not like he lives here or anything, but, yeah, Canadian citizen still, I believe. His brother (the engineer/camera nerd) is in the Niagara region

Oh, and he's got a philosophy degree. So, kudos for that.

relavent article from Canadian paper: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/A...537/story.html

TMZ splling of beans: http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/25/james-...hole-dispute/3

I think it's a pretty bad scene, and certainly nobody comes out right (no, Cameron doesn't "owe" the autograph, but it certainly also would hurt him - he's going to lose out on the Ebay proceeds?) But, yeah. Amusing.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

TMZ splling of beans: http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/25/james-...hole-dispute/3

I think it's a pretty bad scene, and certainly nobody comes out right (no, Cameron doesn't "owe" the autograph, but it certainly also would hurt him - he's going to lose out on the Ebay proceeds?) But, yeah. Amusing.

The dude is a autograph seller. Cameron should have slapped him while he was at it.

[Jeff Kleist]

Yeah, I knew he looked familiar. Cameron probably A- didn't want to be bothered in his private time, and B- knew who the guy was. I'd bet the guy wasn't too polite when he asked either.

No one hangs around an airport with a poster

On the whole D-Box thing, I think those movie motion chair rides are fun. I don't think they have a point in something with a story except for "how long can you not puke" contests during Master and Commander

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

How about shaking the damn seat.
Yeah or Nay?

For me,

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Well, it's not like he lives here or anything, but, yeah, Canadian citizen still, I believe. His brother (the engineer/camera nerd) is in the Niagara region

Oh, and he's got a philosophy degree. So, kudos for that.

relavent article from Canadian paper: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/A...537/story.html

TMZ splling of beans: http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/25/james-...hole-dispute/3

I think it's a pretty bad scene, and certainly nobody comes out right (no, Cameron doesn't "owe" the autograph, but it certainly also would hurt him - he's going to lose out on the Ebay proceeds?) But, yeah. Amusing.

Well, maybe I’m a simple man and of the dialog that I can make out from the clip, it seems to me that Jim respectfully declined to sign (even addressing the person as “Sir” – which to me, was probably being kind to the guys true station in life, given his hanging out at LAX with poster in hand, as Peter and Jeff have indicated), and then, the *autograph seeker* couldn’t take no for an answer, so he followed and pursued Jim, which to me constitutes harassment. Mild, yes but still the *autograph seeker* was not respecting Jim’s wishes and just turned poster paparazzi on him, ‘fan’ or not.

Put it this way, if at your local watering hole, suppose your sister is standing at the bar and a guy comes up to buy her a drink because he admires how attractive she looks and says so…..she respectfully declines and then walks to the end of the bar to get away . The guy proceeds to follow her and bugs her again about it.

How would you like that?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Ok, I'll bite... do -you- prefer D-box screenings? Got D-box in your own HT?

You know, I haven’t tried it and given the fact that I have access to private screenings (non-D-BOX seats), I haven’t been to a public Mulitplex in years because of the cell phone stuff, texting, people talking, body noises, etc.

I was just thinking that maybe these D-BOX seats would be the only thing that could possibly pry me out of the comfort and ambience of my Home Theater because it would literally distract me from the surrounding audience distractions ……..esp. if I 'turned the knob' up to 10 !

[sharkshark]

...What, they don't go up to 11?

Incidentally, God bless Criterion... just got through "For All Mankind", a film I'd never seen... what a wonderful presentation, a film purchased strictly because it was part of their collection... yet another film from their vast array that made me take notice, and realize that it's not "just another space doc"

It's simply sublime.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

body noises

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

And you can't UNsay it...

Shocking. Deplorable even. You're wrong.

I do want to clarify, though, that this doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the surround sound that filmmakers make a part of their films- I do prefer to reproduce their films the way they want them presented. By the same token, if there were a movie that I loved enough to want to own it and watch it at home and the director insisted that D-Box was a vital part of its artistic vision... well, I guess I'd probably want to get a D-Box unit to better reproduce it at home.

However, what I meant is that were I to direct films, I expect my own products would tend to be a little closer to Woody Allen's in sound-design. Not mono, but possibly screen-plane only, if they'd let me get away with it.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I do want to clarify, though, that this doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the surround sound that filmmakers make a part of their films- I do prefer to reproduce their films the way they want them presented. By the same token, if there were a movie that I loved enough to want to own it and watch it at home and the director insisted that D-Box was a vital part of its artistic vision... well, I guess I'd probably want to get a D-Box unit to better reproduce it at home.

However, what I meant is that were I to direct films, I expect my own products would tend to be a little closer to Woody Allen's in sound-design. Not mono, but possibly screen-plane only, if they'd let me get away with it.

Fair enough...

BTW, you have an SACD player? If so, find/buy/steal the Kind of Blue disc to hear how lovely a descrete 3ch Mix (with -very- moderate surrounds added from the original 3ch mix) can be used in a musical context.

We agree that lovely 7.1 lossless mixes for crap films do not make up for the crapitude, and that some of the finest films ever made were either "silent" (with music, no film was ever truly silent), or of course Mono.

[sharkshark]

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Announced/3998

Yup, should lead to some interesting comparisons, eh?

(and, yeah, Penton... BD.com has the link too: https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3969, but this time they were later to the game...)

I still think the film was a bit of a mess, overly long and tedious (ditto for the weak Aviator, making the Departed all the more wickedamazing for me to see a return to form.)

Alas, from all I've heard, the silly Island of Doctor Crazypants that's delayed 'till the Spring is as boring and predictable as the trailer makes it out to be.

Bless Marty, like Francis the maker of some of the best AND some of the worst films ever made (I'm looking at you, After Hours/Supernova!)

[chris0]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Bless Marty, like Francis the maker of some of the best AND some of the worst films ever made (I'm looking at you, After Hours/Supernova!)

What!? I hope you're not saying that "After Hours" is a bad movie. Such a funny movie, one of my favorites.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

To be fair I think Penton was at the theater that sells Chili Con Carne at the concession stand.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Announced/3998

Yup, should lead to some interesting comparisons, eh?

(and, yeah, Penton... BD.com has the link too: https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3969...........

I wouldn’t know and the Mouse House is closed down until Jan. 4 so if you guys want Jeff Kleist to reconfirm his re-confirmation (what would that be now Jeff, a third time to do so?) that the upcoming disc is not a new encode originating from a new video master, then you’ll probably have to wait until next week.

Since I haven’t watched that motion picture on Blu-ray yet, refresh my memory, isn’t GoNY a poster child for sharpening gone wild……specifically, at the mastering and/or compressionist level?

This actually brings up the videophile condemnation pet peeve of “EE”, which has developed quite the bad boy image on the audiovideo forums due to its blatant over-usage during the days of DVD and post house mastering with small CRT displays. I really don’t care too much about that aspect of digital tweaking because we don’t have that problem and thanks to the endless conversation about the topic, I think that some people have become so over-sensitized to the appearance of sharpening that they literally spend time during the movie examining the outlines of people and objects, specifically searching for halos (despite adamantly denying ever doing so and claiming to be “distracted” during “normal” movie watching with their "obvious" presence).

Plus, the pendulum has swung so far, that I know of at least one specific example in which a motion picture has been accused of having *artificial sharpening* due to its apparent ‘edginess’ when in fact no such digital post production enhancement was ever utilized (nor at the mastering or compressionist level, for that matter) and viewers were simply responding to the clinical nature of super sharp unfiltered Ultra or Master Primes, something of which they were apparently not used to seeing because there’s a different geometry to the focal plane on some lenses compared to that of how the eyes see.

I’m more interested in the more esoteric topic in which filmmakers direct the digital colorist to apply sharpening purposely during the post production process (of a DI) and the whys and wherefores of that issue since it happens rather infrequently because as far as sharpness goes, cinematographers and Directors are much more inclined to spend their time making their images softer, either in-camera or in post with diffusion.

So, when that digital enhancement is purposely employed by the filmmaker, does anyone know why he has made that stylistic decision?
In other words, what type of ‘look’ is he trying to achieve?

For instance, I saw a theatrical screening of The Road (fine film, imho) several weeks ago and there was unmistakable evidence of digital sharpening.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Bless Marty....

because at his specific request, Grover was a last minute substitute for the Q&A with Marty at Blu-Con 2.0.
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3645

That is quite an honor for Martin Scorsese to specifically ask for you , when there are oh so many technically talented to choose from in Hollywood.
The icing on the cake was that Mr. Scorsese was happy with the outcome.

b.t.w. shark, try to find that ^ inside info on some other internet forum
other than Blu-ray.com.