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

[Penton-Man]

B.T.W.,
Please nobody mention anything about the Chelsea/Man.U. match today as I’m recording it.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

P.S.
And that guy on that thread you linked me to should learn some manners!

Here's another AVS Godfather quote of the day. Right from the gutter. It will be interesting to see if the mods allow this sort of trash to remain present.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14707562

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For film aficionados on blu-ray.com that aren’t aware of who Gordon Willis is (which is fine) but, are more interested in learning something constructive about him and The Godfather Trilogy, rather than bashing the upcoming Blu-ray release…..or anyone remotely associated with the project, let me say that Gordon W. is considered to be one THE most influential cinematographers of the ‘70’s.

He was one of the first to introduce the technique that actors, rather than the camera should move, while lighting should take center stage to create the mood. He also was one of the first innovators to use a soft overhead light source, esp. with regards to The Godfather II which rendered the actors in a subdued lighting and allowed their eyes to go dark.

I haven’t viewed the film presentations since 1990, nor have I seen the upcoming Blu-ray set, so I’m intrigued to see how well the extremely qualified personnel involved in this restoration and subsequent Blu-ray release accomplished bringing the dark scenes with soft lighting to the home theater enthusiast. I would venture a guess that it was not an easy task.

Perhaps RAH can chime in as to the technical challenges involved.

In regards to original creative intent, Gordon W. gave an interview back in the day and admitted that the only photographic issue that he and F.F.C. didn't really agree upon was the soft light. Obviously, for the original theatrical presentation, F.F.C. relented to the wishes of his cinematographer.

Years later in retrospect, students of these films know that Gordon W. sometimes wonders/admits that he may have ‘gone too far’ on the dark stuff.
Here is a little primer to whet your appetites on the lenser extraordinaire before your Blu-ray sets arrive in the mail……………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbchmWS5jIU

^
Ben, there’s even a short commentary in there from Connie Hall during one of the scenes with the actors in the foreground with the windows in the background overlooking Lake Tahoe which must have been an absolute nightmare to get right………..by “right” I mean to achieve some kind of detail in both planes without bleeding.

There is an UPDATE regarding my comment in the second paragraph of the post above that I made yesterday, as I have been kindly informed through an intermediary that I didn’t quite express myself correctly regarding what Mr. Willis had said/did in the past.

For the record, Gordon Willis ASC has informed me pursuant to the above………..
“I SAID ACTORS MOVE CAMERAS....IF THEY'RE STILL...YOU'RE STILL. THEY MOVE, YOU MOVE....ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE GODFATHERS WERE DESIGNED TO WORK WITHIN A STRUCTURED FRAME. THE OVERHEAD LIGHTING WAS DESIGNED FROM THE GET-GO....PART ONE....AND YES, IT WAS TO HELP STRUCTURE BRANDO.”

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

B.T.W.,
Please nobody mention anything about the Chelsea/Man.U. match today as I’m recording it.

One either one and one lost, or both tied!

[kiskiboy97]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

One either one and one lost, or both tied!

You beat me to the punch on that one!

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by kiskiboy97

You beat me to the punch on that one!

I almost added "the match was canceled because of a riot," but that would be insensitive

[Robert Harris]

The comments offered below are meant to place a bit of reality to the various posts on other sites proffering everything from color is wrong to concepts such as "for the restoration, those guys made a print and cleaned it."

For the cleaning of photographic emulsions, we generally find that an extra fine or 0000 steel wool works best.

There are a great many functions applied during the restoration, all based upon our selection of specific shots or frames from one element over another, that led to the final look and feel of the films on 35mm as well as Blu. I won't even get into SD, as our abilities there to replicate an image are so far removed from those of BD, that I prefer not to go there.

We began with between 150 to 155 minutes of slightly faded, heavily damaged and dirty OCN and from there scanned samples of every available dupe or preservation element we felt viable, inclusive of an original CRI produced in 1972 for UK and foreign.

In a number of cases we were saddled with dupe shots (some damaged as early as 1972), field enlargements, etc. that were up to fifth generation. A great deal of effort went into adapting and massaging these to make them work within the context of the film as a unit.

The general ethic we use in any restoration is to virtually disassemble the film, and then rebuild it using the best (the meaning of which changes on occasion) shots or frames available after side-by-side comparisons with their counterparts as well as original reference.

All decisions toward the creation of the final product were made with only film in mind. The idea that we made certain decisions, color corrections or whatever toward a potential SD or even HD release as I've seen posted elsewhere are laughable.

Referencing the CRI, we found that although it would ordinarily have been written off without inspection, that it had been produced slightly underexposed, ie. darker, which was beneficial in that some reels had less fade than they might, and allowed us to harvest certain shots from the unit.

I'll bring up one other anomaly here, that being the concept of "reference." We used the final Technicolor reference print of GF 1, which has survived under the aegis of the Academy Film Archive, as well as several dye transfer prints of GF 2 (courtesy of AMPAS, UCLA and Harvard Film Archive) as color and density reference, further supported by aid from Mr. Willis and Mr. Daviau.

We had found in the past and confirmed once again that Technicolor reference is not perfect, and the reason appears to be economic. Final density and color changes originally made their way into the printing process and final printing matrices. One gets to a place, whether attempting to maneuver a point's difference one way or the other, that the lab is going to cease the creation of six thousand feet of matrix for a small change.

Those anomalies become apparent through multiple examinations of the print, and some final tweaks which never made it into the "final" set of printing matrices are included in our 4k data files as well as all digital derivatives.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Penton, with appreciation for the loan of his thread. I'm not opening my own, as I have no need to deal with the "scientists" who apparently have all the answers.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

On noes!
Yikes, now they’re starting to condemn simulated crowds integrated with the plate photography, as being “too smooth and blurry”!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=568
Memo from Penton-Man to all filmmakers……….
1. No more render layers are allowed.
2. No one is allowed to rotoscope real people in the plate photography of digital people.
or else, the *science* forum will suspect the studio’s compressionist has DNR’ed the HD master.

You should know by now that the video janitor's list is on the index for film lovers. It's evil and you should not go there as a film lover, much less spread its contents any further. Should you persist excommunication is a very real possibility.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbchmWS5jIU

^
Ben, there’s even a short commentary in there from Connie Hall during one of the scenes with the actors in the foreground with the windows in the background overlooking Lake Tahoe which must have been an absolute nightmare to get right………..

That's just outstanding, Penton! If Connie Hall was terrified of underexposure, it's a further testament to the innovation and fearlessness of Mr. Willis! Connie Hall obviously had a deep admiraition for Willis' work. Weren't they great friends as well? Actually, didn't Mr. Hall give him the nickname, "The Prince of Darkness?"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

You should know by now that the video janitor's list is on the index for film lovers. It's evil and you should not go there as a film lover, much less spread its contents any further. Should you persist excommunication is a very real possibility.

lol
Well Michel, I visited your infamous list actually as a "film lover" looking for the ridiculous accusations that the Godfather trilogy had been DNR’ed…. since I thought you forensic screenshot scientists had centralized all the ‘alleged’ DNR’ed movies into that particular thread.
It just seemed to be the most efficient use of my time.

I didn’t mean anything personal by linking your post to this thread. Your post was just the last (or the next to the last? )post on that particular AVS thread at the time, and it seemed rather humorous that you were actually asking *scientists* to look for DNR on rendered crowd scenes where something like 200 – 300 of the people were real and the other 5700 or so were fake, i.e digital simulations.

Regardless, no, I do not buy into your notion that the vast majority of *scientists* who contribute to that thread are “film lovers”.
I believe (as do people in the industry that are aware of its existence) that the thread consists of a group of contributors who wish they had the knowledge, fortitude, discipline and skills to work in the motion picture business as a compressionist or colorist, etc., when they don’t have that specialized knowledge, fortitude, discipline and skill to begin with.

In other words, they can’t cut the mustard in the real world so they find it easier to criticize other peoples’ work. They would exhibit this same type of derogatory behavior no matter what hobby they were interested in. They just happen to be ‘videophiles’ now…..certainly not “film lovers”.

You, as the sole exception, may have the knowledge to critique other peoples’ work, in some cases, however, you are excessively hyper-allergic to DNR or EE or anything that you perceive as such, no matter where it originates in the production chain of a motion picture– which in itself is completely contradictory to being a true “film lover”, if such post processing is purposely used for a creative intent that you are unaware of.

Anyway, next time I venture into *science* hell, I’ll be sure to say 10 Our Fathers, 10 Hail Marys and give a good Act of Contrition afterwards.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ben

That's just outstanding, Penton! If Connie Hall was terrified of underexposure, it's a further testament to the innovation and fearlessness of Mr. Willis! Connie Hall obviously had a deep admiraition for Willis' work. Weren't they great friends as well? Actually, didn't Mr. Hall give him the nickname, "The Prince of Darkness?"

Yes, he did and affectionately so.
However, I don’t think that Mr. Willis ever really liked that nickname much, because people unfamiliar with filmmaking and cinematography might get the wrong impression of its meaning.

Mr. Willis is revered among Directors of Photography and I really wish someday that the Academy bestows upon him a Lifetime Achievement Award for his total body of work and the inspiration he has provided to other cinematographers in the business.

http://boston.com/ae/video/visionsoflight_gordonwillis/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

I almost added "the match was canceled because of a riot," but that would be insensitive

For a riot no, I wouldn’t have believed it anyway.
At least, not for a riot outside the stadium………unless Posh Spice was reportedly running around nude before the match……..smiling.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There are a great many functions applied during the restoration, all based upon our selection of specific shots or frames from one element over another, that led to the final look and feel of the films on 35mm as well as Blu. I won't even get into SD, as our abilities there to replicate an image are so far removed from those of BD, that I prefer not to go there.

We began with between 150 to 155 minutes of slightly faded, heavily damaged and dirty OCN and from there scanned samples of every available dupe or preservation element we felt viable, inclusive of an original CRI produced in 1972 for UK and foreign.

In a number of cases we were saddled with dupe shots (some damaged as early as 1972), field enlargements, etc. that were up to fifth generation. A great deal of effort went into adapting and massaging these to make them work within the context of the film as a unit.

The general ethic we use in any restoration is to virtually disassemble the film, and then rebuild it using the best (the meaning of which changes on occasion) shots or frames available after side-by-side comparisons with their counterparts as well as original reference.

All decisions toward the creation of the final product were made with only film in mind. The idea that we made certain decisions, color corrections or whatever toward a potential SD or even HD release as I've seen posted elsewhere are laughable.

Referencing the CRI, we found that although it would ordinarily have been written off without inspection, that it had been produced slightly underexposed, ie. darker, which was beneficial in that some reels had less fade than they might, and allowed us to harvest certain shots from the unit.

I'll bring up one other anomaly here, that being the concept of "reference." We used the final Technicolor reference print of GF 1, which has survived under the aegis of the Academy Film Archive, as well as several dye transfer prints of GF 2 (courtesy of AMPAS, UCLA and Harvard Film Archive) as color and density reference, further supported by aid from Mr. Willis and Mr. Daviau.

We had found in the past and confirmed once again that Technicolor reference is not perfect, and the reason appears to be economic. Final density and color changes originally made their way into the printing process and final printing matrices. One gets to a place, whether attempting to maneuver a point's difference one way or the other, that the lab is going to cease the creation of six thousand feet of matrix for a small change.

Those anomalies become apparent through multiple examinations of the print, and some final tweaks which never made it into the "final" set of printing matrices are included in our 4k data files as well as all digital derivatives.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Penton, with appreciation for the loan of his thread. I'm not opening my own, as I have no need to deal with the "scientists" who apparently have all the answers.

Thanks so much for the input.
Feel free to chime in here anytime you have the urge to in the future.

I purposely bolded my favorite part of your post to emphasize how myopic some peoples’ view of the world and their concerns really are.

[Robert Harris]

As I'm between the Farewell to Yankee Stadium and the game, I'll offer one additional thought.

Without Blu-ray, we would have had no full quality means of replicating GF 1 on a single disc, which brings to mind one of the more overlooked attributes of our system -- the ability to view a long film without an artificial break.

Even with its 200+ minutes and restored Intermission, on Blu, there is no need for a second disc for GF 2.

I like this, for with Blu we are able to reproduce the images, audio, textures and unadulterated entertainment values of the cinema in a home theater environment.

RAH

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Here's another AVS Godfather quote of the day. Right from the gutter. It will be interesting to see if the mods allow this sort of trash to remain present.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14707562

Well, "Matt Stevens" (whoever he is gave the poster a bit of his mind.

[micks_address]

Just like to say thanks to Penton for posting this link, i found the article fascinating and makes me really wish I was involved some way in film rather than a (slightly ) less exciting profession such as IT

i am going to order these films today as i just cant resist.. it sounds like the restoration was impeccable and big thank you to Robert for posting here and contributing to the forum and for the wonderful effort at restoring and preserving these films for us and future generations..

Mick

p.s. just ordered.. ah well here's to credit cards

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
I just glanced at that page and I’m wondering if some posts were deleted as I didn’t see any DNR accusations………. just color timing *queries*.
Seems to me that somebody cleaned up their act(s) after the fact.

I would suggest that the *color scientists* read this article…………….
http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...ocus/page1.php

And since some people over there think that RAH (as well as Kim Aubrey, paidgeek and myself) are outright liars since explaining the appearance of the colors on F.F.C.’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I would recommend that they research these names for a record of their expertise and honesty –

Gordon Willis, ASC,

Allen Daviau, ASC (think StEM among other things)
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1714

Jan Yarbrough

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Regardless, no, I do not buy into your notion that the vast majority of *scientists* who contribute to that thread are “film lovers”.
I believe (as do people in the industry that are aware of its existence) that the thread consists of a group of contributors who wish they had the knowledge, fortitude, discipline and skills to work in the motion picture business as a compressionist or colorist, etc., when they don’t have that specialized knowledge, fortitude, discipline and skill to begin with.

That's a variation on the old "Rock critics are failed musicians" / "Movie critics are failed filmmakers" adage.

I wonder if "the industry" considers paid and unpaid critics as a good thing or a bad thing overall:
Pro: they generate buzz and word-of-mouth = free advertising = good
Con: they pick up (real or imaginary) product problems and scare other people = negative publicity = bad

Here we're talking about picture quality in HDM, but we've seen it everywhere. Anybody remember the walkie-talkies for guns in E.T.? Well Peter Travers probably couldn't make a movie to save his life, but he had a point there.

I don't see a problem here, really. By and large, people on most forums are gushing over the recent bigger catalog releases such as Kill Bill, How the West Was Won, or The Godfather trilogy. So we enjoy the movies, and the industry enjoys our dollars. Win-win.

[Sean4000]

The films were rebuilt using the best possible source material ensuring that the color timings, grain stricture, and exposures fit Copolla's vision of a living old photograph.

Wow, so simple to understand. Amazing.

Thank you Mr. Harris for attempting to clear all of this up amidst constant bombardment.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Grubert

..........I don't see a problem here, really. By and large, people on most forums are gushing over the recent bigger catalog releases such as Kill Bill, How the West Was Won, or The Godfather trilogy. So we enjoy the movies, and the industry enjoys our dollars. Win-win.

Well, in my post I was referring to people in the business i.e. technicians, operators and such who do not receive royalties or percentages based upon how a certain title sells or doesn’t sell. They work on salaries.

Believe me dude, if some *scientists* had their way, Kill Bill would not be getting the online accolades it is currently receiving.
In fact, I’ll bet it is just killing a certain individual that posts online that Kill Bill is so enjoyable to home theater enthusiasts.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

As I'm between the Farewell to Yankee Stadium and the game, I'll offer one additional thought........
RAH

I saw a few baseball games there.
I even saw my first European soccer match there, i.e. between AC Milan and Inter Milan.

One of my most prized possessions are a series of autographs my father got expressly for me when he was doing part of his medical residency in N.Y.C. and was allowed access to the Yankees locker room back in the golden years. On the back of several wallet photos of me as a wee young thing in various stages of growth (that my Dad carried with him), he got and I now have the autographs of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford and Tony Kubeck.

Talk about vivid recollections. There is nothing like coming out a tunnel or gate for the first time to see, in all its glory, The House That Ruth Built or Camden Yards (with my Dad in his senior years ), in the city where Ruth was born.