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

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...

I believe it’s a reflection of his *anti-everything digital* thinking, for instance he claims he’ll retire if he’s “forced” by a Producer or studio to use a full blown digital intermediate process in post for conforming and color correcting a motion picture of which he’s shot...

I seem to recall Neil Young ranting similarly against all-things digital sound many years back. I remember reading a quote where he said if he was ever inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of fame they'd regret it because he would use his speech to rally against digital sound.

ANYWAYS, I can actually understand Wally's thinking when it comes to a DI of say a film shot anamorphically (which most of his films are, for the most part). A fairly recent American Cinematographer article on the shooting of CHERI (anamorphic 35mm by Darius Khondji) has Mr. Khondji making similar statements, i.e. that he doesn't think a DI process is necessary or even desirable for anamorphic films unless there's a lot of CGI involved. Khondji flat-out says that even when working in a full 4K workflow, the DI doesn't look as good as a print straight off the negative.*

But I still think Wally maybe be taking it a bit too far if he's truly against Blu-ray and viewing HD at home. BD can literally look like film, and really friggin' good film at that. While I agree that even the best BD won't replace say 70mm originated material being projected on an IMAX screen (or true IMAX on IMAX), for a home front projection system you'll be seeing something that's really damn good and often better than most 35mm movie theaters the average moviegoer is used to

Vincent

*Although to be fair, very few folks would ever be watching a print straight-off-the-negative ever anyway. the only instances will be if you're looking at an answer print, or watching one of a handful of show-prints being presented in major venue in big cities.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

*Although to be fair, very few folks would ever be watching a print straight-off-the-negative ever anyway. the only instances will be if you're looking at an answer print, or watching one of a handful of show-prints being presented in major venue in big cities.

THIS is the big problem - prints straight from the negative were only ever standard procedure for movies shot in 65mm and indeed they looked (and still look) fantastic, but for 35mm you get a print that is several generations removed from the negative.

In fact because of this I think that the technique of a filmout from a 4k DI directly to 35mm should be standard practice and allow us to go back to an excellent 35mm presentation or to put it another way to make 35mm better than it ever was for most people who go to cinemas.

Mr. Pfister might enjoy his handpicked prints but after he is finished with it please have him send it to me because where I live I can only watch a dub of a dub IF I am lucky.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

In fact because of this I think that the technique of a filmout from a 4k DI directly to 35mm should be standard practice and allow us to go back to an excellent 35mm presentation or to put it another way to make 35mm better than it ever was for most people who go to cinemas.

Bingo! Sure, a print from the OCN is going to look better, but who gets to see that? A release print made from a 4k DI is going to look better than one made from a 3rd-5th-generation print master.

[sharkshark]

Here, Penton, throwing you a 2-wheeled bone:

http://gizmodo.com/5559442/say-hello...ric-motorcycle

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Sony is one of 3 studios I will blind buy as I've come to expect quality. I feel VERY confident about Sony, Fox, and Disney. Honestly I even feel confident about WB on their true classic lineup.

I don't about wb and universal ,i wait to see the reviews.I have gottin burned to many times.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

THIS is the big problem - prints straight from the negative were only ever standard procedure for movies shot in 65mm and indeed they looked (and still look) fantastic, but for 35mm you get a print that is several generations removed from the negative.

In fact because of this I think that the technique of a filmout from a 4k DI directly to 35mm should be standard practice and allow us to go back to an excellent 35mm presentation or to put it another way to make 35mm better than it ever was for most people who go to cinemas.

Mr. Pfister might enjoy his handpicked prints but after he is finished with it please have him send it to me because where I live I can only watch a dub of a dub IF I am lucky.

Prints derived from OCNs were not "only ever standard procedure" for 65mm. Many, many 35mm productions were literally worn out in the production of 35mm prints in the 50s - 70s before quality duping elements were available. As an example, the number of contact prints produced on Rear Window from the OCN was over 350. Similar problem with To Kill a Mockingbird.

RAH

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Prints derived from OCNs were not "only ever standard procedure" for 65mm. Many, many 35mm productions were literally worn out in the production of 35mm prints in the 50s - 70s before quality duping elements were available. As an example, the number of contact prints produced on Rear Window from the OCN was over 350. Similar problem with To Kill a Mockingbird.

RAH

Thanks for the correction. I meant to say that only for movies shot on 65mm could it be said that it always was standard procedure to contact print from the OCN, form the 50ies right up to Hamlet and Baraka if I am not mistaken.

So were the majority of 35mm productions from the 50ies and 60ies still contact printed?

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Prints derived from OCNs were not "only ever standard procedure" for 65mm. Many, many 35mm productions were literally worn out in the production of 35mm prints in the 50s - 70s before quality duping elements were available. As an example, the number of contact prints produced on Rear Window from the OCN was over 350. Similar problem with To Kill a Mockingbird.

Can the go back to the trio of B&W separation negatives, or do these not exist? Just curious.

Thanks,
-Jim

[Constitution 101]

Can anybody here explain step-by-step(in general terms) for us novices how something goes from film to blu-ray? 1. How does a studio(or whomever) decide when/if something will be put on blu-ray(besides the obvious modern movies)? 2. If a studio decides to put a film on blu, what's the process from there? I'm really curious as a consumer what's involved in transferring a film to blu and bringing it to market. Thanks in advance for sharing your expertise...

[Jeff Kleist]

I'll let the others cover the technical end, but in general catalog titles have a cycle for re-promotion, and as catalog comes up they're making Blu-rays. Other than that, big studios have about 50-100 "evergreen" titles that are reliable sellers week to week, month to month that they want to get out

[Bobby Henderson]

If a studio decides to put a film on blu, what's the process from there?

In broad-brushed terms, the studios can take a couple of routes on the project, usually depending on how profitable they think the endeavor might be. They can save money by using an old, existing HD master or spend a good amount of money on creating a new one.

The biggest problem with old, existing HD masters of movies is many were created for SD 480p DVD authoring and distribution on HD cable/satellite -neither of which are good at exposing flaws in the original master. Blu-ray is a fine enough video format that flaws in the source are easier to spot -especially if the viewer is using a high quality monitor or a large, high quality projection system.

An old master (something dating as far back as the mid 1990s) may have been projected through a telecine system in real time and have all the drawbacks of that process. The most obvious issues are problems with soft looking detail, dust, debris and problems with film movement in the gate (side-weave, picketing, etc.). Newer masters (ones only 5 to less than 10 years old) may have been put through a more modern "datacine" acquisition where the film element is slowly and precisely scanned into digital data. Film scanning systems have been in use since the late 1980s and have improved through several generations since then. In the 1980s and 1990s film scanning systems were only used for compositing CGI digital effects in with live action film elements.

Over the last 10 years "digital intermediate" use took off in a big way. An entire movie is scanned into digital data and its color is adjusted and effects composited all in digital form. Improvements in film scanning technology and digital intermediate techniques have yielded big benefits in image quality for HDTV viewers, particularly people who watch movies on Blu-ray.

A studio can take a decades old, classic movie and use up to date film scanning and digital intermediate techniques to deliver potential image quality on that movie not seen since the movie was first released in theaters. However, doing the job right takes lots of time and costs lots of money. Studios don't want to lavish that sort of treatment on every title in their vaults. Unfortunately, some award-winning titles aren't even getting the lavish Blu-ray done right treatment.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'll let the others cover the technical end, but in general catalog titles have a cycle for re-promotion, and as catalog comes up they're making Blu-rays...

I'm not sure that I agree, Jeff (or Bobby).

I just received an advertisement email from Amazon pointing out Columbia Pictures Film Noir Classics, The Bad Girls of Film Noir, and The Samuel Fuller Collection. All are supposedly new transfers of films from the vaults of Sony (Columbia).

All are on DVD, not Blu-ray.

Now, why is that? If the scanning costs for both are close and the replication costs are closing and the on-screen menu has boilerplate code, why not offer blu-ray?

I can see buying these. I would love to buy them in blu-ray. I can't see buying them in DVD and then later upgrading to blu-ray (no double-dip). And that's the pity if I am at all typical.

[Jeff Kleist]

Now, why is that? If the scanning costs for both are close and the replication costs are closing and the on-screen menu has boilerplate code, why not offer blu-ray?

Because they probably won't turn a profit more than likely. The question was how they choose not why they reject. These are very old and very niche, and also aren't part of the geneal promotion cycle.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

...If the scanning costs for both are close and the replication costs are closing and the on-screen menu has boilerplate code, why not offer blu-ray?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Because they probably won't turn a profit more than likely. The question was how they choose not why they reject. These are very old and very niche, and also aren't part of the geneal promotion cycle.

So, if I understand you correctly, the DVD and the Blu-ray are close in cost, but the sales numbers are not close enough. More specifically, the raw numbers for DVD are good enough to make a profit, but the raw numbers for blu-ray are bad enough that it is questionable whether they would make back their costs.

Sigh.

[Jeff Kleist]

So, if I understand you, the DVD and the Blu-ray are close in cost, but the sales numbers are not close enough. So, the raw numbers for DVD are good enough to make a profit, but the raw numbers for blu-ray are bad enough that it is questionable whether they would make back their costs.

Yes, but the authoring cost is much higher, and the shelf space at retail is limited. This us a title that definately caters to the b&m buyer, and getting places to stock it presents it's own challenges

[PaulGo]

Hi PM, You had previously mentioned that Sony officials occasionally read this thread. So I would like to point put that they have potentially lost the sales of many PS3 games by not supporting the checkerboard format that several million DLP TVs have. I know it is possible for the PS3 to do it since the Avatar PS3 game supports the checkerboard format of 3D. (I just tried Motorstorm and Wipeout (3D demos) and they were just in 2D on my Samsung DLP..

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

Hi PM, You had previously mentioned that Sony officials occasionally read this thread. So I would like to point put that they have potentially lost the sales of many PS3 games by not supporting the checkerboard format that several million DLP TVs have. I know it is possible for the PS3 to do it since the Avatar PS3 game supports the checkerboard format of 3D. (I just tried Motorstorm and Wipeout (3D demos) and they were just in 2D on my Samsung DLP..

Several million? I think you just might be exaggerating a bit. Even less are "3D ready" versions of those.

Sony is looking to support the current 3D standard, not a proprietary one.

[PaulGo]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Several million? I think you just might be exaggerating a bit. Even less are "3D ready" versions of those.

Sony is looking to support the current 3D standard, not a proprietary one.

According to TI over 300,000 front projection 3D units have been sold. I cant find the figures for rear projection but most 2007 and onward DLP rear projection sets are 3D capable, so I think a million is reasonable. But you are missing the point if Sony could support the checkerboard format (as Panasonic is doing in their 3D Blu-ray players) by just doing some software coding they could increase both their 3D software and hardware sales plus when a 3D DLP owner wants to upgrade to a newer set in several years they will have a loyalty to a company that supported their existing set. Anyway that's my business case and I don't want to hijack this thread writing about this any more.

[sharkshark]

Well, happy World Cup month, everybody. Best of luck to the Americans (100-1, but what the hell).

For sheer amusement, I present my picks:

Group Stage:
A South Africa vs. Mexico -> South Africa
A Uruguay vs. France -> Tie
B Argentina vs. Nigeria -> Argentina
B South Korea vs. Greece -> South Korea
C England vs. USA -> England
C Algeria vs. Slovenia -> Slovenia
D Germany vs. Australia -> Germany
D Serbia vs. Ghana -> Serbia
E Netherlands vs. Denmark -> Netherlands
E Japan vs. Cameroon -> Japan
F Italy vs. Paraguay -> Italy
F New Zealand vs. Slovakia -> Slovakia
G Ivory Coast vs. Portugal -> Portugal
G Brazil vs. North Korea -> Brazil
H Honduras vs. Chile -> Tie
H Spain vs. Switzerland -> Spain
A South Africa vs. Uruguay -> Uruguay
A France vs. Mexico -> France
B Greece vs. Nigeria -> Tie
B Argentina vs. South Korea -> Argentina
D Germany vs. Serbia -> Tie
C Slovenia vs. USA -> Tie
C England vs. Algeria -> England
D Ghana vs. Australia -> Ghana
E Netherlands vs. Japan -> Netherlands
E Cameroon vs. Denmark -> Denmark
F Slovakia vs. Paraguay -> Slovakia
F Italy vs. New Zealand -> Italy
G Brazil vs. Ivory Coast -> Brazil
G Portugal vs. North Korea -> Portugal
H Chile vs. Switzerland -> Chile
H Spain vs. Honduras -> Spain
A Mexico vs. Uruguay -> Uruguay
A France vs. South Africa -> France
B Nigeria vs. South Korea -> South Korea
B Greece vs. Argentina -> Argentina
C Slovenia vs. England -> England
C USA vs. Algeria -> USA
D Ghana vs. Germany -> Germany
D Australia vs. Serbia -> Serbia
F Slovakia vs. Italy -> Italy
F Paraguay vs. New Zealand -> Paraguay
E Denmark vs. Japan -> Denmark
E Cameroon vs. Netherlands -> Netherlands
G Portugal vs. Brazil -> Brazil
G North Korea vs. Ivory Coast -> Ivory Coast
H Chile vs. Spain -> Spain
H Switzerland vs. Honduras -> Honduras

Knockout Stage:
2nd Round:
Uruguay
France
Argentina
South Korea
England
USA
Germany
Serbia
Netherlands
Denmark
Italy
Slovakia
Brazil
Portugal
Spain
Chile

Quarter-Finals:
France
Argentina
England
Germany
Netherlands
Italy
Brazil
Spain

Semi-Finals:
Argentina
England
Brazil
Spain

Finals:
Brazil
Spain

Champion:
Spain


Enjoy the footy, one and all... Condolences to Mandella, I can't believe his party was sullied by some drunk driver...

[Elvis Is Alive]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Several million? I think you just might be exaggerating a bit. Even less are "3D ready" versions of those.

Sony is looking to support the current 3D standard, not a proprietary one.

Yes several million. I had read somewhere that over 4 million 3D ready DLP sets have been sold that support the checkerboard format. A real shame Sony won't provide 3D support for the current largest installed 3D ready displays in people's homes. I will be voting with my wallet by buying the new Panasonic player that outputs checkerboard.

Here is a link that just says "millions" but doesn't offer a specific number of sets: http://hdtvprofessor.com/HDTVAlmanac/?p=1022