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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

There are folks here and abroad who question TFE's new transfer and have compared it to the old transfer of Gladiator.

I see. Perhaps deflection from dealing with lobster man at Red Rock on the mouseover screencaps?….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3534870

Well, there are no missing objects the size of arrows, fireballs or bolts of lightning in the remastered TFE Blu-ray, nor are there any translucencies the size of spears, as closely monitored dirt and scratch removal was performed on the new TFE master using the latest electronic tools. Any ‘missing detail’ from the IP film source is on the order of pixel size.

Additionally, I can guarantee you that no “DVNR” was used in the transfer of the remastered TFE Blu-ray as the way I use that term and way others whom I know that work in telecine trenches traditionally use that term (other than to humor old photochemical timers) is for describing an old, crude method of degraining/denoising which refers to real time video signal processing in a hardware *blackbox*, probably the most commonly at that time being from the Digital Vision folks……
http://www.broadcaststore.com/store/...l.cfm?id=18449

How it worked was…… real time video signal into ->black box with settings based on guessimation -> degrained/denoised signal out -> QC it -> don’t like it, then -> reset black box -> run in real time video signal again, until you got it right. Software degraining/denoising solutions have been used for years as a superior alternative to the *black box DVNR* way.

[sharkshark]

I had the strangely nerdy and unfortunate experience tonight of spending an entire evening, otherwise fabulously entertaining and provocative, waiting for some shot-on-IMAX material to show up during this evening's presentation of Inception.

This is what I get for studiously avoiding ALL spoilers (I even skipped over the poster!), I had thought way back when Penton linked to that shot of Page and DiCaprio on the bridge (in Alberta, no?) with Pfister shooting that he was, in fact, incorporating some IMAX footage.

Yes, there's an argument to be made that 3D might have been amusing, but I would have traded that in a second for actual IMAX footage for many of those scenes.

[sharkshark]

ps. Totally horrifying news from the Tour De France... "Massive Hit-And-Run Prematurely Ends Tour De France"



Shocking, here's hoping those that survived make it through...

[Show spoiler]

[madshi]

@Xorp, thanks a lot for your support, I appreciate it!

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You are mixing so many potential variables together that it’s difficult for me to respond to your question in a cookbook or dogmatic fashion ….

Well, sorry about that. I shouldn't have mixed a question with a bunch of possible explanations that came to my head. So let me simply restate my question and leave the rest away:

Why does the grain look so much different in the new Gladiator BD compared to the old one? I know you don't like screenshots, but maybe you can make an exception and look at this one:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...8383/picture:1

The grain is so much coarser on the old BD and so much finer on the new BD. Why is that in your opinion? What is the technical explanation?

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I do find it somewhat ironic though that you place such an emphasis on whether the transfer equipment is running at 2k or 4k resolution in regards to how “natural” the film grain appears, because we still have a very difficult time during demos convincing people of the merits of 4K presentation of a 4K source in a Digital Cinema equipped with screens less than about 30ft. in size. I’ve posted in the past several SPHE motion pictures in which the Blu-ray was sourced from a 4k DI, and I don’t believe I’ve read any review or post that made note of the fact that the grain appeared more “natural” in those, than the run of the mill 2k DI from which most Blu-rays claim as their original source for their video master.

I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on 4K. I only meant to ask you whether you thought if 4K would explain the finer grain structure in the new Gladiator BD.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol, you seem adamant about making that point. Given your conviction, I assume you've found halos?

Yes, definitely. Look here:

http://pic.phyrefile.com/t/th/themik...920x1080.1.png

Since you don't trust in screenshots, you can also fire up your remastered Fifth Element Blu-Ray and jump to that scene shown in the screenshot. You will see a noticeable white halo on top of the funny cigarette device on the wall. Furthermore you'll see a black halo around the font "QUIT SMOKING". There's also a black halo on top of the cigarette in Bruce's mouth. None of these halos/issues are present on the Nordic Blu-Ray.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As an aside, did you notice any sharpening applied to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?

Not really, but I only watched this movie once, didn't like it too much, so I didn't bother. Fifth Element is one of my (many) favorites, so I'm more anal about image quality there.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I forget, how did we go from [...] Gladiator [...] to [...] TFE [...].

PeterTHX was so kind to mock in this thread about a post of mine in another forum, talking about TFE. I couldn't let that stand without a reply, that's how the topic started here.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Has anyone compared the two Blu-ray versions of Gladiator yet in terms of that basic thing that color film was invented for....i.e. colors? Any reviews out there?

The colors do look quite different, but here comes the problem: How can we judge which colors are "as intended" and which are not? As long as faces are not blue or green, there is no way for us consumers to know what the director intended. There is no obvious "wrong" or "right". So we can only comment on which colors look better to us, subjectively. In my opinion, in some scenes I prefer the colors of the old BD, while in other scenes I prefer the colors of the new BD. I've no idea which colors are nearer to the director's intend.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I do find it somewhat ironic though that you place such an emphasis on whether the transfer equipment is running at 2k or 4k resolution in regards to how “natural” the film grain appears, because we still have a very difficult time during demos convincing people of the merits of 4K presentation of a 4K source in a Digital Cinema equipped with screens less than about 30ft. in size. I’ve posted in the past several SPHE motion pictures in which the Blu-ray was sourced from a 4k DI, and I don’t believe I’ve read any review or post that made note of the fact that the grain appeared more “natural” in those, than the run of the mill 2k DI from which most Blu-rays claim as their original source for their video master.

As I said before a couple? pages back, the main benefit or greatest bang for your buck, if you will, as to greater than 2k scanning and its benefits for Blu-ray presentation is that it avoids or diminishes aliasing artifacts.

I noticed that Hancock had very finely resolved film grain AND detail when I first saw it so the effort was not wasted on everybody

I did find that The Fifth Element did not look as good as I would have expected with some new master when it came out but considering that probably a telecine was used that cannot be compared to current state of the art equipment and also that only an IP was available for scanning I think that the result is still OK.

I wonder if you could comment on the screengrabs that Madshi has posted to show that there is also grain on the Nordic Blu-Ray as it seems to me that there is so little grain visible (especially compared to the excellent and very detailed Blu-Rays of Gladiator, Braveheart or Hancock) that I wonder if the telecine that was used was not very good in picking up grain structure (and image detail) due to either the settings or the resolution used or maybe a combination of both?

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Fair enough.
However, this color discrepancy deems a vigorous debate by those “enthusiasts” who have a better recollection of the theatrical presentation (such as former projectionists and rabid fans of the film) than you do.

And just to keep them all honest , I will remind some folks that within the past two months, an old release print of Gladiator was shown locally to Guild members in honor of one of the filmmakers.

So I am awaiting the verdict of somebody who saw that release print and knows what he is talking about

If indeed the Blu-Ray and the print look substantially different the next question will be if Ridley Scott or his DOP approved of the new Blu-Ray or if they were even more involved.

Although I prefer to keep the theatrical look as it does not lead to all sorts of discussions with regard to the filmmaker changing the look of his work...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by madshi

PeterTHX was so kind to mock in this thread about a post of mine in another forum, talking about TFE. I couldn't let that stand without a reply, that's how the topic started here.

Note I didn't say who posted it.

And the thread was about Gladiator.

And you said it was an "old" transfer of TFE, contrary to what Penton has posted here in the past (and restated above). You complained it had DNR & EE.

And that Nordic TFE looks terrible.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And that Nordic TFE looks terrible.

How would you know that? Please don't tell me you are basing your opinion on a few dubious screenshots? I would strongly suggest you first watch the Nordic disc in motion before authoritatively stating that it looks "terrible" and "more like a satellite HDTV cap"

OK, kidding aside why do you feel the need to put down the Nordic Blu-Ray when it clearly is superior in certain aspects (absence of edge outlines) to the Sony disc?

I think that it is obvious that both have strenghts and weaknesses and I wonder why with release prints as a reference point still available the colors of both discs look completely different and why there is so little grain in the Nordic disc despite the fact that it is NOT looking like the lack of grain is due to excessive DVNR?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I do find it somewhat ironic though that you place such an emphasis on whether the transfer equipment is running at 2k or 4k resolution in regards to how “natural” the film grain appears, because we still have a very difficult time during demos convincing people of the merits of 4K presentation of a 4K source in a Digital Cinema equipped with screens less than about 30ft. in size. I’ve posted in the past several SPHE motion pictures in which the Blu-ray was sourced from a 4k DI, and I don’t believe I’ve read any review or post that made note of the fact that the grain appeared more “natural” in those, than the run of the mill 2k DI from which most Blu-rays claim as their original source for their video master.

Aren't high-end 2K DIs often downsampled from a 4K scan? I recall reading a blurb to that extent somewhere on the EFilm website.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

The colors do look quite different, but here comes the problem: How can we judge which colors are "as intended" and which are not? As long as faces are not blue or green, there is no way for us consumers to know what the director intended. There is no obvious "wrong" or "right". So we can only comment on which colors look better to us, subjectively. In my opinion, in some scenes I prefer the colors of the old BD, while in other scenes I prefer the colors of the new BD. I've no idea which colors are nearer to the director's intend.

I’m told that some Insider, owner, or administrator over at the HTF forum has stated in the past that Ridley approved the first Blu-ray version of Gladiator. No? True color rendition in the first version is not very difficult to achieve compared to other things like superb clarity and grain depiction. It’s actually mere child’s play for even casual observers.. like one of those matching the colors games that children play.

Come on now, don’t yank my chain. There have been hundreds of posts on the internet from people claiming they have excellent recollection of the exact colors of many original theatrical presentations from motion pictures much, much older than Gladiator. These have ranged from people who were previous projectionists to regular hobbyists that are super-fans of the respective movie. What’s going on here?...yet another case of selective memory loss, or have people just not received the new versions yet to do comparisons?

Not to the mention the fact that many internet ‘enthusiasts’ have this uncanny recollection of the actual grain structure during old theatrical presentations (which in most cases looks like mush due to the generational loss, grain added upon grain, projector weave,etc.) and you mean to tell me they can’t remember a basic thing like…..colors? What do I have to do, get Dale Grahn or Keith Bryant to come on here and make a post about the subject?

And as far as “Director’s intent”, if that has somehow changed or never been fulfilled in the first place, I would assume that any studio spokesperson who takes the time to talk about technicalities like “DVNR” and “EE” would also provide a short insight as to a newly utilized film source having a dramatically different color grade (just like Kim A. did with Bram Stoker’s Dracula) rather than leaving “enthusiasts” scratching their collective heads yet again, this time with inaccurate colors on the Blu-ray remastered rendition.

Or, are those screenshots truly accurate? Is this yet again, another case of screenshot malfeasance/ineptitude?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

The grain is so much coarser on the old BD and so much finer on the new BD. Why is that in your opinion? What is the technical explanation?

See my post above.
When I first see a vigorous internet debate on the difference in colors between the two Blu-ray versions as depicted by those lobster men from Red Rock screenshots originally linked to by OliverK.

Until then, off the top of my head, you’re left with four possibilities…
A. An earlier generational film source was used for the mouseover.
B. A more modern film transfer device was used for the mouseover.
C. A and B combined.
D. Same film source, same film transfer device, the operator took the non-mouseover and changed the hue as well as selectively de-grained the blue channel with the latest state-of-the-art software tools.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on 4K.

John Galt will be happy then too………..
http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...stracts09.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

Not really, but I only watched this movie once, didn't like it too much, so I didn't bother. Fifth Element is one of my (many) favorites, so I'm more anal about image quality there.

TCCoBB has more sharpening than you’ve depicted for the remastered TFE. Rack that up to interim advances in sharpening technology.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

So I am awaiting the verdict of somebody who saw that release print and knows what he is talking about ...

Before the screening, there was a Power Point presentation by the guest filmmaker which included…..screencaps.

But, not for any discussion concerning grain or sharpness of the theatrical presentation.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Yes, there's an argument to be made that 3D might have been amusing, but I would have traded that in a second for actual IMAX footage for many of those scenes.

In jest, Wally has claimed he has a drinking problem and ergo, by watching anything in 3D causes him to get extremely nauseated.

It should be interesting to see any push and pull between Chris N. and Wally P. in regards to their next major motion picture which WB distributes.
Anyway, from your theatrical viewing could you clearly differentiate the material which was shot on large format?

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Come on now, don’t yank my chain. There have been hundreds of posts on the internet from people claiming they have excellent recollection of the exact colors of many original theatrical presentations from motion pictures much, much older than Gladiator. These have ranged from people who were previous projectionists to regular hobbyists that are super-fans of the respective movie. What’s going on here?...yet another case of selective memory loss, or have people just not received the new versions yet to do comparisons?

Not to the mention the fact that many internet ‘enthusiasts’ have this uncanny recollection of the actual grain structure during old theatrical presentations (which in most cases looks like mush due to the generational loss, grain added upon grain, projector weave,etc.) and you mean to tell me they can’t remember a basic thing like…..colors?

I absolutely see your point.

But I can't talk for other people. Personally, I've never claimed to be able to remember how a specific movie looked like in the movie theater. The one thing that I remember is that when I watched "The Island" in the theater, the projector was so much out of focus that it was not funny, anymore...

[juanell]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Anyway, from your theatrical viewing could you clearly differentiate the material which was shot on large format?

I can guess which ones may have been shot 65mm, but i could'nt tell from what i saw in 35mm or Imax.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

How would you know that? Please don't tell me you are basing your opinion on a few dubious screenshots? I would strongly suggest you first watch the Nordic disc in motion before authoritatively stating that it looks "terrible" and "more like a satellite HDTV cap"

OK, kidding aside why do you feel the need to put down the Nordic Blu-Ray when it clearly is superior in certain aspects (absence of edge outlines) to the Sony disc?

Based on colors alone, but of course it isn't a technical one. I'm not a big enough fan of TFE to pay for an import, especialy when I find the domestic remaster more than adequate.

I think that it is obvious that both have strenghts and weaknesses and I wonder why with release prints as a reference point still available the colors of both discs look completely different and why there is so little grain in the Nordic disc despite the fact that it is NOT looking like the lack of grain is due to excessive DVNR?

As Penton stated the domestic comes directly off an Interpositive, the grain seems typical of a mid-1990's Super35 FX-heavy production. I don't see how they could eliminate the grain other than DVNR. Even if they used the original negative (which is almost never done, especially for recent films) there would/should still be a fair amount of grain.

The "Quit Smoking" shot used as an "example" is in motion and with a focus change. Other areas of text in the film don't show EE artifacts.

[Penton-Man]

Peter, please stop using "DVNR" as it sounds like some marketing person....unless you're purposely teasing me.

See my post on the past page. Best to say "DNR", or better yet "degrain" or "denoise".

Also, nobody really uses the term "EE" who does "EE", they say "sharpening" but, "EE artifacts" sounds fine to me.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

ps. Totally horrifying news from the Tour De France... "Massive Hit-And-Run Prematurely Ends Tour De France"

I missed that. I may have to pick it up on Blu-ray …
http://www.worldcycling.com/2010-Tou...info/TDFDB10X/

^ Heads up, Jim SD.
It looks like Andy S. kinda lost the Tour by his slow ride in the Prologue, if I remember the times correctly.