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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I'm aware of the "absorption," but these would be extant masters, created under NL. I don't believe anything new has been performed.

Well, it’s good to at least know (based on *screenshots*) that ‘New Line’ got the “extant” masters right for TTT and ROTR and only dropped the ball on FOTR.

Robert, I appreciate your input…… I sincerely do given your expertise and connections with people on the WB lot but, my gut feeling tells me that what we’re unfortunately dealing with in FOTR is the same sort of thing (at some step in the process) which we dealt with in Amadeus. I really hope you give this Trilogy a thorough review given all the online ruckus about it and its prominent placement in filmmaking history. Some people actually prefer the theatrical version over the extended version, esp. since P.J. has declared it the definitive version.

As an aside, people keep PMing me that I have been tossing around the 70% quantity as the digital intermediate contribution for FOTR over the past week or so and they’re wondering if I pulled that number out of the sky or if it is truly accurate.

I checked on that (if only to confirm to myself that I still have a good memory for dem numbers) and the exact figure is 78%......according to the Digital Colorist that did the original work (which was scanned at 2k resolution).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I'm aware of the "absorption," but these would be extant masters, created under NL. I don't believe anything new has been performed.

Is it possible that they will make new masters for the extended editions? I feel a little cheated that older masters were used for the theatrical cuts. I could understand not wanting to go to the expense for films with less sales potential, but for LOTR?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Shark, I luv you bud but Monkey is exactly correct in regards to Baraka. You must have missed some of the *screenshot analysis* or, the perpetrator has since deleted them.

Lots going back and forth here, the issue wasnt' whether Monkey was right about quoting re: Baraka - I've referenced it myself, suggesting that it doesn't necessarily matter to the consumer -why- it looks funny, but, sharing Oliver K's sentiment, that on a title where it was sold at the best possible looking title every, ever little quibble would inevitably be put under a microscope. This is different from other titles that have generated much discussion, be it Patton or BSD.

Still, the point remains - Monkey doesn't care for Lebowski. It's for that he's being taunted, mercilessly at that.

But, still, it's time to stop... Besides, sometimes the bear, he eats you...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Is it possible that they will make new masters for the extended editions? I feel a little cheated that older masters were used for the theatrical cuts. I could understand not wanting to go to the expense for films with less sales potential, but for LOTR?

Making Blu-ray discs is a many step process, but the key steps are film transfer/digital intermediate to create an HD master, compression for audio and video, authoring including menu artwork, and replication. I think people are throwing around the term “master” rather haphazardly and this is leading to some confusion.

To make it overly simplified, there are two types of “masters”. For one, an HD master, like for instance a Sony HDCAM SR 4:4:4, or something of lesser quality like a 4:2:2 YUV master on HD-D5. Further upstream as a source, if the motion picture had a complete digital intermediate performed or had a complete SCAN (most commonly 2k or 4k) of the film elements then that may be referred to as the digital master (D1) or even film master by some.

I will say that almost invariably when personnel in the home video depts. of a studio (which make your Blu-rays in-house at places like Sony and WB) throw around the term “master” without further specificity, they mean the HD master or “video master”, so maybe all you folks should also think of the word “master” in that context also…….at least so everyone is on the same nomenclature page and we don’t get into discussions regarding semantics.

Jeff has already recently mentioned that people at WB have told him that several new “masters” were produced for LOTR until they settled on their final choice(s)……….one would naturally assume that they did new “masters” for all three films, or at least for the oldest film of the bunch, given interim advances in technology over the years. And I have no reason to doubt what Jeff has communicated to us is untrue as he’s got little rats scattered around WB……at least at the technician, managerial level. So, perhaps the question you should be asking Robert, so there is absolutely no misunderstanding, is whether or not WB would do new “digital masters” for the extended editions which would require new 2k or 4k scans.

Or, perhaps if after viewing and reviewing the LOTR Blu-rays and speaking with folks over at WHV, Robert believes Jeff’s sources were mis-communicating with him in some way about new masters being made last year. For instance, they took an old archival HD master or even a dupe HD master and performed a video *restoration* or remastering of that to make their “new” HD masters.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...

As an aside, people keep PMing me that I have been tossing around the 70% quantity as the digital intermediate contribution for FOTR over the past week or so and they’re wondering if I pulled that number out of the sky or if it is truly accurate.

I checked on that (if only to confirm to myself that I still have a good memory for dem numbers) and the exact figure is 78%......according to the Digital Colorist that did the original work (which was scanned at 2k resolution).

I remember that 70% figure from around the time the first film opened theatrically. It might have come from an American Cinematographer piece, I'm not sure, but the figure always stuck in my head. I think it's repeated in the supplements on the 4-disc extended edition of FELLOWSHIP, as well. I wonder if the 78% figure includes the additions to the extended cut, since presumably all of that added material would have been DI.

Vincent

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

at least so everyone is on the same nomenclature page and we don’t get into discussions regarding semantics.

Here it is, Passover, and we see that Penton is anti-semantic.

Typical Hollywood elite, indeed.



Oh, and good post... I'm all for nomenclatorial specificity, and I had asked, in my own clumsy way, for what Jeff meant/his sources as it seems clear there's a disconnect about just where things have gone awry...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Making Blu-ray discs is a many step process, but the key steps are film transfer/digital intermediate to create an HD master, compression for audio and video, authoring including menu artwork, and replication. I think people are throwing around the term “master” rather haphazardly and this is leading to some confusion.

Thank you for the response and clarification, Penton. Now I have a better idea of what the term master means in different contexts.

[micks_address]

i know it may not be popular but i prefer the orignal cuts.. and i'll be picking up the trilogy friday... i put on the fellowship on dvd a few weeks ago and i couldnt believed how bad it looked on my setup ( Oppo BD83, Sony Bravia 40" 1080p LCD ISF calibrated) so i'd be amazed if i dont see a huge improvement... i'm hoping that it will look just swell at 40" and that the flaws mentioned only become more apparent at larger screen sizes..

That said.. if it is blunder.. the recent re releases of titles like Gangs of New York.. and the oft mentioned re release of Gladiator (has this been confirmed?) give me confidence that we will see better product down the line..

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, it’s good to at least know (based on *screenshots*) that ‘New Line’ got the “extant” masters right for TTT and ROTR and only dropped the ball on FOTR.

Robert, I appreciate your input…… I sincerely do given your expertise and connections with people on the WB lot but, my gut feeling tells me that what we’re unfortunately dealing with in FOTR is the same sort of thing (at some step in the process) which we dealt with in Amadeus. I really hope you give this Trilogy a thorough review given all the online ruckus about it and its prominent placement in filmmaking history. Some people actually prefer the theatrical version over the extended version, esp. since P.J. has declared it the definitive version.

As an aside, people keep PMing me that I have been tossing around the 70% quantity as the digital intermediate contribution for FOTR over the past week or so and they’re wondering if I pulled that number out of the sky or if it is truly accurate.

I checked on that (if only to confirm to myself that I still have a good memory for dem numbers) and the exact figure is 78%......according to the Digital Colorist that did the original work (which was scanned at 2k resolution).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by micks_address

i put on the fellowship on dvd a few weeks ago and i couldnt believed how bad it looked on my setup

Do the other two films look as bad on your setup? Going from memory (most of my DVD collection was stolen by burglars two years ago), even on DVD the first film looked the worst.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

... And I have no reason to doubt what Jeff has communicated to us is untrue as he’s got little rats scattered around WB…

I suspect you meant to say something more along the lines of:
"I have no reason to doubt that ... is true"
or
"I have no reason to suspect that ... is untrue"
In the context of the whole paragraph, you seem to state that Jeff is reliable, but the actual phrase suggests otherwise.

It's a picky little semantic point, but it bothered me when I first read it.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, perhaps the question you should be asking Robert, so there is absolutely no misunderstanding, is whether or not WB would do new “digital masters” for the extended editions which would require new 2k or 4k scans.

I have not discussed this with anyone at WB, but may if they are open to it.

One of the more interesting archival problems that may be coming to the fore with this release, can best be examined with a couple of simple questions.

If a production is substantially DI, with all fx being produced in 2k, how does one create a 4k scan? If one then remains in 2k out of necessity, and those 2k files have a bit of bottle age to them, will they appear to be lower resolution or noisier than current 2k images?

We began using digital restoration techniques in 1994 on My Fair Lady -- in 2k. Scanning 65mm frames in 2k, doing necessary digital work and then recording out to 35/8 -- there were no high quality 65mm recorders at the time. The files produced now appear as they did in 1994 -- undeniably soft. We are now working at 16 x that resolution for 65mm.

As to the production of new (video) masters when going to Blu-ray, it is an unfortunate situation that some of the studios cling to their old (video) masters and attempt to wring every last use out of them. If these elements were easily identifiable and placed on display, some studio vaults would look akin to the streets of Cuba, filled with the likes of 1957 DeSotos.

It is an unfortunate fact that while the Blu-ray technology has the capability to recreate the look of film in a home theater environment, some of the studios are not yet in position to provide the necessary quality except on new productions.

RAH

[micks_address]

i didnt watch the others but i've since given them away in aticipation of the blu-ray arriving.. i remember reading reviews of the release of the fellowship on dvd and complaints of edge enhancment being applied to the dvd release... maybe that hints that the source may not have been in great shape to start with?

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Do the other two films look as bad on your setup? Going from memory (most of my DVD collection was stolen by burglars two years ago), even on DVD the first film looked the worst.

[sharkshark]

RAH, you're conflating the term "master" again, just after Penton got the nomenclature back on track... Bleh.

Meanwhile, there are those of you who have tired of rhetorical hyperbole, this article is a pretty damn good read....

Punchline:

The shortcuts to reliability that the old established more or less responsible media provided are being closed off. In the online future, we'll be on our own, in a whirl of conflicting assertion and opinion. It's going to be easy to be bamboozled and lied to. We're going to wish we'd spent more on education.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by wallendo

I suspect you meant to say something more along the lines of:
"I have no reason to doubt that ... is true"
or
"I have no reason to suspect that ... is untrue"
In the context of the whole paragraph, you seem to state that Jeff is reliable, but the actual phrase suggests otherwise.

It's a picky little semantic point, but it bothered me when I first read it.

Sorry.
Well, I personally think the term is quite à propos given the fact their immediate supervisors don’t appreciate the ‘leakage’ of info by their subordinates to the forum world, esp. prior to a street date of the product. However, if you’re sensitive to that terminology, substitute the word “moles” for “rats” and if that still strikes a sour note, then make it “sources”.

It's not Jeff's fault if they decide to confide in him, knowing upfront he could/will post it on pretty much the only internet forum left that studio personnel read.

P.S.
Wally, I know what you meant and you’re correct, I was replying as quickly as I could without further proof reading the final post. I should have typed, like you correctly stated, "I have no reason to suspect that ... is untrue".

[Slec]

Hey Penton, Any cool tidbits or background information on the upcoming release of The Natural? Always a popular title in my house growing up and being where it was filmed, my wife's family knows many of the ball playing extras.
thanks!

[Penton-Man]

I always get tears in my eyes at the end and Wilford Brimley plays one of the greatest baseball manager roles ever, IMHO.

To any *screenshot scientists* out there, BRING IT.....let's see your best pitch.

[kpkelley]

Talk about Edge Enhancement, she's got a halo




The screens actually look really good, you can even see each individual chin on Wilford Brimley. I've always loved the cinematography on this film.

[Penton-Man]

It is a very moving moment, is it not?
For those who are unaware, Caleb was recently honored by the ASC -
short version ..........http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/awar...ographers.html

long version directly from the source-http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynamic/January2010/CalebDeschanel/page1.php

and, it was Caleb who toasted (and roasted) Gordon Willis for his recent award bestowed by the Academy.

Caleb is a great guy and undeniably has two beautiful daughters. < wallendo, is that sentence structure correct or, did I use something akin to double negatives like before? You've got me paranoid now!

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...
Caleb is a great guy and undeniably has two beautiful daughters. < wallendo, is that sentence structure correct or, did I use something akin to double negatives like before? You've got me paranoid now!

The sentence structure is fine. Of course, we would need a picture of the two daughters to confirm the accuracy of your statement (assuming they're of legal age of course.)

[Slec]

Originally Posted by wallendo

The sentence structure is fine. Of course, we would need a picture of the two daughters to confirm the accuracy of your statement (assuming they're of legal age of course.)

asking for a pic, or did you not know?