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

[iceman]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

and blu-ray.com uses JPEGs which are lossy.

Not entirely correct
I wish I could speak more about this and what we do, but I can't for competitive reasons. In any case we use screenshots for two reasons:

1) To make the reviews and titles more appealing and entertaining, posting long reviews with text only would be very unattractive and turn most visitors and members off. Using a mix of text and images is good and standard practice both online and offline in pretty much all interest areas.

2) When people started posting screenshots online they were often of low quality, mostly unintentional, but also unfortunately intentional (format war legacy). Whenever there was a big title about to come out on Blu-ray, there were various threads popping up on other sites bashing the quality, many times by using questionable screenshots. This kept going for a rather long period. With us providing good screenshots surfers would get a second opinion about a title, I remember for instance when The Dark Knight was about to be released and there circulated bad quality screenshots online weeks before release, which caused a negative momentum and many people said they wouldn't purchase the title. We had our review with screenshots online shortly after this buzz started and then people were saying "this doesn't look bad at all, actually those IMAX screenshots look outstanding". To some extent, the screenshot "débâcle" is just another dimension of FUD, which this site unwillingly have had to fought more or less every day...

Using screenshots for discussion is like using statistics, you can "prove" whatever you want depending on what "facts" you are using.

Ken said it very well about how we use screenshots:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

We post screenshots for completely different reasons than Xylon. He uses screenshots to make a case for the quality of a transfer in motion. We rely on the text in our video reviews to set that context, and simply use screenshots to give our readers an idea of what to expect from a disc (as well as making our review layout sharp and snazzy ). There are times that screenshots can be quite misleading. Sometimes they look bland, but the film looks great in motion. There are also times that screenshots look fantastic, but the transfer stumbles.

All our screenshots are also accompanied by a big, fat disclaimer that's hard to miss and anyone with reading comprehension should see/know that they are not meant for discussing video quality.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by chris0

In the Avatar thread that patrick99 linked to in Jeff's thread Xylon says, "The live action looks too processed for my taste but it looks like that when I watched this on different versions of 3D and IMAX presentations in the theaters."

Of course, that’s why xylon makes movies and Cameron doesn’t and why xylon knows about the depth of field of a 2/3 inch chip 3-D camera and Cameron doesn’t.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by iceman

...All our screenshots are also accompanied by a big, fat disclaimer that's hard to miss and anyone with reading comprehension should see/know that they are not meant for discussing video quality.

Ice, please check your PM and get back to me.

[4K display]

Ridley Scott Confirms: Both Alien Prequels Will Be Shot in 3D

In fact, they're going to be using more advanced cameras then the ones James Cameron used on Avatar.

Are these new cameras from Sony?

Can you share more on how they have advanced?

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by 4K display

I ran across this pic while reading this thread and found it so fitting I just couldn't resist. Sorry if inappropriate butt it just sums up so much about screenshots:

Ouch...that's going to leave a mark.

[Cliff]

It's like a joke that keeps telling itself...

From the always reliable eric.exe:

Peter Jackson recently said in a NAB video that's he not very technical, he just focuses on the storytelling. Which is fine by me, it's the transfer and mastering technicians jobs to know the extremely technical stuff. I'm sure lots of directors can't determine between natural grain and filtered grain structures.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Phansson = good people

Agreed, but I thought it was funny that it took somebody from over here to post that over there.

[MerrickG]

I posted this question over on thedigitalbits thread and Jeff wasnt able to really shed any light so I thought it I would mention it over here in Penton's thread. Hopefully, it will serve as a nice distraction from screenshot science discussion.

Anyway:
I was watching the documentary on the film Alien from the Alien Quad set as well as listened to the audio commentary of the film and I found out something interesting:

On the movie box it shows that the story and screenplay was written by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett.

However, according to Shusett, David Giler and Walter Hill actually made a lot of changes to the screenplay. The creation of Ash as an android for instance was one of them. According to the documentary Shusett thought Giler and Hill adding in Ash was brilliant, while O'Bannon in the audio commentary was a waste of time.

I actually looked through the original script which was also on the Quad set and found it to be different from what was filmed somewhat and wasnt as good, which I found ironic that O'Bannon and Shusett felt each revision got worse, which suggests to me that Giler and Hill played a bigger part in the final product then initially thought.

I guess my question is:
How much did Giler and Hill actually contribute to the script and why are their names never mentioned when talking about the Alien series since it seems like they played a much bigger part than they are often given credit for?

Its also important to point out that the great Alan Ladd played a big part in getting this film greenlit and nobody should ever forget his role in getting Star Wars greenlit.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K display

Ridley Scott Confirms: Both Alien Prequels Will Be Shot in 3D

Are these new cameras from Sony?

Can you share more on how they have advanced?

It would be inappropriate for me to comment upon what Ridley plans on using for the Alien Prequels. All I can offer are some generalizations regarding “more advanced cameras than the ones James Cameron used on Avatar”.

In regards to that ^, I’m a big fan of F35s …
http://www.stargatestudios.net/channel/?p=1

In fact, I like them so much that I know a stereoscopic rig containing 2 of them would be a marvelously ‘advanced’ system.

For that matter, so does this Director, see - “We shot the movie with a Sony F35 camera, which in my opinion is the best digital camera in the world with the best image quality”…

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/hero...e-trailer.html

It should be noted in the above interview, for the record, the majority of AVATAR was actually shot with F950’s…I’m unsure if Paul was misquoted or just wasn’t making himself clear to the interviewer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Cliff

It's like a joke that keeps telling itself...

From the always reliable eric.exe:

Originally Posted by eric.exe

Peter Jackson recently said in a NAB video that's he not very technical, he just focuses on the storytelling. Which is fine by me, it's the transfer and mastering technicians jobs to know the extremely technical stuff. I'm sure lots of directors can't determine between natural grain and filtered grain structures.

I think Peter is being modest and Eric should consider the fact that most likely, a large percentage of Peter’s audience at NAB were post production professionals, rather than Directors. At last count, he personally owns 6 Red One cameras which he has played with….which should reflect at least some modicum of appreciation for the appearance or absence of grain and noise.

Peter J. gave an interview a few months back which may be illustrative.
Can’t remember who/where it was. Give me a moment; I must do the Google thing.

[Penton-Man]

^ In regards to The Lovely Bones, which recently made its way to home theater enthusiasts by way of Blu-ray...

Peter Jackson:

“Yeah, and there are a lot of shots in there, there are about thirty or forty shots with this little camera and I’m glad it worked out so well, because I also shot 35mm safety shot, too, because I didn’t know whether the Iconix would cut with the 35mm footage.I was worried it would look like video, so I had to shoot alternative coverage for safety, just with a normal camera, which was nowhere near as interesting, because the camera was so big I couldn’t get it in the same places, but as it was at Park Road Post we managed to do a lot of manipulation to the Iconix digital image to make it match almost exactly with the 35mm. We put film grain on it and fiddled with dynamic range to match.”

I’m just wondering now if any of the grain gurus over in *science* who have repeatedly claimed time and again that they can easily differentiate between “good” grain (natural) vs. that stinkin “bad” grain (artificial stuff) for some of same reasoning they use to identify "filtered grain" vs non-filtered grain with their screenshot analysis...if any of them in fact discovered that artificial grain that Peter threw in The Lovely Bones.

Give me another moment.

[Penton-Man]

This is precious.
Lordy, lordy, the screenshot king didn’t even recognize that nasty artificial grain that Peter J. used for some of The Lovely Bones but, he still got his jab in at the Blu-ray as “an enthusiast” -

Originally Posted by xylon

Great visuals, lousy movie.
Get the book, kindle, iPad and audible versions instead. It deserves it. The story stick with you for a while. Its that good.

Peter got carried away with his "visuals".

Skip this blu-ray from a standpoint that the movie did not do the book justice.

Yeah, ^ I must make a personal note to skip this Blu-ray on those grounds.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ In regards to The Lovely Bones, which recently made its way to home theater enthusiasts by way of Blu-ray...

Peter Jackson:

“Yeah, and there are a lot of shots in there, there are about thirty or forty shots with this little camera and I’m glad it worked out so well, because I also shot 35mm safety shot, too, because I didn’t know whether the Iconix would cut with the 35mm footage.I was worried it would look like video, so I had to shoot alternative coverage for safety, just with a normal camera, which was nowhere near as interesting, because the camera was so big I couldn’t get it in the same places, but as it was at Park Road Post we managed to do a lot of manipulation to the Iconix digital image to make it match almost exactly with the 35mm. We put film grain on it and fiddled with dynamic range to match.”

I’m just wondering now if any of the grain gurus over in *science* who have repeatedly claimed time and again that they can easily differentiate between “good” grain (natural) vs. that stinkin “bad” grain (artificial stuff) for some of same reasoning they use to identify "filtered grain" vs non-filtered grain with their screenshot analysis...if any of them in fact discovered that artificial grain that Peter threw in The Lovely Bones.

Give me another moment.

That's great and all, but who needs facts and quotes when you can rely on untrained opinion and conjecture?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

the Alien Prequels*

* emphasis added

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

This is precious.
Lordy, lordy, the screenshot king didn’t even recognize that nasty artificial grain that Peter J. used for some of The Lovely Bones but, he still got his jab in at the Blu-ray as “an enthusiast” -

Yeah, ^ I must make a personal note to skip this Blu-ray on those grounds.

I watched the Lovely Bones last night and it looks terrific. I don't disect movies, but watch them and enjoy them (or not ). The Lovely Bones is not the type of movie that I would watch more than once, but the presentation is great. It is unfortunate that a lot of the stuff that comes from "certain" individuals is nothing more than old fashioned FUD. Well Avatar sold 2.7 million Blu-ray units in the first four days...I guess that will upset some people .

Avatar Sells 2.7 million Blu-ray units

[phansson]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Agreed, but I thought it was funny that it took somebody from over here to post that over there.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Phansson = good people

Thanks guys, I feel all warm and fuzzy.....


I just thought that the good ol' "screenshot police" might like to have some back ground info on what they are nitpicking.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ In regards to The Lovely Bones, which recently made its way to home theater enthusiasts by way of Blu-ray...

Peter Jackson:

“Yeah, and there are a lot of shots in there, there are about thirty or forty shots with this little camera and I’m glad it worked out so well, because I also shot 35mm safety shot, too, because I didn’t know whether the Iconix would cut with the 35mm footage.I was worried it would look like video, so I had to shoot alternative coverage for safety, just with a normal camera, which was nowhere near as interesting, because the camera was so big I couldn’t get it in the same places, but as it was at Park Road Post we managed to do a lot of manipulation to the Iconix digital image to make it match almost exactly with the 35mm. We put film grain on it and fiddled with dynamic range to match.”

I’m just wondering now if any of the grain gurus over in *science* who have repeatedly claimed time and again that they can easily differentiate between “good” grain (natural) vs. that stinkin “bad” grain (artificial stuff) for some of same reasoning they use to identify "filtered grain" vs non-filtered grain with their screenshot analysis...if any of them in fact discovered that artificial grain that Peter threw in The Lovely Bones.

Give me another moment.

That is why AVS is such a guilty pleasure. I can always count on people like Xylon, Kram, Eric.exe (screenshot engineer ), etc for some comic relief

[micks_address]

i guess Avatar is blu-rays killer app so far.. having watched it over the weekend on blu-ray i have no doubt that it will encourage lots and lots of people to buy a blu-ray to go with their HD tv... kind of ironic that there's so much blue in the film..... i have to say that having watched the hurt locker - ok what ever about it being a better film.. that the direction involved in Avatar is amazing..

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

I watched the Lovely Bones last night and it looks terrific. I don't disect movies, but watch them and enjoy them (or not ). The Lovely Bones is not the type of movie that I would watch more than once, but the presentation is great. It is unfortunate that a lot of the stuff that comes from "certain" individuals is nothing more than old fashioned FUD. Well Avatar sold 2.7 million Blu-ray units in the first four days...I guess that will upset some people .

Avatar Sells 2.7 million Blu-ray units

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by micks_address

i guess Avatar is blu-rays killer app so far.. having watched it over the weekend on blu-ray i have no doubt that it will encourage lots and lots of people to buy a blu-ray to go with their HD tv... kind of ironic that there's so much blue in the film..... i have to say that having watched the hurt locker - ok what ever about it being a better film.. that the direction involved in Avatar is amazing..

I don't think either was a better overall picture than UP.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by micks_address

i guess Avatar is blu-rays killer app so far.. having watched it over the weekend on blu-ray i have no doubt that it will encourage lots and lots of people to buy a blu-ray to go with their HD tv... kind of ironic that there's so much blue in the film..... i have to say that having watched the hurt locker - ok what ever about it being a better film.. that the direction involved in Avatar is amazing..

I doubt that blu-ray will have a true "killer app", and if it does, it will not be a 2D movie. If BD player sales are up, it will likely be a brief transient peak on a steady uphill curve. It will not be until 3D is widely available until any BD title will offer a product which is not available on DVD. The improved picture and sound over upconverted DVD is important only to a segment of the home entertainment market. As far as Avatar, I wonder how many Avatar-induced BD converts bought 3D compatible BD players). 3D, if it takes off with the general public (which is a matter of legitimate debate), could be the feature that once-and-for-all sets BD apart from DVD; i.e., the "killer app".

My opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it, is that the main driving force from VHS to DVD with the general public was instant access, no need to rewind, DVD doesn't wear out, smaller package; not improved video resolution and Dolby Digital sound.