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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You don't have to be familiar with that particular film, only that it came out in the same time period (1999 vs. 2000) that Gladiator did, and that the color grading technology was still pretty primitive compared to what we have today. Mr. Scott may have just taken advantage of more modern tools, just as the Matrix producers did a few years ago.

I’m slow. I see what you mean now.

Well, given the Matrix subtext which you brought up, is/has some filmmaker associated with that production claimed he was unhappy with the telecine-based color grading, in terms of it being inadequate to the fulfillment of his vision at the time?

If so, I think he should review some Kodak pdf.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Kwai!

Hmm, I heard of that one.

From last April –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3124956

Now, if that’s some sly sharky way of asking me about the release date for *Bridge* ……well, that’s for a marketing or publicity guy to leak.
And they won’t let me into Marketing because they’re afraid I’ll go after the dancers…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYgJ-LQgFVY

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And this has nothing to do with any of our Insiders. Well, actually, except for Charles, because madshi noted that he sat in the “mastering” session(s). This discussion isn’t restrictive to Gladiator either, per se. After the John Puccio and now DenonCI’s review, I think we’ve basically established that the 2010 Blu-ray of Gladiator is of superior quality in terms of detail compared to the 2009 version. I think that’s pretty much a given, as I trust Denon’s eyes.

Thanks Penton...that means a lot coming from you.

We’ve now evolved into more important matters and future titles being brought to the Blu-ray format. I’m wondering......if a filmmaker is happy with some tweaking of the color, contrast, gamma, etc. of a Blu-ray rendition (not extreme as in The French Connection example), is that now an acceptable practice to "enthusiasts" (or I think might be better described as 'collectors"), if that manipulation is contrary to the look of the original theatrical presentation?

As long as the filmmaker is involved in the process, I don't have any issue with it. For example, if Lucas wants to change his Star Wars films as he sees fit, it's his prerogative. Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing a CGI Yoda in Episode 1

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m slow. I see what you mean now.

Well, given the Matrix subtext which you brought up, is/has some filmmaker associated with that production claimed he was unhappy with the telecine-based color grading, in terms of it being inadequate to the fulfillment of his vision at the time?

If so, I think he should review some Kodak pdf.

Well, "in the Matrix scenes" had a green cast. In the theater (and subsequently the original DVD) this mucked up all the colors, graying out fleshtones and also giving the picture an odd softness.

By the time the sequels rolled around 4 years later, DIs and digital grading weren't unusual and the Matrix scenes still had the green cast but also other vibrant colors and crisper imagery. When they remastered the first film for home video, they regraded it to match the intended look that they were able to do on the sequels.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

As long as the filmmaker is involved in the process, I don't have any issue with it. For example, if Lucas wants to change his Star Wars films as he sees fit, it's his prerogative. Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing a CGI Yoda in Episode 1

Episode 1 is fine, but lets leave CGI Yoda out of 4-6 Lucas has thankfully said that won't happen.

[Sweetmeats]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I should ask for a consult fee now.

My *unofficial* recommendation is not to reveal anything of the sort to your local DMV.....and be very careful at those intersections with stoplights.

Actually, I meant the site you linked to was a joke site. At the end of the test, a picture of a ghostly woman pops up with a loud scream and it scared the crap out of me. I should hurt you for THAT. Not really of course.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

We’ve now evolved into more important matters and future titles being brought to the Blu-ray format. I’m wondering......if a filmmaker is happy with some tweaking of the color, contrast, gamma, etc. of a Blu-ray rendition (not extreme as in The French Connection example), is that now an acceptable practice to "enthusiasts" (or I think might be better described as 'collectors"), if that manipulation is contrary to the look of the original theatrical presentation?

I think you're blowing this whole "issue" up to a higher importance than it really deserves. Yes, Ridley Scott seemingly altered the colors in the new master, making them look different to the theatrical presentation. *However*, although it's not a very small change, it's also not an extreme change, it's somewhere in the middle. Furthermore the change actually turns a dull (as reported by many many people) theatrical presentation into a more lifelike, fresher and more natural experience, which most people seem to prefer over the theatrical one. Now could we say that the color change somehow hurts the "art" of the original movie? I don't think so. It's not like the Matrix would suddenly turn blue or Alien would suddenly be a bright movie, or something.

I don't think we should now decide whether it's *generally* ok for a director to change colors, contrast, gamma etc as he sees fit. I don't think we *can* decide that generally. Such things should always be judged case-by-case. Personally, I'm quite fine with the change in Gladiator, but I might have a different opinion in another case, depending on the artistical impact the change has, and whether it makes the movie actually look "better" or worse.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by madshi

I don't think we should now decide whether it's *generally* ok for a director to change colors, contrast, gamma etc as he sees fit. I don't think we *can* decide that generally. Such things should always be judged case-by-case. Personally, I'm quite fine with the change in Gladiator, but I might have a different opinion in another case, depending on the artistical impact the change has, and whether it makes the movie actually look "better" or worse.

I think that changing colors from the theatrical presentation is something that better should not be done because as you say it becomes a matter of personal preference very quickly and I would not want that to be considered an accepted practice. Predator had a similar change of color palette (brightening of scenes, boosted colors) and in that case there were also a lot of negative comments. Now we have a very similar case with regard to colors and contrast and people are very happy which imo is only acceptable because Gladiator was changed or at least approved by the director who really seems to have been involved in the production of the Blu-Ray.

In the end I can and obviously have to live with those changes if the director wants them but I would be very much against letting others decide that there is a kind of more modern look that other movies should be given even if the director/DOP is not involved or already gone.

So some tweaking done directly by the director and in a best case scenario also approved by the DOP yes, but please keep changes to that and I do not have to have this too often either

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I think that this is something that better should not be done

What are you refering to with "this"?

My main point was that we should judge changes case-by-case, instead of trying to define rules of what is "allowed" or not.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by madshi

What are you refering to with "this"?

Take your pick Nah, I really meant color changes, I will change my post to make it look less ambiguous

Originally Posted by madshi

My main point was that we should judge changes case-by-case, instead of trying to define rules of what is "allowed" or not.

I am not much for rules but a general attitude of respect for the original theatrical presentation cannot hurt, especially when there is no input from the director and/or the DOP or in rare cases others involved with the production.

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

What if Luc is happy with it (i.e. The Professional), are you then also happy with it?

Esp. given the fact that the contrast, actually everything about that Blu-ray transfer, is to Luc’s specifications. SPHE took delivery of the HD master from his team and only did some additional cleanup to remove extra minor dirt here and there, which is why it looks slightly better (in our opinion , anyway).

Absolutely! It's the best the title has looked on home video, I even went out of my way to buy the US edition at almost double the price delivered, as I knew Sony had done minor additional work to the master. I did see it in the cinema, but as that was 16 years ago I have no idea how it compares.

M

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, it’s good to hear confirmation that your friend John isn’t suffering from some form of color blindness but, I question whether there is as much red push in the 2010 version as was posted on that set of screenshots which OliverK linked to here…several pages back, as I still don’t trust dem screenshots, even for evaluating static things like colors.

Can you run that scene in real time on your calibrated display and see if the color change is as dramatic as it is in that screenshot comparison?

Penton,

That scene is warmer for sure, but I didn't see as dramatic of red push. One thing about the 2010 version is the shadow detail is greatly improved and it has a lot more depth in the image. The CGI-intensive scenes are still very soft, which is normal, they are easier to spot because the live-action shots look so much better.

[DenonCI]

Here's an interesting article from The Wall Street Journal on the 2010 movie lineup. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ovie+year+ever

I think it makes a lot of great points and made me laugh-out-loud a couple of times.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Real 3D …..you want to talk real 3D .

On display in L.A.(http://www.siggraph.org/s2010/) this past week -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFKC...layer_embedded

Very nice accomplishment.

Scale it up, acquire movies using the required form, and you have a real 3D format that will make the public bite.

Side note: It also reminds me of the 3D projections used in Logan's Run here which attempted to use true holograms in the rotating cylinders in the interrogation scene. (Yeah, I know, the movie looked good, but had a lot of holes, even to a teenager back in 1976.)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

I think you're blowing this whole "issue" up to a higher importance than it really deserves. Yes, Ridley Scott seemingly altered the colors in the new master, making them look different to the theatrical presentation. *However*, although it's not a very small change, it's also not an extreme change, it's somewhere in the middle. Furthermore the change actually turns a dull (as reported by many many people) theatrical presentation into a more lifelike, fresher and more natural experience, which most people seem to prefer over the theatrical one....

I see. So, if we have a future Blu-ray case of a “medium color change” that “turns a dull (as reported by many many people) theatrical presentation into a more lifelike, fresher and more natural experience, which most people seem to prefer over the theatrical one” ……then, that’s kosher.

Ooooooooooooooo-kay, then. One thing that I am somewhat confused about though is the part in parenthesis i.e. “as reported by many many people” as it seems at least to me, that until John Puccio did his review of the title, there was a selective memory loss as to recollection of the color palette of the original theatrical presentation?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

Now could we say that the color change somehow hurts the "art" of the original movie? I don't think so.

That depends upon what was in the mind of the filmmaker, suppose if the *look* of the original theatrical presentation was to make the viewer uncomfortable, i.e. feeling like he was in a drab, foreign place, etc. how does that chime with contemporizing a Blu-ray rendition to make it a “fresher and more natural experience”?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I think that changing colors from the theatrical presentation is something that better should not be done because as you say it becomes a matter of personal preference very quickly and I would not want that to be considered an accepted practice. Predator had a similar change of color palette (brightening of scenes, boosted colors) and in that case there were also a lot of negative comments. Now we have a very similar case with regard to colors and contrast and people are very happy which imo is only acceptable because Gladiator was changed or at least approved by the director who really seems to have been involved in the production of the Blu-Ray....

Spoken like a preservationist/archivist at SPHE….or a serious hobbyist who is a cinephile/film purist . Once one makes a conscious compromise from an original theatrical presentation (that a filmmaker was originally quite happy with), it becomes a slippery slope indeed …..rather quickly.

Grover once encountered a variant of this problem when he requested one cinematographer to help him restore a film. The cinematographer’s own aesthetic and approach to his work had evolved over the years, so he started to tweak things in a way that was taking the look of the film to a level different than the original achievement. Grover had to steer him back to respecting the film’s original look.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Penton,

That scene is warmer for sure, but I didn't see as dramatic of red push.

Screenshot science...0
Real time calibrated viewing...1

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Very nice accomplishment.

Scale it up, acquire movies using the required form, and you have a real 3D format that will make the public bite....

I guess that proto at Sig begs the question (to me..and others) when will such a display be available for consumers to purchase at their local Best Buy?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Spoken like a preservationist/archivist at SPHE….or a serious hobbyist who is a cinephile/film purist . Once one makes a conscious compromise from an original theatrical presentation (that a filmmaker was originally quite happy with), it becomes a slippery slope indeed …..rather quickly.

Grover once encountered a variant of this problem when he requested one cinematographer to help him restore a film. The cinematographer’s own aesthetic and approach to his work had evolved over the years, so he started to tweak things in a way that was taking the look of the film to a level different than the original achievement. Grover had to steer him back to respecting the film’s original look.

...and what was Grover using to determine the original look? Most prints fade almost as quickly as memory, it seems...