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

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by madshi

Is that paper available for public download somewhere?

Well, actually I sent it to you earlier via pm

But here it is again:
http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/a...gyBrochure.pdf

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by 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.

You must not spend much time on the Lord of the Rings threads.

Of course, they are talking about something else altogether. I find most abbreviations bothersome, especially when a single abbreviation can have multiple meanings (Edge Enhancement vs. Extended Edition). I understand using abbreviations for people texting from a hand-held, but is it that much more difficult to write out the words. The only things I find more annoying are:
1) Using "Full Screen" to refer to an 16:9 image
2) Using anamorphic to refer to a 16:9 image
3) And people complaining about double dips before a movie has even been dipped the first time.

[PaulGo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, this morning I find this link in my e-mail box….
http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/07/...grade-fatigue/

John, it’s ‘upgraditis fatigue’(kinda like diverticulitis, pancreatitis,etc.)…..from last March -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3011261

Secondly, if you really think your version of the anaglyph 3D system will gain any traction…
http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2009/11/...gs-up-a-storm/

well then, I wish you all the luck in the world with that venture.

Interesting - however the article "Lowry’s low-cost 3D ready today" was from November 2009. I wonder if it is going anywhere since I have not read anything about this and was not aware of this until today.

[Penton-Man]

Hear Ye….Hear Ye….
I’m told one review is in-
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/gladiator/blu-ray/8291/2

^ According to this reviewer, there has indeed been a significantly different color grading change between the original Blu-ray and the remastered version.

Ergo – faithfulness to the original theatrical presentation gets kicked out the door and 'creative contemporary color grading' is now acceptable….as long as modern day audiences like it. Hmm, I wonder if a little grain reduction and a little sharpening will be acceptable on future Blu-ray titles, along with some *modernization* of colors…as long as modern day audiences like it? LOL, that begs the question, what "modern day audience" do you belong to... and do you consider your personal wishes and desires superior to those of film purists....in the true sense of the word(s).

Oliver, it seems that in this case, Taffy wins the debate this time around…..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3515214

Historical accuracy to the original theatrical presentation be damned.
I still don’t know if those posted screenshots were accurate though, because it sure looked to me like there was a lot of red push in that screenshot of the 2010 Blu-ray which you linked.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

While he is certainly right for certain hardware there is that nice paper from Arri where they show a 2k, a 4k and a 10k scan from 35mm and the 10k scan looks substantially more detailed than the 4k scan - I wonder though if this is some kind of prototype as I never heard of 10k scanning for 35mm.

I only briefly looked at the article by Dr. Hans Kiening when it first came out. From what I saw, it is indeed well written and very worthy of intensive study by folks interested in that sort of stuff.

I don’t really know about the 10k scanner thing or what they used or how they used it. You have to be a bit careful though when throwing around k’s and scanners because for instance, the Arriscan (for which Hans did the R&D) is a very good scanner but, when it does “6k” scanning it does not originate as a true “6k” optical resolution. It’s really a 3K optical resolution scanner, the resolution of which is doubled to achieve“6k” by offsetting the sensor by a half-pixel in four directions (which will give you more scanner noise in your images) and achieves its 16-bit by double exposing.

I don’t know if the “10k” images you refer to arose from some prototype machine they had access to with a native scanning resolution of 10k.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

day for night

Do you think that the second pic of Maya here was captured by moi at night under moonlight….or was Penton doing a day-for-night pic?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post2480314

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

Interesting - however the article "Lowry’s low-cost 3D ready today" was from November 2009. I wonder if it is going anywhere since I have not read anything about this and was not aware of this until today.

In this case, the applicable acronym is not DNR, nor DRS™….. but DOA. It seems to me that John’s recent blog entry is a Code Blue, i.e. cardiac defibrillation with the joules cranked up to the max and an amp of Epinephrine.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Ergo – faithfulness to the original theatrical presentation gets kicked out the door and 'creative contemporary color grading' is now acceptable….as long as modern day audiences like it.

OR: The more obvious temporal/filtration/processing issues were not the only inaccuracies of the previous release.

You imply that others' memories of the original filmic look of this movie may not have 100% parity with the reality of the film itself- an assertion I can fully agree with.

Now, what makes you turn around and decide that your memory of same is dependable enough a platform from which to mount an attack on others?

Perhaps the color-timing of the previous Blu-ray release was more similar to the other 'more previouser' home video releases than is the new one. However, this is not either an indication of fidelity to the film.

I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again:

Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Penton, you should know better.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

OR: The more obvious temporal/filtration/processing issues were not the only inaccuracies of the previous release.

You imply that others' memories of the original filmic look of this movie may not have 100% parity with the reality of the film itself- an assertion I can fully agree with.

Now, what makes you turn around and decide that your memory of same is dependable enough a platform from which to mount an attack on others?

Perhaps the color-timing of the previous Blu-ray release was more similar to the other 'more previouser' home video releases than is the new one. However, this is not either an indication of fidelity to the film.

I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again:

Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Penton, you should know better.

Hey, not taking sides here, but as I read Penton's Proddings (and, yes, a libidinous as that sounds, I think that should be the new title of this thread... Now, where was I... oh, right) the point isn't that this is or isn't a representative of the original theatrical presentation, but that we've traded in this instance one factor (excessive DNR, if that's indeed what caused the issues with the other release) for a difference in colour timing.

So, er, "excessive" on one hand, "different" on another.

I don't think P's ever argued that the new version has more or less fidelity with the original presentation, but that this is a difference that is (according to him) being overlooked.

The hypothetical, I take it, is this - is it better to have a "properly" timed presentation (read: accurate to the original release print) with excessive noise reduction, or a more satisfying transfer that has a tweaked color palate. Which modification from the original presentation trumps the other?

In this case, I think it's a worthy point to make - clearly timing is just as subject to heavy handedness as any form of noise reduction, and as such reviewers and critics should indeed be vigilant that such choices are made with the best intentions to the original presentation. Take the obvious example of French Connection, where a radically different look (as expressly requested by the living director, no less) resulted in a film that (to my understanding) was fine from a technical point of view, but glaringly different that either previous home video presentations or previous theatrical exhibitions.

Yes, differences don't always make for easy "us-vs-them" tropes, I agree wholeheartedly. It's easier, in this case, to point to good grain representation vs. bad, as opposed to good timing vs. excessive modification. So, between those two differences, which one trumps the other?

Hey, for fun I'm throwing out some VERY old links:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post1613480

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post1618259

(the discussion followed from there, my first at this site... Ah, the memories )

That was back in the day when I was suggesting that even well intentioned things like wire removal could, if done excessively, ruin the presentation of the original film elements. Back then, Jeff, Penton and RAH all made their points in unison that I was just being paranoid.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's wrong.

I think that many who attended the anniversary screening in May in L.A. County just might disagree with you after they read the review comparing both Blu-rays as above.

^ Perhaps, I should color the font to red, just to give the post a little more ‘rich and vivid’ color.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

OR: The more obvious temporal/filtration/processing issues were not the only inaccuracies of the previous release.

Doc, you’re not following the discussion. Read the review again and then re-read my comment.

The reviewer says that the 2009 Blu-ray version of Gladiator is faithful in regards to the color grade given his recollection of the original theatrical presentation.

According to him, the remastered Blu-ray version is not faithful to the original look but, indeed may be more appealing to ‘contemporary’ audiences based on their own personal tastes. Certainly not cinephiles and most definitely not film purists.

Now don’t bother me, this whole thing has given me an idea. Angelina looks a tad “too dusky, dull and drab” in the theatrical presentation of Salt, at least to my eye, so I think I’ll give her a little more color and tanned look for the Blu-ray rendition….. as well as some of the backdrops, for that matter.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Doc, you’re not following the discussion. Read the review again and then re-read my comment.

The reviewer says that the 2009 Blu-ray version of Gladiator is faithful in regards to the color grade given his recollection of the original theatrical presentation.

According to him, the remastered Blu-ray version is not faithful to the original look but, indeed may be more appealing to ‘contemporary’ audiences based on their own personal tastes. Certainly not cinephiles and most definitely not film purists.

Now don’t bother me, this whole thing has given me an idea. Angelina looks a tad “too dusky, dull and drab” in the theatrical presentation of Salt, at least to my eye, so I think I’ll give her a little more color and tanned look for the Blu-ray rendition….. as well as some of the backdrops, for that matter.

Penton,

I popped in the DVD this weekend and there definitely is a "blue hue" throughout most of the picture. I'm hoping to get my hands on the new Blu-ray and do a 3 way comparison. I think the DVD and the first Blu-ray were from the same source though.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Penton,

I popped in the DVD this weekend and there definitely is a "blue hue" throughout most of the picture. I'm hoping to get my hands on the new Blu-ray and do a 3 way comparison. I think the DVD and the first Blu-ray were from the same source though.

Good to hear.

I think that many folks (despite the online selective memory loss) also have a pretty good recollection of the colors of the theatrical presentation too..

[sharkshark]

I remain steadfast that my only memory of this film is that it's terrible, but, well, that's not a sentiment seemingly shared by many of you...

And Penton, I thought we were going to talk more about our appreciation of the films themselves. You've talked a lot about Inception, what did you think of it as a film (as opposed to a technical exercise)?

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by 42041

I couldn't tell the acquisition formats apart in Inception either, in both 35mm and 4K projection. I had a slightly easier time noting some unusually crisp-looking shots in Shutter Island, so I guess making the digital master from the 35mm IP equalized the quality. For some reason these things are easier to see on my TV than a huge cinema screen.

As per American Cinematographer, only a few shots in one sequence of SHUTTER ISLAND were originated on 65mm (during the nighttime dream sequence where Teddy is at Dachua in his civilian clothes). Scorsese and Richardson originally intended to shoot ALL of Teddy's dream states in 65mm, but on that first cold night of shooting the Dachua scene, both of the 65mm cameras they had broke down.

Vincent

[mark antony]

From my hazy 10 year old recollection of the theatrical release of Gladiator and it's subsequent dvd release(s) I can definately remember a grey-blue cast to many sections of the film.

Given that Mr Scott has apparantly approved this transfer, maybe he's decided to revise the colour palette to something more natural, as the unnatural "colour graded" look of it has subsequently become something of a cliche.

If he hasn't then I agree with Penton that this is as big a cock-up as the first release!

M

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Ergo – faithfulness to the original theatrical presentation gets kicked out the door and 'creative contemporary color grading' is now acceptable….as long as modern day audiences like it. Hmm, I wonder if a little grain reduction and a little sharpening will be acceptable on future Blu-ray titles, along with some *modernization* of colors…as long as modern day audiences like it? LOL, that begs the question, what "modern day audience" do you belong to... and do you consider your personal wishes and desires superior to those of film purists....in the true sense of the word(s).

I think most of us would agree that we would ideally want our Blu-Rays to have a 4K+ rescan, no digital post processing (DNR, sharpening), and that we would like the colors to match what the creative team (director, photographer etc) intended. You will find few enthusiats that don't agree with the above.

However, while DNR and sharpening artifacts are easily spotted, it's more difficult to judge colors fairly. Furthermore, there are 2 basic problems with colors:

(1) Blu-Ray has a smaller gamut than 35mm film. So there is no way to get a 100% match.

(2) Many older movies were shot with equipment inferior to today's equipment. I've read about directors redoing old film with new equipment and taking the chance to "update" the color balance. So theatrical presentation doesn't always have to be the ultimate reference. Also sometimes directors change their mind.

Of course that doesn't take anything away from the fact that we *do* want colors to match the director's intent as well as technically possible.

[hanser]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I remain steadfast that my only memory of this film is that it's terrible, but, well, that's not a sentiment seemingly shared by many of you...

It is shared by me. After watching this ugly mess in the cinema, I had to throw in the DVD of Spartacus as an antidote. Seldom I was that disappointed by a movie.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by hanser

It is shared by me. After watching this ugly mess in the cinema, I had to throw in the DVD of Spartacus as an antidote. Seldom I was that disappointed by a movie.

Hehe, I did not like it very much either and was especially appalled by the cuts in the fight scenes on first viewing but for some reason (maybe it was the quality of the presentation) it grew on me a bit in subsequent formats and I liked to use it for demonstration purposes ( I never use one of my favourite movies for that). I am still of the opinion that Fall of the Roman Empire is the better original that is mainly held back by not having a charismatic lead and a downbeat ending. Of course that one despite (or should I say because of) having been shot in anamorphic 65mm never got an excellent release on home video, it was not even properly presented in cinemas for that matter.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do you think that the second pic of Maya here was captured by moi at night under moonlight….or was Penton doing a day-for-night pic?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post2480314

I would go for a day for night pic. that is a nice coyote you have there!