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

[Jeff Kleist]

Penton doesn't work for Disney
Daft Punk is doing the score

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Bobby, it’s not quite the same. Even though the Digital Intermediate process can aide in the aesthetic of the final imagery, you can’t get ‘shinola’ out of ‘shite’ if that is what the digital colorist is given to work with in collaboration with the D.P., who generally sits in on all the sessions, or at the very minimum, is physically present at all those of critical importance (at rates of about $500. or more/per hour at the premier post houses).

That's true about the "garbage in = garbage out" problem. I deal with that all the time in graphics work when having to utilize artwork from other people. Some know how to do the job right while most don't know what they're doing.

I'm at least under the impression far more cinematographers and camera operators given jobs on major studio features are at least very competent if not downright great at their work. That's going to cut down the frequency of a DI colorist receiving 35mm negatives full of dim, blurry garbage.

Digital intermediate can take the look of a well photographed 35mm image bursting with brilliant color and sharp detail and make it look extremely different. That was plainly obvious with O Brother, Where Art Thou?. The imagery on that film's original negative looks very different from the finished digital intermediate.

My point about live action movies being increasingly artificial involves more than just digital intermediate. 3D CGI and effects composting systems (such as Inferno) or software packages (Fusion, Shake, After Effects) have been used extensively on hundreds of live action movies. Some movies (such as Sin City or 300) have been produced entirely with actors composited into virtual sets. All of those various techniques blur the line between movies that are all-CGI and others we think are all live action.

As I said before, I agree that Avatar was not the best choice for winning the cinematography Oscar. If the choice was up to me, I would have picked at least three of the other nominees before picking Avatar.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

“CGI lighting” (if you want to call it that) is not at all correlated to real world Cinematographer lighting techniques. It involves a completely different set of skills often performed by a team of personnel that may ultimately have little collaboration with the D.P.

I think it's a mistake for a D.P. not to be involved with the CGI, DI and compositing work on a feature because all of that stuff does make use of light and color which falls into the dept. of the D.P. The tools are different. Engineers often have to develop custom software and new "shaders" to achieve the desired look which often works to imitate the look of film, even down to imitating the look of anamorphic 'scope in the case of Wall•E. The look of the end result is all that matters, and the D.P. needs to be involved with that.

It is interesting Pixar has someone tasked with the job of "Director of Photography" on the company's animated features.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Penton doesn't work for Disney
Daft Punk is doing the score

Yep, I know, but I thought he had something invested in this when he mentioned something about a four-letter franchise. Or did I feed the wrong key into my decoder ring?

[Jeff Kleist]

Yep, I know, but I thought he had something invested in this when he mentioned something about a four-letter franchise. Or did I feed the wrong key into my decoder ring?

Well, the only work I can see Sony doing on it is imageworks handling some VFX work I could be wrong mind you. And yes they should let Wendy pen some tunes. Daft Punk is a great choice, but it won't hurt to give her something

[micks_address]

well i dont mind buying a new tv in a couple of years (i have upgaditis major for a new tv but figure now is not the time to buy until 3d gets established)... but when i bought my blu-ray player and receiver and ps3... i thought i was getting the best i could get out of content.. i dont want to have to buy a new receiver.. my denon does all the HD audio codecs. the ps3 is probably going to be ok for 3d.. my Oppo probably wont do 3d.. but thats ok.. i can live with the fan noise from the ps3 for the relatively small number of 3d titles i'll own in comparison to 2d ones..

hopefully there will be a solution i can use to route the hdmi for audio through my receiver and hdmi for video to my tv directly for 3d?

cheers,
mick

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I quickly scanned some of the comments whining about the 3D news items of today.
When you boil it down, it seems to me like a lot of forum members are fundamentally suffering from *upgraditis fatigue*.

Oh well……..there’s always Joe6Pack in your local neighborhood who doesn’t read any audiovideo forums at all and chances are he/she is a sports fanatic of some kind.

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I quickly scanned some of the comments whining about the 3D news items of today.
When you boil it down, it seems to me like a lot of forum members are fundamentally suffering from *upgraditis fatigue*.

Oh well……..there’s always Joe6Pack in your local neighborhood who doesn’t read any audiovideo forums at all and chances are he/she is a sports fanatic of some kind.

Think we have a winner here.
But it makes sense I know many here were early adopters including myself. And since Blu has come out I have bought 3 players upgraded 2 tvs and bought a new receiver. So for me to go and buy more stuff just to be able to watch afew things in 3D, when it gives me a headache anyway, does not make alot of sense.

I am one of those that when it comes time to do my next round of upgrades I will get 3D I am sure since that is what will be avail. But if the premium is too high and I have another option I might just take it.

As to sports atleast for me once I get back into the So Cal area I will be getting my Kings season tickets back to watch my sports live. What a year to have moved when they are going back to the playoffs. O well what can you do.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

How 'bout those Gunners last night.

It's hottin' up a little, ain't it?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

Think we have a winner here.
But it makes sense I know many here were early adopters including myself. And since Blu has come out I have bought 3 players upgraded 2 tvs and bought a new receiver. So for me to go and buy more stuff just to be able to watch afew things in 3D, when it gives me a headache anyway....

Well that’s not good.
You get headaches even watching a conservative Depth Script like AVATAR?

I would suggest re-watching AVATAR at your local Cineplex while sitting dead center to the screen and in one of the back rows (the last if possible) and see if happens again. At least, Sony Electronics is attempting to address this potential home situation with younger viewers who may not be cognizant of the pitfalls related to the too close viewing of good 3D content.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/03/...yre-too-close/

One of the reps from the past CES –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc2zq...=youtube_gdata

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

As to sports atleast for me once I get back into the So Cal area I will be getting my Kings season tickets back to watch my sports live. What a year to have moved when they are going back to the playoffs. O well what can you do.

This came across my desk late last night.

When you return and hockey season is over, if you venture out to commercial theaters, might I suggest caution (this recommendation applies esp. to SquidPuppet), whenever confronting noisy patrons talking on the cell phones during a movie………….

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...er-at-a-movie/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's hottin' up a little, ain't it?

I personally found it surprising that Real got knocked out.
Isn’t the Final supposed to be played in their home stadium?

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's hottin' up a little, ain't it?

Great performance.
Nasri's goal......

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I personally found it surprising that Real got knocked out.
Isn’t the Final supposed to be played in their home stadium?

Correct.
And consider they spent about €240m (at the time, about $340m) on new players last Summer, surely heads will roll??

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I personally found it surprising that Real got knocked out.

Surprising? A little.

Disappointing? Naah!

[JimSD]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

This came across my desk late last night.

When you return and hockey season is over, if you venture out to commercial theaters, might I suggest caution (this recommendation applies esp. to SquidPuppet), whenever confronting noisy patrons talking on the cell phones during a movie………….

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...er-at-a-movie/

Who brings a meat thermometer to the movies?

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well that’s not good.
You get headaches even watching a conservative Depth Script like AVATAR?

I would suggest re-watching AVATAR at your local Cineplex while sitting dead center to the screen and in one of the back rows (the last if possible) and see if happens again. At least, Sony Electronics is attempting to address this potential home situation with younger viewers who may not be cognizant of the pitfalls related to the too close viewing of good 3D content.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/03/...yre-too-close/

One of the reps from the past CES –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc2zq...=youtube_gdata

I will try that. I have not gone and seen it in 3D since I do get headaches. The last thing I saw was about three years ago at the El Capitan first row of the balcony and dead center. It was Nightmare Before Christmas. I do try and give 3D a try every few years just to make sure. But I will never sit first row for a movie. I will always try and get my seat dead center of the theater.
But even something like the Toy Story ride at Caifornia Adventure if I ride it more than once in a few hour time span it will give me a headache.

[Jeff Kleist]

This is the kid of thing I mentioned before. Perhaps the is a way to make a different "prescription" glasses to compensate?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

I will try that. I have not gone and seen it in 3D since I do get headaches. The last thing I saw was about three years ago at the El Capitan first row of the balcony and dead center. It was Nightmare Before Christmas. I do try and give 3D a try every few years just to make sure. But I will never sit first row for a movie. I will always try and get my seat dead center of the theater.
But even something like the Toy Story ride at Caifornia Adventure if I ride it more than once in a few hour time span it will give me a headache.

You wear glasses? That's often a contributing factor.

If you're going to give 3D a shot, Avatar (as terrible a film as it is) is certainly one worth trying again for. Your Nightmare Before X-mas experience was a cheat, as it was originally shot in 2D.

Several key things:

- See it in Imax, if you still can. If you're going once, it's certainly the way to go

- Sit in the middle. Sounds simple, but most look towards the screen. Look back to the projection windows and line up that way

- Sit =close= to the back... As Penton said, the further back, the better the 3D experience. That said, when watching 3D the screen actually appears smaller (even the giant Imax screen!), so you want to balance it. My sweet spot at my local Imax theatre is almost always dead center, 6 rows from the top (Imax surround speakers are tucked in the corners, so back against the back wall kills some of the immersiveness of the rear channel). For my two screenings of Avatar, I sat one row closer. If you're worried about being ill, move a few rows back.

- Make sure you get a clean/clear pair of glasses! I was "that guy", after getting my seat trading in my goggles until I got a set that was clear, free from obvious scratches, and without any obvious distortion of the lens. You'd be amazed how some of them are (much) better than others

- In Imax, they use a different kind of polarization than RealD - it's MUCH more important that you keep your head level. Lean back in your chair, relax your neck, and try and keep it from knocking side-to-side

finally, if you have glasses, make sure that you push them closer to your own lenses, and make sure your own glasses are clean. You run the risk of getting internal reflections, and that can be super annoying.

At home, this will be a whole 'nother ball of wax, but, again, if you're -ever- to see Avatar (and it's worth watching, once, and certainly will be a pathetic, inferior presentation at home regardless of your setup), go see it in 3D Imax if you still can and give the tech another shot.

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

You wear glasses? That's often a contributing factor.

If you're going to give 3D a shot, Avatar (as terrible a film as it is) is certainly one worth trying again for. Your Nightmare Before X-mas experience was a cheat, as it was originally shot in 2D.

Several key things:

- See it in Imax, if you still can. If you're going once, it's certainly the way to go

- Sit in the middle. Sounds simple, but most look towards the screen. Look back to the projection windows and line up that way

- Sit =close= to the back... As Penton said, the further back, the better the 3D experience. That said, when watching 3D the screen actually appears smaller (even the giant Imax screen!), so you want to balance it. My sweet spot at my local Imax theatre is almost always dead center, 6 rows from the top (Imax surround speakers are tucked in the corners, so back against the back wall kills some of the immersiveness of the rear channel). For my two screenings of Avatar, I sat one row closer. If you're worried about being ill, move a few rows back.

- Make sure you get a clean/clear pair of glasses! I was "that guy", after getting my seat trading in my goggles until I got a set that was clear, free from obvious scratches, and without any obvious distortion of the lens. You'd be amazed how some of them are (much) better than others

- In Imax, they use a different kind of polarization than RealD - it's MUCH more important that you keep your head level. Lean back in your chair, relax your neck, and try and keep it from knocking side-to-side

finally, if you have glasses, make sure that you push them closer to your own lenses, and make sure your own glasses are clean. You run the risk of getting internal reflections, and that can be super annoying.

At home, this will be a whole 'nother ball of wax, but, again, if you're -ever- to see Avatar (and it's worth watching, once, and certainly will be a pathetic, inferior presentation at home regardless of your setup), go see it in 3D Imax if you still can and give the tech another shot.

Thanks for the tips but sadly IMAX is not going to happen. Nearest one is about 4 hours away. I feel like I have been banished. Was in so cal my whole life and for family reasons moved to sothern oregon. So I donot have everything, or for that matter much of anything, nearby.

Yes I do wear glasses and I do make sure they are clean.

If I could have seen it at IMAX I prob would have seen Avatar in 3D to have givven it another chance.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

Thanks for the tips but sadly IMAX is not going to happen. Nearest one is about 4 hours away. I feel like I have been banished. Was in so cal my whole life and for family reasons moved to sothern oregon. So I donot have everything, or for that matter much of anything, nearby.

Yes I do wear glasses and I do make sure they are clean.

If I could have seen it at IMAX I prob would have seen Avatar in 3D to have givven it another chance.

Sorry, missed that you had seen it already in 2D.

Can't speak for Southern Oregon (as Colbert puts it, "the Canada of California"), but I really do go as far as saying that the -entire- pleasure from the film, from what little there is, is from the visual/audio presentation, and that Imax is, quite simply, miles better than you'll ever get. That said, if there's a top-notch digital 3D presentation near you, my comments still hold - in a multiplex sitting back row would be super far back, but definitely the rest holds, making sure the lenses are clear, and that you sit dead centre.

You have contacts? I'm telling you, it makes a huge difference...

(ps. and, yeah, this should not be this much of a pain in the butt... but, well, that's why I showed up 2+ hours early for my Imax screenings)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

I will try that. I have not gone and seen it in 3D since I do get headaches. The last thing I saw was about three years ago at the El Capitan first row of the balcony and dead center. It was Nightmare Before Christmas. I do try and give 3D a try every few years just to make sure. But I will never sit first row for a movie. I will always try and get my seat dead center of the theater.
But even something like the Toy Story ride at Caifornia Adventure if I ride it more than once in a few hour time span it will give me a headache.

That’s not really too bad because it doesn’t affect your normal daily life.
I know of a charming, beautiful lady in our neighborhood who will inevitably vomit while driving in heavy traffic (it doesn’t matter if she is the driver or not) within 10–30min. of the "being exposed". Believe me, my wife still has a residual stain in her car carpeting to prove it.

It has affected this lady’s life so much, that it caused her to move within a couple miles of her place of employment and now all she deals with is the local traffic, which is very light, and doesn’t cause her any nausea leading to a vomiting episode, although she does tell me then when she receives her property tax bill in the mail every year, she feels like a good barf would be in order.

I don’t know what the Parallax Scoring Graph (Depth Script) looks like for Nightmare Before Christmas so I can’t help you there but, I would say that odds are AVATAR shouldn’t bother you if you sit far enough away from the screen. Initially, you’re going to probably have some filmmakers and stereographers who will desire to maximize the 3D effect with ‘aggressive’ 3D techniques, most likely in the horror genre but, as more experience is gained I think that everyone in the industry will come around to the notion of not risking the prolonged viability of the 3D format and cater more toward a subtle effect like Jim Cameron did. This notion will be expressed at the upcoming Summit in a few weeks…….
http://www.smpte.org/events/smpte_nab/2010DCS/

Ultimately, in the long run, it would be self-destructive for filmmakers, content providers and consumer electronics companies to market stuff knowingly, which can produce a deleterious effect to a significant portion of the ‘normal’ population such as a plethora of scenes which cut rapidly and repetitively in and out of the screen.

They’re not going to cut their own throats.