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

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I take that as an early April Fools Day joke.

I think/hope you know that I was referring to CwaCoM ….
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Cloud...-Blu-ray/9163/

You mean there was another Sony (Columbia) release with "Meatballs" in the title???

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Last night I received some PMs concerning my last post which some took as a slight against other Blu-ray forums on the internet. Well, that was not my intent.
As penance, I will post a link to another online forum namely, HTF ….
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...ray-in-2009-or

with the following query -
Whether tis nobler to scan (for optimal restoration) a 65mm OCN at 6K (Ben-Hur) or at 8K (The Sound of Music)… http://www.facebook.com/video/video....50282259450612

That is zee question.

I'll bet the well-informed videophiles on this forum as well as on another audio/visual forum, namely AVS , easily know the correct answer to that question even if they're a little uncertain as to how much detail can be harvested from a 65mm OCN, they're certainly familiar with the fact that an over-sampled image size ultimately avoids or suppresses aliasing artifacts.

I am sure that 6k is high enough of a resolution to arrive at a perfect Blu-Ray, not so sure about 4k projection systems and surely 8k would be preferable for preservation purposes for 65mm elements.

What puzzles me is how Warner quite some time ago already scanned A Star Is Born that has really low resolution in 6k and Ben Hur with probably more than double the resolving capability also gets a 6k scan?

With the abundance of large format biblical epics in the last week it would be interesting to hear how the studios worked on their releases.

So far we only know that Paramount used the original negative and scanned at 6k from the original negative.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Where are you getting this information? It all sounds spurious.

RAH

It ALL sounds spurious?

Regarding the scanned resolutions I mentioned the info is out there:


The Ten Commandments, quote from you on HTF:

"Sharpness and overall resolution, as captured from the VVLA elements at 4k (6k, if you consider the negative moving sideways, but still 4k perf to perf) is dead-on perfect."


from Highdefdigest about a Star is Born, quoting Ned Price:

"6K is typically a costly proposition, so that's why we are testing the waters on 'A Star is Born,'" Ned Price, VP Mastering at Warner Brothers Technical Operations told HR. "As the size of data is more easily managed and the tools become more accessible, we will increase our resolution."


This site about Ben Hur, similar announcements on others, all mentioning 6k. Most of them are quoting The Digital Bits but I cannot find the original quote due to their April fools page that is up today:

"The film has been newly restored at a resolution of 6K from the original 65mm camera elements [...]"


I seem to remember information to the effect that Ben Hur was to be scanned at 8k but the announcements clearly state 6k - maybe there was some kind of mix-up and it actually was scanned in 8k?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You mean there was another Sony (Columbia) release with "Meatballs" in the title???

lol, I can see that your *appreciation* for animation flicks pretty much mirrors that of mine for ‘cover art’. Of course, I’ve always been probably more of a functional type of guy than others.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I am sure that 6k is high enough of a resolution to arrive at a perfect Blu-Ray, not so sure about 4k projection systems and surely 8k would be preferable for preservation purposes for 65mm elements.

What puzzles me is how Warner quite some time ago already scanned A Star Is Born that has really low resolution in 6k and Ben Hur with probably more than double the resolving capability also gets a 6k scan?

With the abundance of large format biblical epics in the last week it would be interesting to hear how the studios worked on their releases.

So far we only know that Paramount used the original negative and scanned at 6k from the original negative.

Well, where the heck have you been? I thought you either passed (onto the after-life) or moved onto another hobby.

Good to see you back alive and kicking.

In regards to the biblical classics, you’ll love this one. I’m told by neighbors that the newest PC thing is to now refer to the traditional Easter Egg Hunt as the ‘Spring’ Egg Hunt. What will they think of next?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

It ALL sounds spurious?...

Yeah Bob, I’ve got to go with Oliver on this. Your quoting of Oliver’s previous post followed by the blanket comment “Where are you getting this information? It all sounds spurious.” comes off way too vague to me and just invites confusion as to exactly which part of his post you were referring to.

This morning I was PM’ed this post made by you (also from HTF)…. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...0#post_3793993

In regards to the second paragraph there ^, I also don’t understand what you mean by the vague term “sizzle’. If you’re implying what I think you implying then I disagree -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post4538308

[Penton-Man]

^ In response to the above linked past post I made a couple days ago, I received the strangest PM this morning on April Fools Day and I’m uncertain if it was a joke or if the person was serious, nevertheless, the answer is Yes, Hans has hair….in fact, a full head of hair, as he is not that old.

[Penton-Man]

DenonCI ….PeterTHX, and so it begins….
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...119061659.html

They’ve taken it to the air.
The internet 3D haters would have felt right at home at the ballpark yesterday.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, where the heck have you been? I thought you either passed (onto the after-life) or moved onto another hobby.

My time is a bit more limited these days so I am not posting as much anymore - I really have to wonder how you do it!

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Good to see you back alive and kicking.

Same here, good to see your thread is still going strong

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In regards to the biblical classics, you’ll love this one. I’m told by neighbors that the newest PC thing is to now refer to the traditional Easter Egg Hunt as the ‘Spring’ Egg Hunt. What will they think of next?

Now that is really both the political correct AND the pious thing to do - isn't PC a wonderful thing

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I seem to remember information to the effect that Ben Hur was to be scanned at 8k but the announcements clearly state 6k - maybe there was some kind of mix-up and it actually was scanned in 8k?

I have a feeling WB intended the end result of the work to be a 4K master. Scanning at 6K resolution would seem to be good enough for that. Penton-Man posted a link from the E-Film web site to a PDF document made by Arri about 6K scanning and 4K DI. I have posted links to the same PDF previously.

The clear inference there is the best general standard in acquiring 4-perf 35mm film into digital intermediate work flow is by scanning at 6K and then down sampling to 4K. The over-sampling in the scanning process and later down-sampling to final resolution can eliminate certain problems with moiré, "frequency sweep" patterns and other details that would otherwise be baked into the image more permanently if the film was scanned at 4K and mastered at 4K. The print graphics industry routinely does this (but not always) with film-based photographic imagery for mass print publication.

When photographed under optimal conditions and using an optimal combination of camera, lens and lighting 5-perf 65mm absolutely has the capacity to hold more detail than a 6K scan can acquire. Using the best modern cameras, lenses and film stocks 8K wouldn't be good enough to extract all the detail.

Baraka was given an 8K scan, but it was also output to an archival 5-perf 70mm print in 8K. It's too bad MPI couldn't go even higher with the resolution. It's almost always better to scan in a higher resolution than needed so long as the computing hardware can handle it.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

DenonCI ….PeterTHX, and so it begins….
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...119061659.html

They’ve taken it to the air.
The internet 3D haters would have felt right at home at the ballpark yesterday.

I wasn't happy the Giants lost the home opener, but there are 161 games left and I think they'll be just fine over the season (95 wins or so).

I'm pissed at ESPN for moving the game to a 5:00 pm start. According to the beat writers, the shadows were horrendous and the hitters couldn't see the dang ball (explaining the 2-1 score).

I couldn't even watch the game last night because I went to the Sharks/Stars game and at least the Sharks kicked some serious tail (6-0)!!!

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I have a feeling WB intended the end result of the work to be a 4K master. Scanning at 6K resolution would seem to be good enough for that. Penton-Man posted a link from the E-Film web site to a PDF document made by Arri about 6K scanning and 4K DI. I have posted links to the same PDF previously.

The clear inference there is the best general standard in acquiring 4-perf 35mm film into digital intermediate work flow is by scanning at 6K and then down sampling to 4K. The over-sampling in the scanning process and later down-sampling to final resolution can eliminate certain problems with moiré, "frequency sweep" patterns and other details that would otherwise be baked into the image more permanently if the film was scanned at 4K and mastered at 4K. The print graphics industry routinely does this (but not always) with film-based photographic imagery for mass print publication.

When photographed under optimal conditions and using an optimal combination of camera, lens and lighting 5-perf 65mm absolutely has the capacity to hold more detail than a 6K scan can acquire. Using the best modern cameras, lenses and film stocks 8K wouldn't be good enough to extract all the detail.

Baraka was given an 8K scan, but it was also output to an archival 5-perf 70mm print in 8K. It's too bad MPI couldn't go even higher with the resolution. It's almost always better to scan in a higher resolution than needed so long as the computing hardware can handle it.

If the Ben Hur negative was indeed in bad shape I would have expected they would have used the highest workable resolution which seems to be 8k for the last two or three years.
After all if the OCN is not good for revisiting multiple times this would seem like the sensible thing to do.

Baraka was scanned in 8k from a 65mm wetgate IP instead of the OCN mainly to cut down on costs and in fact it was the first movie that was handled this way.
The 8k data was not preserved and was not used for a 65mm filmout which afaik is still not possible even today and definitely was not possible when Baraka was prepared in 8k.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

My time is a bit more limited these days so I am not posting as much anymore - I really have to wonder how you do it!

Read quickly and type quickly whenever I stop in to chat.

[Penton-Man]

Sharkshark, Jim’s back in the news again –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/new-displa...ml#post4564082

This will give you a chance to post your views concerning aesthetics and 2D.

[Doctorossi]

Regarding standardization, I think the eternal argument will always be 48 vs. 60. It's certainly a better time than ever to finally make the leap, as digital cameras/capture devices won't require giant blimp-housings to shut them up at those speeds and adapting a lot of existing digital cinema projectors (single-throw LCD 3D systems, especially) should be very inexpensive (relative to film projector upgrade costs).

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Regarding standardization, I think the eternal argument will always be 48 vs. 60. It's certainly a better time than ever to finally make the leap, as digital cameras/capture devices won't require giant blimp-housings to shut them up at those speeds and adapting a lot of existing digital cinema projectors (single-throw LCD 3D systems, especially) should be very inexpensive (relative to film projector upgrade costs).

Digital cinemas (some anyway) can already do 60 fps in 2D (as well as 25, 30, 50 fps etc. - well they've been added as part of the standard). I think they should make the cinema standards allow for a lot of rates in 3D too, not just one (48 or 60), to allow for film makers to choose whichever they think is best. They could even have more than 60 too (to keep it competitive with SHV that Japan will have in a few years - which will be at 7680x4320@>=60 fps).

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sharkshark, Jim’s back in the news again –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/new-displa...ml#post4564082

This will give you a chance to post your views concerning aesthetics and 2D.

I won't bother, especially as whenever I write a novel it just gets skimmed/skipped.

But, yeah, new tools are fun, but the look of film has much to do with 24fps, rightly or wrongly. High framerate reproduction, from what I've seen demoed, certainly has a tendency to look like daytime television.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I won't bother, especially as whenever I write a novel it just gets skimmed/skipped.

But, yeah, new tools are fun, but the look of film has much to do with 24fps, rightly or wrongly.

Yes, so far, it has.

Before the advent of color, the look of film had "much to do with" monochrome.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I won't bother, especially as whenever I write a novel it just gets skimmed/skipped.

But, yeah, new tools are fun, but the look of film has much to do with 24fps, rightly or wrongly. High framerate reproduction, from what I've seen demoed, certainly has a tendency to look like daytime television.

Your “novels” are appreciated and any lack of comment (at least on my part) is more related to my restricted time to peruse and respond rather than any inattentiveness or dismissal of your effort.

Anyway, you hit the nail on the head. Last year, a major camera manufacturer did a presentation (footage captured on 35mm film, b.t.w.) essentially comparing shooting material at 24fps and projecting it at 24fps (which is traditional) to that of shooting material at 48fps and projecting it at 48fps.

I would say that the vast majority of the audience (cinematographers by trade) was disillusioned with what they saw because the 48fps no longer appeared to them as ‘film like’ and was described as “video-ish”, “hyper-real”, “video game-like”, etc. Most in attendance were of the notion that if higher frame rates indeed had an application in the future it would be more for documentaries and *reality programming* rather than dramatic motion pictures. So, I think that Jim’s campaign would be better directed to filmmakers (esp. fellow Directors) rather than theater owners.

Aesthetically, I think it could be debated from both personal perspectives with probably an inherent generational bias element involved in one’s thinking.

Some folks could argue that they’ve been watching movies at 24fps for so many years that *that look* (judder, motion blur-> smearing) is so ingrained in their minds as to what ‘motion pictures’ should look like that anything other than that will *take them out* of the motion picture experience by distraction.

On the other hand, other folks could argue that higher frame rates are more natural to what we really see with our eyes in everyday life and just because years and years of filmmakers being limited by a 24fps rate shouldn’t forever restrict us from moving forward to a more real look in our motion pictures….similar to embracing 4k capture and projection over the limited resolution, etc. offered by typical film projectors showing release prints at some local cinemas which still use thee old tech.

[Oliver K]

Say Penton, now that Blu-Ray won the format war I would like to replace my blue cases with black ones like in the first pic of this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ray-cases.html

To my astonishment I could not find these anywhere - is it not possible to get a license to manufacture these?
Sorry if this is not right up your alley, maybe you would know where to turn to regarding this?

And yes I know you are not really interested in packaging but you should appreciate that there are people that care - these are also the guys who still buy prepackaged media