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

[Bobby Henderson]

It varies from one project to the next.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I suspect after watching this part, that the online accolades for Inglourious Basterds will take a decidedly upwards spike with the new knowledge (for some image capture fanboys) that Q.T. is an inflexible proponent of film for image acquisition as well as exhibition………..although, he doesn’t have a problem with the digital intermediate process for his motion pictures.

And that just doesn't make any sense.

Unless the digital intermediate is using film scans of 4K or greater resolution and cooked at that high native resolution any benefit of film projection is lost. You might as well watch the movie at any D-cinema equipped theater.

Putting it more simply, 35mm film projection done right loses any of its advantages if the source imagery (the digital intermediate) was produced at the usual 2K resolution.

A pure film-in/film-out work flow can perform very well in comparison against 2K projection, especially if the movie was shot in full frame 'scope with no lossy Super35 optical printing conversion step. However, the old school approach has plenty of drawbacks, with perhaps the biggest being "global" color timing and inconsistencies with CGI shots being mixed in with the pure film-in/film-out footage. Digital intermediate works only too well in that regard. You're literally Photoshopping the movie instead of color tinting and bleach bypassing it. The DI technique is far more precise (and not to mention more consistent).

Ultimately, the tired 2K format, with its barely above HDTV quality image, needs to be put into the grave already. 4K really needs to be the starting point. The resulting imagery will look better in 35mm projection, 4K projection and even 2K projection for that matter.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

And that just doesn't make any sense.

Unless the digital intermediate is using film scans of 4K or greater resolution and cooked at that high native resolution any benefit of film projection is lost. You might as well watch the movie at any D-cinema equipped theater.

Hmm... I think I disagree with this. I would argue that the remaining benefit of film projection is only a product of light output, not of spatial resolution, except in the most unusual (and very "high-end") of circumstances. I would certainly argue that this is the case for commercial screenings, pretty much across the board. A film print is going to give you better contrast. If you want higher spatial resolution, instead, go to a digital presentation, whether 4k or 2k.

Meanwhile, I have to add that I also agree with QT and Jeff. The best acquisition means today is to shoot as big a piece of film as you practically can, process it and then immediately DI it at as high a resolution as you can.

However, when the multiple-simultaneous-exposure-profile ccd's hit, I'll be first in line to drop film on its pathetic ass.

[Vincent Pereira]

Was INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS a 2K or 4K DI? I know Roger Deakins insists on doing all his DIs 4K these days. I'd imagine Robert Richardson must have the same clout, but I haven't read anything regarding the resolution of his DIs.

Vincent

[phansson]

Hey penton,

With the success worldwide of Avatar, what are the chances that Fox could go Blu Ray exclusive with the home release? With the price of players down to a place where everyone could afford one, why not up the ante?

[micks_address]

Well watched a bit of Beyonce last night.. first concert i've seen filmed in 2:35:1

it was grand but expected a bit more to be honest.. a blu-ray of her tour performance would be nicer..

Originally Posted by micks_address

Hi Penton,

Picked up my Beyonce I am Yours blu-ray last night.. as a stocking filler.. should go nicely with my George Michael and Take That Blu-Rays over christmas...

Obvouisly they are for my wife.. but i'll be doing some serious screenshot analysis of the beyonce Blu-ray for signs of defects

Cheers,
Mick

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by phansson

Hey penton,

With the success worldwide of Avatar, what are the chances that Fox could go Blu Ray exclusive with the home release? With the price of players down to a place where everyone could afford one, why not up the ante?

Neither Fox nor Cameron are going to ditch the potential DVD sales for Avatar. I could see a single combined sku or an early sku for blu-ray, but not ditching DVD altogether. We are way too early in the blu-ray life cycle for that to happen.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I live in the Lawton-Fort Sill area. The snow amounts in our area vary widely. Amounts between 5" and 15". Lots and lots of snow drifts. "Thundersnow" was happening through much of the area.

It's been over 20 years since this area has had a White Christmas, and only 5 times over the past 100 years.

I live in Fort Smith. We ended up with about 4" of snow so it wasn't that bad. Of course no one around here knows how to drive in it so it is all ways a cluster. A white Christmas was nice, but I am in the golf business so snow is not good for my wallet.

My ex wife was from a little town outside of Lawton.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by phansson

Hey penton,

With the success worldwide of Avatar, what are the chances that Fox could go Blu Ray exclusive with the home release? With the price of players down to a place where everyone could afford one, why not up the ante?

As expensive as this movie was, they need to sell as many different skus as possible.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

As expensive as this movie was, they need to sell as many different skus as possible.

Its all ready made 150 million and will probably end up making about 550 worldwide.

Maybe a Blu Ray only release with a dvd included!

[Jeff Kleist]

With the success worldwide of Avatar, what are the chances that Fox could go Blu Ray exclusive with the home release? With the price of players down to a place where everyone could afford one, why not up the ante?

Zero

Like with VHS, you eliminate from the bottom (smaller) up, and we're years away from cutting the bottom ones still

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Was INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS a 2K or 4K DI? I know Roger Deakins insists on doing all his DIs 4K these days. I'd imagine Robert Richardson must have the same clout, but I haven't read anything regarding the resolution of his DIs.

Vincent

Given the capture resolution, a measly 2k , and I think that is the irony of Q.T.’s pontifications that Bobby was alluding to in the long running film vs. digital acquisition debate……color space issues aside.

I imagine there are two practical ways to view this, one, from the viewpoint of a current Blu-ray home theater enthusiast……….

For instance, Red Cliff, also had only a 2k DI and I believe that many Blu-ray home theater enthusiasts would consider that motion picture to be one of the ‘reference’ Blu-ray’s for 2009.

It just goes to show that so much of what you often see on Blu-ray at home is particularly dependent upon the principal photography and the digital grade (color timing) of the film source, with the actual scanning resolution of the film source being of secondary importance. It may be reassuring for some to know that a certain motion picture which arrives on Blu-ray originated from a 4k master format (thusly theoretically harvesting every meaningful detail possible from the 35mm film) but, at the end of the day, when the rubber hits the road, much of the visual aura of what people see at home is more related to things like the lenses used by the cinematographer and cropping vs. resizing for the production of the HD master.

I would say if some folks with their current displays at home can’t readily differentiate the scenes in The International which had a 4k DI vs. those scenes (the vast majority) which originated from a 2k DI, they either shouldn’t be concerned about the acquisition or workflow of a particular motion picture at all, or else upgrade their display especially since the 4k harvested scenes from The International originated from a 65mm. film format using unfiltered sharp lens(es).

Then, there is the viewpoint of true cinephiles or visionaries in the industry, namely….

We need 4k digital pipelines (from workflows to finishing) in place, the sooner the better, for things like film archiving, Digital Cinema exhibition now and advances in technology whether it be future true 4k digital cameras that have co-sited RGB pixels at 4k each or future unforeseen improvements in home theater resolution and we don’t want current motion pictures now being shot and produced, limited or handicapped by a 2k finish when they were acquired at substantially higher resolution. They may never be ‘redone’ and if they are, it will cost mucho bucks. Plus, if some Blu-ray home theater enthusiasts with particularly discerning eyes and/or esp. large screens at home can appreciate the difference in PQ of Blu-ray of a particular motion picture that had a 4k digital pipeline, so much the better.

P.S.
I would like Q.T. to get on the stick (40-50 pages of script so far doesn't cut it) and finish the prequel to I.G. so we can find out definitively how/why Brad Pitt got that scar/rope burn around his neck!

I've often wondered what goes on in the minds of guys like Q.T. and Stephen King that we never do see on screen.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I've often wondered what goes on in the minds of guys like Q.T. and Stephen King that we never do see on screen.

I often wonder that as well. I also would love to spend a day in the brain of Jerry Seinfeld, George Carlin, or Richard Pryor to see how they view the world.

[Vincent Pereira]

I'm surprised Richardson isn't more insistent on doing his DI work at 4K. Roger Deakins does most of his DIs at 4K and has been pretty vocal about the quality jump from 2K DI work, although he did IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH at 2K, both for budgetary reasons and also aesthetic as they wanted to degrade the image somewhat. In the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER piece on the anamorphically-shot CHERI, cinematographer Darius Khonji goes so far as to say that unless extensive digital effects work is neccessary (which is was to create the period of CHERI), he doesn't feel anamorphic films should undergo DIs, and that there's even a loss at 4K with anamorphic. IMDB reports that Scorsese's SHUTTER ISLAND- photographed by Robert Richardson- combines 65mm and Super-35MM but will only have a 2K DI. Seems counter productive IMO.

Interesting comment re; what goes on in the mind of QT- I'm reminded that, even at over 4-hours combined, the two KILL BILL films still leave an awful lot up to the imagination. He mentions in that round-table discussion you linked that he plans to retire from filmmaking at 60 and become a full-time writer. I'd love to see what a Quentin Tarantino novel would read like.

Vincent

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Given the capture resolution, a measly 2k , and I think that is the irony of Q.T.’s pontifications that Bobby was alluding to in the long running film vs. digital acquisition debate……color space issues aside.

I imagine there are two practical ways to view this, one, from the viewpoint of a current Blu-ray home theater enthusiast……….

For instance, Red Cliff, also had only a 2k DI and I believe that many Blu-ray home theater enthusiasts would consider that motion picture to be one of the ‘reference’ Blu-ray’s for 2009.

It just goes to show that so much of what you often see on Blu-ray at home is particularly dependent upon the principal photography and the digital grade (color timing) of the film source, with the actual scanning resolution of the film source being of secondary importance. It may be reassuring for some to know that a certain motion picture which arrives on Blu-ray originated from a 4k master format (thusly theoretically harvesting every meaningful detail possible from the 35mm film) but, at the end of the day, when the rubber hits the road, much of the visual aura of what people see at home is more related to things like the lenses used by the cinematographer and cropping vs. resizing for the production of the HD master.

I would say if some folks with their current displays at home can’t readily differentiate the scenes in The International which had a 4k DI vs. those scenes (the vast majority) which originated from a 2k DI, they either shouldn’t be concerned about the acquisition or workflow of a particular motion picture at all, or else upgrade their display especially since the 4k harvested scenes from The International originated from a 65mm. film format using unfiltered sharp lens(es).

Then, there is the viewpoint of true cinephiles or visionaries in the industry, namely….

We need 4k digital pipelines (from workflows to finishing) in place, the sooner the better, for things like film archiving, Digital Cinema exhibition now and advances in technology whether it be future true 4k digital cameras that have co-sited RGB pixels at 4k each or future unforeseen improvements in home theater resolution and we don’t want current motion pictures now being shot and produced, limited or handicapped by a 2k finish when they were acquired at substantially higher resolution. They may never be ‘redone’ and if they are, it will cost mucho bucks. Plus, if some Blu-ray home theater enthusiasts with particularly discerning eyes and/or esp. large screens at home can appreciate the difference in PQ of Blu-ray of a particular motion picture that had a 4k digital pipeline, so much the better.

P.S.
I would like Q.T. to get on the stick (40-50 pages of script so far doesn't cut it) and finish the prequel to I.G. so we can find out definitively how/why Brad Pitt got that scar/rope burn around his neck!

I've often wondered what goes on in the minds of guys like Q.T. and Stephen King that we never do see on screen.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

I often wonder that as well. I also would love to spend a day in the brain of Jerry Seinfeld, George Carlin, or Richard Pryor to see how they view the world.

Well, with 2 of those guys you would be pure blackness...

(I know I know, when alive)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

I am glad to see others have the same attitude as I do in regards to shaking the damn camera.....

How about shaking the damn seat.
Yeah or Nay?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/enterta...National_.html

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I would argue that the remaining benefit of film projection is only a product of light output, not of spatial resolution, except in the most unusual (and very "high-end") of circumstances. I would certainly argue that this is the case for commercial screenings, pretty much across the board. A film print is going to give you better contrast. If you want higher spatial resolution, instead, go to a digital presentation, whether 4k or 2k.

The only area where I agree with this point is in rendition of black levels. In other areas the argument just doesn't hold up very well.

If a 2K DI is the original source then a 35mm print will yield only nearly as much or measurably less image resolution than a 2K D-cinema show. Overall color quality may be more muted. And this is in theaters with film projection done right. When you throw in the usual horror show of 35mm film projection in so many multiplex environments the typical 2K D-cinema show is going to best the typical 35mm show quite easily, especially when they're given both the same limited number of pixels to show.

Generational loss is an issue. A digital intermediate is output via a laser film recorder. But high speed output 35mm release prints aren't created directly from a laser film recorder. There's at least another interpositive and/or internegative step thrown in between. At least some color, contrast and resolution quality is going to be lost.

Then there's the issue of lamp output power. A 35mm lamp house is going to squeeze only so many watts of real light through that tiny gate. That's not much of an issue for small or modest sized screens, but it is critical for big screens. This is why I strongly feel any movie screen larger than about 60' wide showing movies from film needs to be doing so using 70mm. Certain D-cinema projectors can use lamps with output power superior to 35mm projectors; unfortunately they don't have the resolution to come anywhere near 70mm.

At any rate, 35mm film projection will be done a much greater service by being supplied film prints sourced from 4K resolution or even higher resolution digital sources. The 2K treatment is a waste of time. If the movie's finished product is a 2K digital intermediate the viewer might as well watch the show in a 2K D-cinema theater or at home on Blu-ray for that matter. Any other method of movie projection is not going to do a better job.

[Doctorossi]

Hmm... Bobby, it looks like we may have fallen into our old habit of trying to make the same point from opposite directions.

Yes, obviously a 2K DI would be a limiting factor in the projection product. However, I would submit to you that a vast majority of commercial film presentations (regardless of source resolution on the print) don't approach 2K spatial resolution in practice, in the first place.

Maybe we're just talking about the difference between favoring the minority top-end and maximizing the point of diminishing-returns in a wider swath of the market.

(WARNING! COMPLETELY FABRICATED NUMBERS AHEAD!) I would concede that the top end of film projection has digital beat, but I would also submit a confident guess that, in real-world terms, that's covering less than 1% of the market. And I would also submit that a 2K projector will beat the other 99% for practical spatial-resolution potential, hands down.

So, what do you want? A slightly improved top end? Or a substantially improved average?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Hmm... Bobby, it looks like we may have fallen into our old habit of trying to make the same point from opposite directions.

Yes, obviously a 2K DI would be a limiting factor in the projection product. However, I would submit to you that a vast majority of commercial film presentations (regardless of source resolution on the print) don't approach 2K spatial resolution in practice, in the first place.

Maybe we're just talking about the difference between favoring the minority top-end and maximizing the point of diminishing-returns in a wider swath of the market.

(WARNING! COMPLETELY FABRICATED NUMBERS AHEAD!) I would concede that the top end of film projection has digital beat, but I would also submit a confident guess that, in real-world terms, that's covering less than 1% of the market. And I would also submit that a 2K projector will beat the other 99% for practical spatial-resolution potential, hands down.

So, what do you want? A slightly improved top end? Or a substantially improved average?

Doc, I'll go one further... Even if you're DI'ing, you're timing the film for eventual output to whatever release stock you're using... It's like doing Photoshop work to eventual print versus something that's going to be simply for your monitor, you'll make different choices (even different colour spaces!), shaped by your eventual delivery media.

Given the way that QT shoots, I can certainly see him preferring film be the eventual output medium. Heck, would you rather have a 4K or a pristine 35mm projection at the Palais du Cinema if you're a old school film guy like Q?

Yes, the average screening will look assy (although, to be fair, less assy than some of the "good old days", as -some- projection tech, automation and print control has advanced....), but for your touchstone presentation, you'd want to see the light shining through celluloid rather than silicon or off of mirrors.

That said, Michael Kahn famously still cuts all Steven's work on a Moviola... And that, kids, is just crazypants.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

That said, Michael Kahn famously still cuts all Steven's work on a Moviola... And that, kids, is just crazypants.

D'oh! I was right there with you 'til this tidbit. The editors today who use linear systems by choice do so because of the working method and mental/organizational approach inherent to the technology. For a film editor, working method and mental/organizational approach are about 80% of the game. I love me some non-linear, but I would never dream of calling a conscientious, intentional Moviola user crazypants for that decision. Rather, I would be inclined to muse, "This is probably somebody who thinks about what he's doing."

Walter Murch gives a nice explanation/defense of 21st-century Moviola use in his excellent book, In the Blink of An Eye. Just like an Avid, a Moviola or a Steenbeck is just another shape of paintbrush.

[Jeff Kleist]

That said, Michael Kahn famously still cuts all Steven's work on a Moviola... And that, kids, is just crazypants

I believe Spielberg actually did use DI for Crystal Skull, but I wouldn't be suprised if they were still doing the early cuts on the moviola