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

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Well, I happen to have suffered through 3 of these titles from Germany and a few more from the rest of Europe- it is a stupid practice that has got to stop.

Do you know for sure that they weren't shot at 25 fps?

Also it is annoying how many titles have a 24.000 instead of 23.976 framerate - especially with a HTPC the frame rate has to be adjusted for all these titles and it is just not necessary to have 24.000 framerates when the vast majority of titles is 23.976 - get with the program and use 23.976 already !

What was the original frame rate?

@Penton:
Is there some kind of organisation or annual meetings where smaller companies can be reminded to use the same framerates for movies as all other studios ?

Why should studios be forced to shoot at particular frame rates or frame rate convert 50i SD or HD extras because certain TV and player manufacturers in the USA purposely disable compatibility with the original rate?

What's worse is TV shows continuing to be released slowed down by over 4% or converted from 50i to 60i because of continued lack of support (disabling of support) by some player and TV manufacturers in the USA, but initially in Europe too, yet the DVD gets released correctly. I would like to know - is this always going to be the case for European releases on Blu-ray and are the player & TV manufactures in the USA (ie. Sony) who still don't support the original rates never going to?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

Excuse me, but LOL.

If you think movie subs are done with only a fragment of the care and nuance that goes into a faithful translation of literature, you're very wrong.

To be quite clear, I watch most movies of US/UK origin in English because I understand it well enough, but I often add English subs for the relatively rare occasion when I do not get what is said (some actors like to mumble...) – and not even the English subs are verbatim! Sentences are simplified and shortened all the time, especially when there is a lot of fast dialogue. And when I use german subs, the translation is mostly very bad, and usually absolutely worse than the translation done for the German dub – which, again, is usually very sophisticated and done with great care.

These are arguments against bad subtitles, not in favour of dubbing. Let's ignore the likes of GI Joe (which, frankly, can be watched in any language as the plot couldn't be more opaque) and take the "Mona Lisa"-style films, the stuff that Criterion tends to put out. Would you rather watch Kane without Welles' voice? Do you not feel that the Swedish intonation adds to the mood of Seventh Seal? How about musicals? Would you dub new singers onto Wizard of Oz? Got any German Judy Garlands kicking around (that aren't, say, dudes in drag singing on the Reeperbahn)? How about Umbrellas of Cherbourg without Deneuve?

Hell, take some more contemporary films, like Amelie (with Tatou's sweet, warm voice), or even Chasing Amy (shout out to Vincent!) - she may have broken Kevin's heart off-set, but the film's charms are enormously helped with the timbre of Joey Lauren Adams' voice.

At any rate, I'm unlikely to convince you, just as logic and passion for films presented according to director's intent have done little to curb the sales of pan-and-scan DVDs (what changed was the shape of the average TV, and now we've got people complaining about broken sets when watching 2:35).

It's such a strange, linguistic chauvinism to prefer one's own language to the language of origin of the film. Repeating what I said before, there's lots here in North America that would never watch a "foreign" film with subs (hell, ever see a Sony Picture Classics trailer for a non-English film? there's rarely ANY dialogue, just shots of people smiling and crying, and the only people that'll see it in the first place will be art house patrons!). For any serious film fan over here, these are the "unwashed masses", the same that travel to Europe with their white socks and sandals and, when not understood, simply speak slower and louder as they shout their preference for Hamburgers and Coke.

It all comes down to whether you think cinema is an artform (like literature) or is merely a simple pastime. I do think that Kane and Lawrence of Arabia are of a kind with the Mona Lisa and the Odyssey, and respect them as such.

Your argument about something as trifling as GI Joe is appreciated, but even in the case of stupid action movies (think Jackie Chan, where he even does his -own- dubbing) I'd seek out the original track, and would encourage others to do so.

[Jeff Kleist]

No matter how often you repeat it, it's just not true (at least for Germann dubs). How can there be "whirlwind casting sessions" like you describe when all major actors (and most minor actors) have always the same dub artist do their "german voice"? It's an industry, it's highly professional, and while from a purist point of view it may be kinda wrong, it just feels weirdly right...

Yes, because there's about 2 companies that handle these things, and there's a desire fir consustancy, just like I mentioned the same guy dubs james bond no matter who is onscreen

Also, I would question how many of the movies that are done (or have been done) actually have the artistic merit to justify this purism, let alone comparisons to Homer, the Mona Lisa et al. that have been brought up in this very thread. Trust me, G.I Joe in German is just as good/bad/hilarious as in English. FWIW, some actors' performances gain from a different voice... believe it or not, but in German, Keanu Reeves does not seem that wooden after all..

What's left of it anyway. Whether it' Battlefield Earth or Citizen Kane, the same right to integrity stands

If peole notice the two dub defenders come from the places I mentioned in my original post, where dubbing is institutionalized in the culture.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

For any serious film fan over here, these are the "unwashed masses", the same that travel to Europe with their white socks and sandals and, when not understood, simply speak slower and louder as they shout their preference for Hamburgers and Coke.

... and singing, "Torremolinos! Torremolinos!" and drinking Watney's Red Barrel and complaining about the food. "Ooh- they don't make it right, here, do they?"...









Yes, anywhere else I would've just committed social suicide.

[Eternal_Sunshine]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

These are arguments against bad subtitles, not in favour of dubbing.

No, it's an evaluation of the reality of subs and dubs as they exist today and will very probably remain vs. your fantasy subs done with care and finesse.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Let's ignore the likes of GI Joe (which, frankly, can be watched in any language as the plot couldn't be more opaque) and take the "Mona Lisa"-style films, the stuff that Criterion tends to put out.

I chose one extreme for a reason, you choose the other extreme for the same reason: to put your point across. Most films are in the grey area inbetween, and probably closer to the example I gave.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Hell, take some more contemporary films, like (...) Chasing Amy (shout out to Vincent!) - she may have broken Kevin's heart off-set, but the film's charms are enormously helped with the timbre of Joey Lauren Adams' voice.

Funny you should bring that example up as I watched Chasing Amy (in English with subs!) just two weeks ago. The female leads voice was the most annoying thing about it for me, actually.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

At any rate, I'm unlikely to convince you

You don't have to convince me, because, if you read my posts, you will see that I have been saying from the start that watching films in the original language is certainly the best way and that I actually do watch most films that way. Which is one of the reasons why I was one of the folks who nagged Penton to put the subs on Sony Blu-rays inside the picture area where they belong.

All I'm saying is that with dubs as great as those we get over here much less "substance" of the movie is lost than you or Jeff or anyone else who doesn't speak German – and thus is in no position to judge them – are willing to believe.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If peole notice the two dub defenders come from the places I mentioned in my original post, where dubbing is institutionalized in the culture.

Duh. Because dubbing is "institutionalized" here, it's also professional and sophisticated and much better than you'll accept.

[Jeff Kleist]

All I'm saying is that with dubs as great as those we get over here much less "substance" of the movie is lost than you or Jeff or anyone else who doesn't speak German – and thus is in no position to judge them – are willing to believe

I am in a position to tell you how it's done in and for every country in the world, and I seriously doubt that Germany is an exception to that rule. As fast and cheap as possible, even if they do hire the same guy back every time, and by saying that somone else does the part better than the person who actually delivered the performance, you're showing a bias toward familiarity, and not quality.

And my friend in Vienna, who gets all of the same dubs you do complains bitterly about how bad they are all the time. While it's true it's a slightly different dialect there, I figure he's in a position, being a filmmaker and actor himself, to offer a credible position on the subject.

Why don't you call up some of the studios who do the dubbing on Hollywood movies, and ask how long they spend on each step of the process and get back to us?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

So, Socrates taught Plato, Plato Aristotle, and Aristotle Alexander...

What the hell did Alex do with his life?

Thanks for the rundown - I guess I had assumed that they'd make some sort of inter-negative (neg>pos>neg) to scew with to ensure consistant colouration on answer prints, rather than needing to ensure consistancy in the "f'ing with" process of the retention/bypass through thousands of prints.

But, I guess, the quality loss from a 2nd gen negative is worse than managing to replicate a unique development process thousands of times.

hah!, well, I was thinking about a more modern day application of the Socratic method of teaching, such as its current use in law and medical school, i.e. teaching by asking instead of by telling.
You and Vincent probably would have had no trouble at all in the medical school or law school environment as neither of you are intimidated to give answers to my questions in the quest of learning.

There were proprietary silver retention processes available later on (’95) which worked their magic further upstream on the interpositive but, this technique was not used on Minority Report and to the best of my knowledge, only on 2 or 3 motion pictures.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am not the only one that from the time I have seen slapshot in French have never gone back to the English version, most people I know are that way, is everyone wrong because a handful of people on a forum who probably don’t understand French and never saw it refuse to understand such a simple fact?

Anthony, you just evoked slash back memories of this guy….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%2...%22_Goldthorpe

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Penton, this should be your "Post of 2010." Excellent description!

And I ran out of steam before even commenting on the CCE and ACE variants of this process.

[Penton-Man]

I leave for a few hours and I see there is a Clash of the Titans……over dubs.
Has anyone heard of an official announcement from WB regarding that feature film's 3D conversion to capitalize on the current AVATAR 3D craze?
What will those sneaky studio executives think of next?

[Jeff Kleist]

What's worse is TV shows continuing to be released slowed down by over 4% or converted from 50i to 60i because of continued lack of support (disabling of support) by some player and TV manufacturers in the USA, but initially in Europe too, yet the DVD gets released correctly. I would like to know - is this always going to be the case for European releases on Blu-ray and are the player & TV manufactures in the USA (ie. Sony) who still don't support the original rates never going to?

Who is slowing down 4%? I've noticed no difference in speed on the 1080i BBC discs I have from the original broadcast footage, and I definately WOULD notice, since PAL speedup is like nails on chalkboards to me, I'd notice a slowdown as well.

I'd say it's the same reason why CBS released South Park 1080i. The master tapes that they have in the achive are 1080i, and no one directed a change. Remember that most of those shows are being shot and/or mastered 1080i as well, because their target is broadcast.

What you're seeing right now is the death of bad habits, combined with small companies using the broadcast masters they have in their archives instead of paying for new ones (when it comes to films, like Alliance does)

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Who is slowing down 4%?

2 Entertain, E1 Entertainment - not that I have any of the slowed down ones but it's the principle. If the DVD is correct the Blu-ray should be released correctly too.

I've noticed no difference in speed on the 1080i BBC discs I have from the original broadcast footage, and I definately WOULD notice, since PAL speedup is like nails on chalkboards to me, I'd notice a slowdown as well.

It's the European TV programmes that are released as 1080p that have had the 4.096% slowdown, in both the USA and Europe, since European TV is nearly always made/mastered at 25 fps/50i.

But it's shows un-necessarily converted from 50i to 60i (including for the European release) that are a problem too.

What you're seeing right now is the death of bad habits, combined with small companies using the broadcast masters they have in their archives instead of paying for new ones (when it comes to films, like Alliance does)

With European TV shows it's the broadcast masters that are the correct version and what gets released on Blu-ray is often not correct.

If Sony and other Blu-ray player manufactuers would stop disabling the 50hz functionality in their US players (and TVs too) it would mean both the USA and Europe could be given the same correct release.

For example, the Doctor Who Blu-ray "due to very constrained timelines and delivery for both UK and USA was released with a single 1080 59.94i encode for both UK & USA".

Why should European consumers have to choose between correctly encoded standard definition DVDs and the same title incorrectly encoded / format converted to 1080/60i or 24p on Blu-ray?

Wouldn't it be better if all Blu-ray releases were encoded correctly in the native format of the source? All European TVs and players support the original format, and I think all USA TVs and players should too so there wouldn't ever be a need for format conversions and consumers wouldn't ever need to choose between a correct DVD and an unnecessarily format converted Blu-ray.

Another thing is standard definition special features on Blu-ray. Most of these are 480i (NTSC) - including things shot on video in Europe (where PAL is the standard), which is lower than what we'd get on a standard definition PAL DVD (576i) as well as being un-necessarily format converted if the original was PAL.

[Doctorossi]

Yeah, the Doctor Who releases certainly are suffering this fate, so far. It's particularly frustrating for me as my player and my tv can both handle 25p/50i just fine... if they'd just put it on the #&@*% disc!

I need to replace my f'ed-up NA Wallace & Gromet set with the region-free UK version, so "A Matter of Loaf & Death" will play correctly, too.

[Jeff Kleist]

But it's shows un-necessarily converted from 50i to 60i (including for the European release) that are a problem too....For example, the Doctor Who Blu-ray "due to very constrained timelines and delivery for both UK and USA was released with a single 1080 59.94i encode for both UK & USA".

That's them saving money by making one disc for the world. Either way, there's really no difference, just repeating one frame every 5, which is virtually undetectable in motion.

If Sony and other Blu-ray player manufactuers would stop disabling the 50hz functionality in their US players (and TVs too) it would mean both the USA and Europe could be given the same correct release.

Which will never happen, because of differing tariffs and taxes and such, to prevent the importation of US TVs, and because it's a feature with near zero demand outside of a very teeny tiny market here

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

That's them saving money by making one disc for the world. Either way, there's really no difference, just repeating one frame every 5, which is virtually undetectable in motion.

Though it's 50i to 59.94i, which means un-necessary added motion judder or if they use different methods, frames blended together or other motion artefacts. None of which would happen if they were encoded in their original format.

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If Sony and other Blu-ray player manufactuers would stop disabling the 50hz functionality in their US players (and TVs too) it would mean both the USA and Europe could be given the same correct release.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Which will never happen, because of differing tariffs and taxes and such, to prevent the importation of US TVs, and because it's a feature with near zero demand outside of a very teeny tiny market here

You mean because they want to force Europe to always pay a higher price for the same goods as the USA? Is that fair? Is that what's stopping them adding the 50hz capability to their players?

See this page:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-pl...atibility.html

That thread lists 20 US players, of those around 80% can play 50hz titles (some need a 50hz TV) and only 4 player models (20%) don't.

What has Sony got to lose by allowing playback of 50hz on their US players? Someone in the UK wouldn't be able to import one and play all UK titles on it because the region coding of the disc would stop them (if it was region coded). People in the USA would be able to play back European shot content at the correct rate. Studios would only have to release one (correct) version.

So if it's like:
1) Sony decide to disable 50hz playback on their players to prevent European consumers importing USA players from the USA and getting the same fair deal as the USA (which very few people would likely do, and customs charges would probably make them very expensive).

2) European studios, because Sony decided to disable 50hz playback convert the content to 60hz for the USA or Europe too.

3) End result - Both the USA and Europe get a format messed-up encode, if a European consumer did decide to import the USA player, this 60hz disc would work on it anyway (depending on region coding) so preventing 50hz hasn't stopped that. It costs the studios more (especially if they want to do it correctly). Consumers end up with format messed-up discs and have to choose between correctly formatted standard definition DVD and format converted Blu-rays or neither or other ways (like recording it off TV or whatever).

Isn't one of the main reasons for people to buy Blu-ray the increased picture and audio quality? Why would a consumer want to buy a Blu-ray with unnecessarily added format conversion judder or other format conversion picture artefacts (or audio too if it's been slowed down) which weren't on the original broadcast and which aren't on the standard definition DVD?

So for the European consumer the choice is:
1) Standard Defnition DVD - encoded in correct format
2) European broadcast - encoded in correct format (could be recorded on PVR etc)
3) 'Other distribution formats'
4) Blu-ray - encoded in something other than it's original format, with added judder/other conversion artefacts.

Where is the incentive for the European consumer to choose option 4 (other than bitrate and number of pixels) if it's encoded in something other than it's original format with added motion and/or other artefacts?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I leave for a few hours and I see there is a Clash of the Titans……over dubs.
Has anyone heard of an official announcement from WB regarding that feature film's 3D conversion to capitalize on the current AVATAR 3D craze?
What will those sneaky studio executives think of next?

Heh, I have wondered if we're going to finally get a good, archive quality HD master of "Greedo-shoots-first" Star Wars, only to have it only available in reprocessed 3D.

Sigh...


PS. A forthcoming COTT, I worry. The original, as rediculous as it is, was my introduction to Harryhausen as a kid. I still occasionally whip out the laserdisc to be bemused by the guy from LA Law.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

What you're seeing right now is the death of bad habits, combined with small companies using the broadcast masters they have in their archives instead of paying for new ones (when it comes to films, like Alliance does)

oh, don't remind me. And here they are, rolling around on their matresses stuffed with CSI money...

Oh, wait. That's a different division now.

Idiots.

[DenonCI]

PS. A forthcoming COTT, I worry. The original, as rediculous as it is, was my introduction to Harryhausen as a kid. I still occasionally whip out the laserdisc to be bemused by the guy from LA Law.

Wasn't Harryhausen the name of the restaurant in Monsters Inc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Harryhausen

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-02-2...-movie-posters

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I still occasionally whip out the laserdisc to be bemused by the guy from LA Law.

Oh, you mean Ray Harryhamlin?

[Jeff Kleist]

Though it's 50i to 59.94i, which means un-necessary added motion judder or if they use different methods, frames blended together or other motion artefacts. None of which would happen if they were encoded in their original format.

I would challenge you to pick out other version if they were put side by side

You mean because they want to force Europe to always pay a higher price for the same goods as the USA? Is that fair? Is that what's stopping them adding the 50hz capability to their players?

I mean that Europe properly tariffs imports unlike the United States, coupled with the fact that essentially each state has it's own rules, regulations, and tariffs so prices are higher there, and to keep doing business in the territory they need to make sure they sell enough TVs etc. By disabling 50Hz support, they create a major downside to not paying for the Euro version, and discourages grey market imports

What has Sony got to lose by allowing playback of 50hz on their US players? Someone in the UK wouldn't be able to import one and play all UK titles on it because the region coding of the disc would stop them (if it was region coded). People in the USA would be able to play back European shot content at the correct rate. Studios would only have to release one (correct) version.

Europe is awash in modded players. The modders would just have a cheaper player to mod with.

Simply lobby your filmmakers to shoot in 24 or 29.97 and you won't have any more problems. PAL goes to NTSC just fine, it's when you go back that things are horrible. What the presentation framerate is is irrelevant to how a movie is produced (no one chooses a framerate, some older anime and TV shows like The Muppet Show were mastered/shot PAL because of the extra resolution it offered, and knowing that it essentially went virtually seamlessly to NTSC gave them an edge in resolution). Seriously, you're again making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, I wish they were progressive, but as someone that has viewed literal MOUNTAINS of PAL based productions over my lifetime, many of which I saw first in PAL (I had a monitor the local TV station was throwing out that would do both, and a PAL VCR back in the 90s that I would use to watch tapes of UK shows a friend would send me.). Seriously, go find someone to give you a blind taste test, you won't be able to pick one out from the other with any reliability