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

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Well....as I see it, if Paramount is going forward with a 3D conversion of Top Gun... is it too early to start lobbying Sony Pictures to do a 3D conversion of Lawrence of Arabia?

I can just see that sand blowing into my active shuttered bespectacled eyes right now! I'd be happy with a 2D version of LoA on blu-ray!

[Steedeel]

Cannot help wondering what the reverse dolly in jaws would be like in 3d. I think i would give enter the void a miss though!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cannot help wondering what the reverse dolly in jaws would be like in 3d.

Tunnel-vision.

[Steedeel]

True

Did they use the same shot for when brodie's son was in the water faced by the shark or is it my imagination?

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

How ‘bout dem Ravens yesterday in Bal’mur?
I've personally been waiting a long time for that type of domination.

Purple Sunday, Bayyyy-Beeee!!!!

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Which is exactly the horror story scenario i fear. Although i doubt you will be ridiculed as much as me for suggesting so. Like i said before, if you are a TRUE home cinema enthusiast get off the fence and stop backing poor technology. The warning signs are there for all to see.

See, this is where you lose me. I don't think it matters if we back streaming media or not. It's not going anywhere.

I can see a possible path for streaming to surpass physical media to a point where certain movies are released to consumers as a streaming only product. If it's a niche film that would not be released any other way, then that's a wonderful thing and I hope it happens more often. I wouldn't have seen 11 Minutes Ago if it weren't for Netflix streaming (as an example) because I really doubt I would have even known it existed, if it's even been released on disk.

[Penton-Man]

So, today I receive a load of PMs linking me to an article….. http://collider.com/the-lion-king-3d...images/108381/

Which apparently directly contradicts the 3D terminology which I used here in a past post to sharkshark and which folks were *kind* enough to remind me about….

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, given the sometimes confusing nature of parallax terminology, first let’s get that in order so we’re all on the same wavelength, shall we.

Positive parallax refers to the image appearing or playing out behind the screen.
Negative parallax refers to the image appearing or playing out in front of the screen.

Most of the inquisitors ended their queries to me with comments like “So, who is *right*” Disney’s stereographer or Penton-Man”.

First of all, I’ll say that I’m impressed that so many Blu-ray.com members were astute enough to pick up on the number disparity (+ for -, and vice versa) as depicted in the Lion King images…..as compared to my previous nomenclature description to sharkshark from last June. It shows that some of you are really giving some serious thought to the professional production aspects of this topic and 3D in general. Secondly, for the record, I admire everyone at the House of Mouse, especially Robert Neuman. Great folks all around.

Thirdly, for now, I’ll just say, trust in the P-Man , as to what is the proper modern day terminology, for even a rudimentary amount of Googling will provide folks with paper after paper after paper of the industry-accepted nomenclature for 3D depth terminology.

Until then, for a more complete explanation as to why this apparent nomenclature discrepancy, as they say in the blogger-boy business….

Stay Tuned.

^ I know, I know, I’m such a tease.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Well....as I see it, if Paramount is going forward with a 3D conversion of Top Gun... is it too early to start lobbying Sony Pictures to do a 3D conversion of Lawrence of Arabia?

I say, it’s never too early to give some people heartburn, as it keeps ‘em sharp…..plus, I own stock in Novartis which distributes Maalox.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Speaking of dysfunctional behavior, I guess I should give a little lip-service to a catalog title which doesn’t have any robots, aliens, or the word Star anywhere in its title before it rapidly disappears into home theater forum obscurity, if even a thread for it exists on this forum, in the first place.

I speak of The Caine Mutiny and https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-C...Blu-ray/23455/
and obviously Captain Queeg.

Anyway, are there any old Navy dogs out there? Question is…… can a vintage U.S. Navy destroyer minesweeper as depicted in the movie (and also, actually in the novel, for that matter)

[Show spoiler]really steer a circle tight enough to cut its own towline as seen in the target-towing sequence?

No old salt dogs out there? Meanwhile, I’ll postpone commenting further in regards to the principal photography with the scene in question, for a few days, in case some folks are waiting for their Blu-ray purchases to arrive. I don’t think that speaking about the nuances of what actually happened will ruin the viewing for anyone but, just to be safe, I’ll use a spoiler anyway.

I highly doubt this production info can be found anywhere on the internet.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

See, this is where you lose me. I don't think it matters if we back streaming media or not. It's not going anywhere.

I can see a possible path for streaming to surpass physical media to a point where certain movies are released to consumers as a streaming only product. If it's a niche film that would not be released any other way, then that's a wonderful thing and I hope it happens more often. I wouldn't have seen 11 Minutes Ago if it weren't for Netflix streaming (as an example) because I really doubt I would have even known it existed, if it's even been released on disk.

Fair enough, you have your ways, i personally would consider that horrific.
anyway i am leaving this topic well alone now.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

i personally would consider that horrific.

You'd consider it horrific to make electronically available movies that wouldn't otherwise get a physical-media release?

Remind me not to occupy the same room with you and a cable or satellite tv feed.

[Steedeel]

No, i meant the streaming only part!

[Steedeel]

Most films end up on cable/sat/broadcast anyway so it is rare that i would miss a film altogether. Especially as i like odd, quirky films so much. I have Mother, Thirst, Fish Tank, Dogtooth, white Ribbon. All not mainstream films, but all available on bluray and looking glorious. I wouldn't be able to enjoy youtube quality films no matter what the content. Seriously, i would not! Rather not bother.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Fair enough, you have your ways, i personally would consider that horrific.
anyway i am leaving this topic well alone now.

Sounds like a good idea!

[Steedeel]

ahhhhh, my friend Rick! How are you buddy?

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

ahhhhh, my friend Rick! How are you buddy?

I'm doing quite well! Glad you finally improved your decision making and are "leaving the topic well alone now".
You know it reminds me of a saying I, once, heard:
How does one acquire good decision making skills? Through poor judgment.
Well then how does one acquire good judgment? Through bad decision making.
Best of luck, sir.

[Steedeel]

Quite.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No old salt dogs out there? Meanwhile, I’ll postpone commenting further in regards to the principal photography with the scene in question, for a few days, in case some folks are waiting for their Blu-ray purchases to arrive. I don’t think that speaking about the nuances of what actually happened will ruin the viewing for anyone but, just to be safe, I’ll use a spoiler anyway.

I highly doubt this production info can be found anywhere on the internet.

I haven't seen the movie in years, but what you describe was entirely possible for a WWII USN Destroyer. I had a tour of duty on a Destroyer that was commissioned 4 years after the Thompson http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/0938.htm which was used in the movie. The ships are highly maneuverable particularly at high speed.

I would assume that the scene as depicted in the novel and possibly in the film had the ship turning with a 1000 yd diameter as recommended.
See 7.2.3.3 Making turns with the target. Navy Towing Manual http://www.scribd.com/doc/39541826/U...Towing-Manual#

This is not a 'vintage' destroyer, but the one I was on could make a u-turn in about twice the space that this one does. We were playing 'chicken with subs. http://videosift.com/video/US-Navy-D...igh-Speed-Turn The Gonzales is about 150 ft. longer than the Thompson http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01066.htm

While on sea duty I was involved with naval artillary exercises and observed target tows, usually by tugs. I can find no specifics on the length of the tow cable, but the distance between the tug and the towed target could easily have exceeded 1000 yds. (can't be too careful).

There are too many variables to provide a definitive answer. Had they stopped streaming the target? Did they recover the cable to 600 ft. for their return to port? If so, it is unlikely that they would have turned inside the target. If they were making the turn prior to cable recovery, they could have easily turned inside the target.

[Penton-Man]

^ Nice post ….and especially fine video of the tight port turn . I don’t know the definitive answer either but, I’m inclined to believe that cutting back across the towline could indeed occur if the towline was about 2000 yards long and you read p. 169 of The Caine Mutiny novel by Herman Wouk as to the location of the target and the rate the ship was travelling.

Regardless, like I said, I’ll give it a few days before I comment upon what happened (unexpectedly) during the principal photography of the scene in the movie. Maybe by doing so, I’ll be doing my humble role in helping sell a few more copies of another catalog title before it disappears into oblivion like a depth charge which never went off.

[Penton-Man]

As I hinted above, the numerical assignment as depicted in The Lion King images (+ or -) runs completely counter to

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

the industry-accepted nomenclature for 3D depth terminology....

An analogy would be almost akin to Americans driving on the left side of the road in the U.S. As to why, Robert N. used this nomenclature (+ for – and – for + in the pics) which, in essence, is a terminology inversion of the accepted description for 3D depth in the stereographic community, I think it is because it’s a legacy artifact related to an old, or perhaps better described as ‘archaic’ source code from the toolset which the House of Mouse utilizes (the tool itself, works fine).

The typical hobbyist who reads mainstream websites like the one which posted the Robert N. interview would probably never pick up on such a discrepancy which, on the contrary, would stick out like a black eye in the professional 3D community, so, like I said, kudos to those astute Blu-ray.com members who identified this and voiced their concern.

Bottom line...Penton was "right".