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

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

James, I don’t remember if you’re from the L.A. area but, if so, this is a freebie in Calabasas….
http://www.blufocus.com/3d-focus/

and if you’re not from SoCal, but are an Adobe type guy who would like to get more involved in this stuff, here is an online tutorial…
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/davtechtab...ro-cs5-winosx/

I'm closer to the other coast, but I am a fan of Adobe's imaging tools. Thanks for the links!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I have to say that at 24 fps it still worked out nicely, was that because they ultimately used NTSC monitors or did it work out just fine to film 50 Hz monitors at 24 fps?

The later. However, there still remained out-of-sych problems, for example, when the spaceship was blowing up, if you look very closely at the monitors, there is a running bar line in the middle of the picture.
In retrospect, this probably helped add to, rather than detract from, the chaos which was transpiring on the spaceship at the time so, a tip of the hat to Ridley.

And speaking of Ridley S., given my post to James above, I think a direct Ridley quote is in order at this time…."I’ve heard now that audiences object if it’s not purely 3D, if it’s 2D to 3D. I could show you 2D to 3D and you wouldn’t know the difference. But when they’re told it’s 2D to 3D they say, “F**k that, man! I’m paying another four dollars…” It’s about money, of course, but you’re still paying for the effect. Really, it’s very close. 2D to 3D is awfully close."

All I’ll add is that the above applies for 2D -> 3D converts done right…..and they can be done right.

On the other hand, nothing beats native 3D because, for one, you gets to wear yourself one of those spiffy black vests …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...ure-on-3D.html

[Taffy]

Mad...mad...mad as hell , and I ain't ah gonna take this anymore!!! Help me Penton-Man. Help me try to understand what's going on on your end of this business.

Over the past several months I've been looking forward to buying two of my absolute all time favorites ..The Sound of Music and Last of the Mohicans.

My guess is SoM as an older classic catalog title is going to have limited appeal with today's BR buyers hence the $63 price tag......but as a $17 bare bones Blu-ray disc and combined with Holiday priced $50 Walmart BR players....this could made a dynamite combination as a present under million and millions of Christmas trees this year. Please help me understand the economics. As it stands right now....I'm going to have to wait another year for the $25 people's version. Shucks.

Now LotM presents a different problem altogether. Count me in with the crowd that will only accept the theatrical version. I've seen this title so many times, I could probably recite the dialog word for word. So why release only the directers cut??? Are times so tough... or egos so great that the studio deliberately held back the theatrical version as seen by millions of theater fans just to make a few more bucks with a latter edition?? Looks like another wait of maybe a year for a version that contains the theatrical cut. Double shucks.

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...And speaking of Ridley S., given my post to James above, I think a direct Ridley quote is in order at this time…."I’ve heard now that audiences object if it’s not purely 3D, if it’s 2D to 3D. I could show you 2D to 3D and you wouldn’t know the difference. But when they’re told it’s 2D to 3D they say, “F**k that, man! I’m paying another four dollars…” It’s about money, of course, but you’re still paying for the effect. Really, it’s very close. 2D to 3D is awfully close."

My man, James Cameron calls his Titanic conversion effort not 3D...but 2.8D. Man's got a terrific sense of humor.

[JimSD]

Originally Posted by Taffy

Mad...mad...mad as hell , and I ain't ah gonna take this anymore!!! Help me Penton-Man. Help me try to understand what's going on on your end of this business.

Over the past several months I've been looking forward to buying two of my absolute all time favorites ..The Sound of Music and Last of the Mohicans.

My guess is SoM as an older classic catalog title is going to have limited appeal with today's BR buyers hence the $63 price tag......but as a $17 bare bones Blu-ray disc and combined with Holiday priced $50 Walmart BR players....this could made a dynamite combination as a present under million and millions of Christmas trees this year. Please help me understand the economics. As it stands right now....I'm going to have to wait another year for the $25 people's version. Shucks.

Amazon has a listing for a BD/DVD combo pack of The Sound of Music for $24.49 (list $34.99).
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Music-Co...9662497&sr=1-4

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by JimSD

Amazon has a listing for a BD/DVD combo pack of The Sound of Music for $24.49 (list $34.99).
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Music-Co...9662497&sr=1-4

Thanks for the heads up JimSD. This info made my day.

[cjamescook]

In a bit of good news, consider movie theatres a community resource here.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m not at liberty to comment about that…..at least not at this time; however, here’s another question which may be just as important though (or more) for future Blu-ray movie micro-analysis, which I pose to you, Heavy....

Have some of the more infamous screenshots posted on the internet truly looked exactly like what you saw in those scenes when viewed while watching the movie in real-time on your greater than 42” sized calibrated display at home?....I assume you’ve watched the Blu-ray in question by now and I know you as an unbiased fellow.

I do try to be fair and I will admit, I had prejudices against this new release based on those very screenshots. However, while I like looking at correctly done screenshots, I always base my *final* thoughts on how the disc looks on my own set-up. Period. If there is a movie I like and want to see, I will judge it on my ISF'd 60" lcos display at 1080p/24 and not just shots on my 20" non calibrated Dell LCD. I also posted some thoughts here and there on both versions some of which I'm going to re-state or re-word again.

To answer your question, no, the Ultimate Hunter Edition did not look exactly like the screenshots. In fact, even the absolute worst screenshots looked better in motion on my display. Furthermore, those are the worst shots that have been posted online - or maybe cherry picked? The rest of the movie looks fine and I think overall, it is an improvement over the original version. Was too much DNR used? Yes. However, I believe in judging the PQ of a disc on a variety of factors. True, I think excessive DNR is a big negative, but the most of the image of the UHE is an improvement over the original. The image just looks so much tighter and stable; the color rendition is more natural and improved; the gamma is improved and the black crushing gone; the image has a smooth look to it, but not an overly-smooth or waxy look other than a small handful of scenes. The overall image just has the look of a more modern created transfer. If one were to ask me how it compares to some other notoriously DNR titles, such as the original Gladiator disc, I would say it looks much better and more natural - and, again, a more "recent" looking created title. I always had the sense Gladiator was an older transfer. (I was very unhappy with Gladiator although it's great to know that situation is being rectified).

I know people will argue against this, but I am very convinced that a good part of the grain seen in the original Predator is not all pure, 100% organic film grain. Depending on your seating distance, it might appear that way; but if you look or sit closer and get up towards the screen to observe it, you will see all sorts of digital blocking and artifacts giving the grain a weird appearance. I compared this look to other Blu-rays which I know show pure film grain and the original version does have a more digital appearance. Maybe this was in the source material used for the original BD or just the faults of MPEG-2 or perhaps something else. As has been reported, that encode was created quite a while back.

So, at the end of the day, it's always personal/individual preference on which version of Predator is ideal. However, in my opinion based only on my set-up, I think the UHE is an improvement. Is it perfect? No. Less DNR would have been nice, but this is probably the best this movie will ever look on Blu-ray as I cannot see Fox doing yet another transfer for a catalog title of this nature.

[Penton-Man]

Good to hear your thoughts on *screenshot science*.

But a quick note in regards to your unhappiness about the Roman General turned cage-fighter Blu-ray. Don’t believe everything technically you read online. DNR doesn’t make arrows and fireballs disappear. Unmonitored excessively set automated scratch removal tools do (as well as erasing smaller-sized detail from the image, or should I say 'getail'). See the case of the “vanishing dog parts” in the YouTube clip at around the 2 ½ min. mark……….

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3461175

P.S.
As an aside, might I recommend Giovanna’s book…
http://www.amazon.com/Grain-Pixel-Ar.../dp/9089641394
since it is a must read for anyone serious about learning more about the analog to digital transition.

[Penton-Man]

I received several PM’s from folks heading on down to San Diego tomorrow for Comic-Con and as to whether or not on Thursday at 1:00 – 2:00 in Hall H at the SALT presentation, if this fine lady would indeed be in attendance like at the premiere at Grauman’s Chinese Theater earlier this week….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twgTzEchvMw
The *official* word at this particular moment in time is








no comment

….but you know me with hotties.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I do try to be fair and I will admit, I had prejudices against this new release based on those very screenshots. However, while I like looking at correctly done screenshots, I always base my *final* thoughts on how the disc looks on my own set-up. Period. If there is a movie I like and want to see, I will judge it on my ISF'd 60" lcos display at 1080p/24 and not just shots on my 20" non calibrated Dell LCD. I also posted some thoughts here and there on both versions some of which I'm going to re-state or re-word again.

To answer your question, no, the Ultimate Hunter Edition did not look exactly like the screenshots. In fact, even the absolute worst screenshots looked better in motion on my display. Furthermore, those are the worst shots that have been posted online - or maybe cherry picked? The rest of the movie looks fine and I think overall, it is an improvement over the original version. Was too much DNR used? Yes. However, I believe in judging the PQ of a disc on a variety of factors. True, I think excessive DNR is a big negative, but the most of the image of the UHE is an improvement over the original. The image just looks so much tighter and stable; the color rendition is more natural and improved; the gamma is improved and the black crushing gone; the image has a smooth look to it, but not an overly-smooth or waxy look other than a small handful of scenes. The overall image just has the look of a more modern created transfer. If one were to ask me how it compares to some other notoriously DNR titles, such as the original Gladiator disc, I would say it looks much better and more natural - and, again, a more "recent" looking created title. I always had the sense Gladiator was an older transfer. (I was very unhappy with Gladiator although it's great to know that situation is being rectified).

I know people will argue against this, but I am very convinced that a good part of the grain seen in the original Predator is not all pure, 100% organic film grain. Depending on your seating distance, it might appear that way; but if you look or sit closer and get up towards the screen to observe it, you will see all sorts of digital blocking and artifacts giving the grain a weird appearance. I compared this look to other Blu-rays which I know show pure film grain and the original version does have a more digital appearance. Maybe this was in the source material used for the original BD or just the faults of MPEG-2 or perhaps something else. As has been reported, that encode was created quite a while back.

So, at the end of the day, it's always personal/individual preference on which version of Predator is ideal. However, in my opinion based only on my set-up, I think the UHE is an improvement. Is it perfect? No. Less DNR would have been nice, but this is probably the best this movie will ever look on Blu-ray as I cannot see Fox doing yet another transfer for a catalog title of this nature.

I do agree that I felt that the UHE edition of Predator was not quite as bad as the screenshots posted online made it seem like, but make no mistake that when it was bad it was BAD especially the scene at the beginning with Arnold (see my avatar). I showed that scene to casual film watchers who have NO interest in bluray and are very happy with dvd and I got comments from them, after I paused the screen and asked them if they felt that scene looked natural and they said it looked like gaussian blur had been applied wayyyy too hard. But there were plenty of scenes in which Predator actually looked pretty good.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

ok, got it.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3118776

^ the EYE Film Institute Netherlands (a.k.a. the Nederlands Filmmuseum) has a well respected head curator by the name of Giovanna Fossati . They do fabulous work and in this particular case in collaboration with laboratory staff at Haghefilm. Giovanna does the honors...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gz50OlxCEY

^ A must watch for folks interested in the effects of unmonitored automated scratch removal tools..for, if they can make the head of a dog disappear (which is shown somewhere later on in the clip), then surely getting rid of measly arrows flying thru the air is child’s play.

Missed this the first time round, that's an -excellent- overview of the process... cheers.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I do agree that I felt that the UHE edition of Predator was not quite as bad as the screenshots posted online made it seem like, but make no mistake that when it was bad it was BAD especially the scene at the beginning with Arnold (see my avatar). I showed that scene to casual film watchers who have NO interest in bluray and are very happy with dvd and I got comments from them, after I paused the screen and asked them if they felt that scene looked natural and they said it looked like gaussian blur had been applied wayyyy too hard. But there were plenty of scenes in which Predator actually looked pretty good.

I agree the worst screenshots certainly didn't look good - they look bad; I just didn't think they looked as bad in motion. I noticed you said you paused that scene; I just left it playing the whole time.

One thing is also certain; there are plenty of mixed shots in both versions which I assume was the way the film was shot. There are a mix of sharper shots and softer shots in both versions. One of the waterfall scenes was very soft and even blurry as Arnold fell - but that was the case in both versions. On one forum that scene was cherry picked out on the UHE without the original disc scene being shown which looked just as bad - particularly at 1080p/24.

And, definitely, a number of scenes look quite good on the UHE.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I agree the worst screenshots certainly didn't look good - they look bad; I just didn't think they looked as bad in motion. I noticed you said you paused that scene; I just left it playing the whole time.

One thing is also certain; there are plenty of mixed shots in both versions which I assume was the way the film was shot. There are a mix of sharper shots and softer shots in both versions. One of the waterfall scenes was very soft and even blurry as Arnold fell - but that was the case in both versions. On one forum that scene was cherry picked out on the UHE without the original disc scene being shown which looked just as bad - particularly at 1080p/24.

And, definitely, a number of scenes look quite good on the UHE.

I paused the scene first and then showed it in motion.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I agree the worst screenshots certainly didn't look good - they look bad; I just didn't think they looked as bad in motion. I noticed you said you paused that scene; I just left it playing the whole time.

With motion comes higher perceived resolution, that is always a problem with screencaps and not something that is exclusively so for Predator. I remember being criticized for posting several caps of Zulu that show a lot of rather clay faced looking actors and several users said that the disc in motion looks better - indeed it does but it still looks much worse than other Blu-Rays that have been treated as they should and it also looks much worse than it could have looked had the automatic dustbuster not been overused.

And I still find it highly ironic that we are discussing the not so brilliant efforts of other studios here in Penton's thread when the titles of the studio he works for might at most ellicit a discussion about contrast of black level or day for night scenes - I wish it was the same for all the other studios.

[Oliver K]

And Penton,

in addition to my last post can you share information as to how much Ray Harryhausen was involved in questions of color timing, day for night etc.for Jason and the Argonauts ?

As you said Sony often tries to involve the director and/or DOP in the production of a Blu-Ray so it would be interesting to hear how it went with Jason.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Good to hear your thoughts on *screenshot science*.

But a quick note in regards to your unhappiness about the Roman General turned cage-fighter Blu-ray. Don’t believe everything technically you read online. DNR doesn’t make arrows and fireballs disappear. Unmonitored excessively set automated scratch removal tools do (as well as erasing smaller-sized detail from the image, or should I say 'getail'). See the case of the “vanishing dog parts” in the YouTube clip at around the 2 ½ min. mark……….

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3461175

P.S.
As an aside, might I recommend Giovanna’s book…
http://www.amazon.com/Grain-Pixel-Ar.../dp/9089641394
since it is a must read for anyone serious about learning more about the analog to digital transition.

I began questioning screenshot science quite a bit around the time The Godfather trilogy was released on Blu-ray. Several "scientists" were claiming (and still do to this day) that the colors of Godfather BD are inaccurate - even though it was pointed out the original source materials for the DVD had issues and even though RAH spoke at great lengths on forums and articles about the involvement of the filmmakers, the process, etc. and they still didn't believe it just like they believe Bram Stroker's Dracula on BD is still incorrect.

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

And Penton,

in addition to my last post can you share information as to how much the director was involved in questions of color timing, day for night etc.for Jason and the Argonauts ?

As you said Sony often tries to involve the director and/or DOP in the production of a Blu-Ray so it would be interesting to hear how it went with Jason.

Unless Sony has hired a medium, the 20 years gone director and 8 years gone DP would have minimal involvement in this transfer!

Having said that it's possible Harryhausen gave his thumbs up...

M

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by mark antony

Unless Sony has hired a medium, the 20 years gone director and 8 years gone DP would have minimal involvement in this transfer!

Having said that it's possible Harryhausen gave his thumbs up...

M

Damn, I meant that to say Harryhausen Obviously both the DOP and the director are gone for quite some time. What I found interesting was the question of whether Harryhausen was even involved as much in the ultimate look of the so called "Harryhausen movies", none of which he directed, to be able to comment on how exactly certain scenes are supposed to look.

On the other hand there is always talk about Blu-Ray being such a fantastic medium so I will not rule out the supernatural completely

[Penton-Man]

Respondin via my iPhone (busy day)…
http://www.sonypictures.com/homevide...blog/?offset=1