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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Too many spoilers for me so I only watched a few minutes and hope that the link will still be there after I have watched the Blu-Ray. I'd say that grain should be something that comes along for the ride so there is no need for any preoccupation with it.

And we all know that if something goes really wrong it will be all over the web in no time anyway

You know, when you wink like that, you scare me.

I’ve stayed away from the *plebeian* threads for awhile, is there something I’m missing on ‘the net’ ?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JamesN

Penton,
Can you tell us (without revealing actual titles or dates of course ) whether Sony has any plans for 3D BD releases of any of its 1950s 3D catalog titles?...

Still too early to comment.

I would say that if tests proved good/excellent then the Stooges 3D shorts (produced in 1953) namely Spooks! and Pardon My Backfire would be likely candidates.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Hey, P, you saw this?
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/03/water.html

ah, to have the balls to dive the Cenotes...

No.
But you just made it blatantly clear that I need a new computer with more RAM.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Penton,

Just wondering what your thoughts are on the upcoming Cantor Exchange?

Thanks,
Mike

Hi Mike

Has it received regulatory approval? Is it up and trading yet?
I haven’t been following that for quite some time. I did have a short discussion about a year ago? with doctorossi and/or SquidPuppet about this,……I think rossi?

Anyway, I’m all for it because in the past I’ve read so many comments on the internet by people with aspirations of being or becoming studio executives and are soooo willing to express their public opinion about how successful an upcoming motion picture will be at the box office.

Well guys and gals, if the buy-in for a share is low enough (like about $10-$20. or the cost of one of your Blu-rays), here’s your big chance to put your money where your mouth is. I’d love to see a thread where people post their bets and we could keep running tally of who really is good at it…………and if they could make a living out of doing it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Too many spoilers for me so I only watched a few minutes and hope that the link will still be there after I have watched the Blu-Ray. I'd say that grain should be something that comes along for the ride so there is no need for any preoccupation with it.

And we all know that if something goes really wrong it will be all over the web in no time anyway

Oh, I think I found it in the movie part of the forum…..LOTR *screenshot* madness.
Quickly scanning the last pages of that humongous thread, seems to me the jist of the issue is why does FOTR look so ‘bad’ compared to TT and ROTK and more critical to the issue - why do some recent screenshots from a broadcast version look better than the Blu-ray version?

Is that what you’re referring to?
It seems to me, given the high profile nature of The Trilogy, the fact that Peter Jackson himself has stated in the past that the theatrical editions are, or should be considered the definitive versions (rather than the extended editions) and most importantly, that fellow Insider Robert Harris has close connections with WB and should be able to find out with one phone call or two if a new master was used for the FOTR Blu-ray authoring, this set demands a thorough review by our esteemed Archivist and sometime screenshot aficionado, Mr. Harris. Heck, if anything, it seems like a natural juxtaposition of interests.

Robert, this is a challenge which cannot be ignored! People are waiting for your evaluation on pins and needles! And no quibbling or equivocating with these “It is what it is” comments. If this set isn’t a “safe purchase”, your readers are counting on you to expose the malfeasance like with Patton, Gangs of New York, etc. Better yet, begin an online campaign for a remaster!

I will say in the meantime, FOTR will never look as good as film 2 and film 3 for at least a couple of reasons, one being that TT and ROTR were slightly SHARPENED during the DI process with a new tool -and FOTR was not. If memory serves, FOTR is about 70% DI and 30% photochemical -from which an edited film master was then made. However, if the screenshots posted by ‘eric.exe’ are indeed reliable, I honestly don’t understand why the screenshots of the broadcast version of FOTR are ”better” as they claim, compared to the Blu-ray. That just shouldn’t be, meaning the broadcast version should not be of better picture quality than the Blu-ray edition.

I would hope that it really isn't “better” and the broadcast version just ‘looks better’ on screenshot than does the Blu-ray edition of the movie because this is yet another one of those screenshot posting snafus, or....the broadcast version was slightly sharpened or they altered the contrast/gain/gamma when they did that particular master rather than the dreaded……………….needless ’DNR’ application.

I would hope.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No.
But you just made it blatantly clear that I need a new computer with more RAM.

http://vinternals.com/2009/04/ever-w...m-looked-like/

[42041]

Related the Fellowship of the Ring subject:
Did they usually archive the digital VFX work for late 90s/early 00s films in the original digital form somehow, or was it just recorded back onto film?

[Jeff Kleist]

Is that what you’re referring to?
It seems to me, given the high profile nature of The Trilogy, the fact that Peter Jackson himself has stated in the past that the theatrical editions are, or should be considered the definitive versions (rather than the extended editions) and most importantly, that fellow Insider Robert Harris has close connections with WB and should be able to find out with one phone call or two if a new master was used for the FOTR Blu-ray authoring, this set demands a thorough review by our esteemed Archivist and sometime screenshot aficionado, Mr. Harris. Heck, if anything, it seems like a natural juxtaposition of interests.

What I can say is that PJ personally approved the final Blu-rays. New masters, if I recall were run around this time last year

[sharkshark]

It's funny, what pisses me off about the whole sceenshot/anti-screenshot crap is the hyperbole.

The AVS and BD forums about these titles are just a mess... People hollering about the title based on the shots posted, claiming that Warner is evil... Just silly.

That said, as Penton alludes, this is a very high profile release. It should not be screwed up.

So, when I read stuff like this:

"The New Line video engineers transferred the three "The Lord of the Rings" films to 1080p Blu-ray in their original aspect ratio of 2.40:1 using dual-layer BD50s and a VC-1 codec. The results are as good as any fan could reasonably ask for, and at least some of the scenes must rank among the best-looking live-action images currently available in high definition."

from here it's hard to reconcile postive hyperbole with those disgusted by some screencaps and demanding a boycott of an entire studio.

Me, I'm looking forward to seeing them again, I haven't watched TE in eons. And I worry greatly that the cries of Wolf drown out legit issues, and that half the people have uncalibrated computer monitors to judge, watch on 40" or smaller LCDs, and steal a large percentage of their HD content anyway.

P's sarcasm aside, I would like to see what RAH has to say.

Meanwhile, Jeff, I love the little tidbits, but I'm always one looking for sources to justify these claims.. Got any link to show that it's a new xfer? Did you hear this from New Line? Oh, and how's Japan?

[Jeff Kleist]

Meanwhile, Jeff, I love the little tidbits, but I'm always one looking for sources to justify these claims.. Got any link to show that it's a new xfer? Did you hear this from New Line? Oh, and how's Japan?

Got it direct from a reliable source in a position to know at the time it was happening last year. Believe me, LOTR has been remastered.....a lot in the last 5 years, due to..ummm. differing opinions. The final Blu-ray compression has been vetted by PJ, and that's good enough for me. LOTR looks messy period, always has, and Super35 certainly didn't help anything. Had they shot the movies in 70mm this wouldn't be a problem, if they can haul IMAX up Everest, they could have made it work

Even if they archived the VFX files, they are likely useless now. Renderers are tempermental beasts, and even running on a slightly different computer can send them haywire.

Japan is busy. I had a meeting that gave me some insight into what the Ghibli Blu-rays might look like for the catalog stuff over a good dinner, and had a meeting with video game people including Hiroki Kikuta, the composer of Secret of Mana and many other games. I also participated in a private screening of an upcoming anime film that will be popular in the states. I'll stick a few pics up in my tread and people can comment there

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Got it direct from a reliable source in a position to know at the time it was happening last year. Believe me, LOTR has been remastered.....a lot in the last 5 years, due to..ummm. differing opinions.

That's curious... between the release date push-back, the mysterious "restoration process" placeholder on the official website, and PJ's enthusiastic approval, it seems downright strange that Fellowship would line up pixel-for-pixel with a broadcast that's apparently from several years ago... is it conceivable that some kind of mix-up occurred after PJ's approval that resulted in the wrong disc (perhaps some kind of earlier version deemed unacceptable, hence the delay) being sent out for duplication and no one caught it?

[Jeff Kleist]

it seems downright strange that Fellowship would line up pixel-for-pixel with a broadcast that's apparently from several years ago

It's conceiveable, but DI is DI, so it would line up "pixel for pixel"

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I had a meeting that gave me some insight into what the Ghibli Blu-rays might look like for the catalog stuff

[SpaceDog]

It's fairly clear to me that there are AVS screenshot scientists in the thread. One of them you can smell a mile away. None seem to be able to accept that we should wait on actual motion reviews rather than spurious screencaps.

[Dennis M]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

And I worry greatly that the cries of Wolf drown out legit issues, and that half the people have uncalibrated computer monitors to judge, watch on 40" or smaller LCDs, and steal a large percentage of their HD content anyway.

Bingo!

This is why I pay very little heed to the rants. They are usually made by people unqualified to make the judgement, and with display systems not up to the task. I'll reserve judgement until I see it in motion on my Projector, which gets calibrated twice a year.

[SquidPuppet]

MotoGP Goes HD For 2010, 3D Documentary To Follow

Very good news.

In an exciting development, the evolution of the delivery of MotoGP in even more lifelike quality may not stop at HD. With 3D cinematography already being successfully pioneered in the world of cinema, the same technology is now poised to revolutionise sports broadcasting. Last year at the Red Bull US Grand Prix at Laguna Seca and in conjunction with the 3D and digital systems specialists Vince Pace, Dorna Sports carried out a successful trial of the latest HD 3D Fusion camera systems.

For 2010 the Pace team, led by John Bruno who was part of the Visual Effects team involved in the Academy Award winning Avatar film, plans to produce a documentary. This will feature images captured during the MotoGP season, and channels broadcasting in 3D such as ESPN and Sky have already shown interest in broadcasting such coverage of the sport.

The whole article can be read here...

http://www.motomatters.com/news/2010...mentary_t.html

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Dennis M

Bingo!

This is why I pay very little heed to the rants. They are usually made by people unqualified to make the judgement, and with display systems not up to the task. I'll reserve judgement until I see it in motion on my Project, which gets calibrated twice a year.

Ah, yes... But then there's a danger of ignoring things when the Wolf really does show up. You know, the part of the story that people seem to forget...

Talk of "hidden screenshot scientists" is just as nefarious, in my opinion. The issue remains that Screenshots are not completely useless, it's that they're often misleading for some people, which is worse than useless. No point in a witchhunt.

As for "pixel for pixel" exactitude, how would that even be possible? It's one thing to pick out the exact frame, but for a 1080i MPEG broadcast to be identical, down to the pixel, of a BD encode is just, well, silly. Some have said it's the DirectTV 1080p source - is this broadcast using the exact bitrate and encoding scheme as a BD?

They may look the same, or at least similary, but "pixel for pixel"? Meanwhile, all the posts I've seen say the BD looks -worse- than the HD broadcast.

Weirdly, I must admit, Penton's even handed, even tempered approach in the post above (wait and see, recognize the importance of this release, be wary but not paranoid) is the model to follow. If there are issues, and they're not minor, they should be addressed and accounted for.

Who knew?

Meanwhile, Jeff, you've opened up the box - why would they have needed 5+ encodes of this film? Is this an HD-DVD encode thing? The studio vs. PJ? What's the deal...

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Oh, I think I found it in the movie part of the forum…..LOTR *screenshot* madness.
Quickly scanning the last pages of that humongous thread, seems to me the jist of the issue is why does FOTR look so ‘bad’ compared to TT and ROTK and more critical to the issue - why do some recent screenshots from a broadcast version look better than the Blu-ray version?

Is that what you’re referring to?
It seems to me, given the high profile nature of The Trilogy, the fact that Peter Jackson himself has stated in the past that the theatrical editions are, or should be considered the definitive versions (rather than the extended editions) and most importantly, that fellow Insider Robert Harris has close connections with WB and should be able to find out with one phone call or two if a new master was used for the FOTR Blu-ray authoring, this set demands a thorough review by our esteemed Archivist and sometime screenshot aficionado, Mr. Harris. Heck, if anything, it seems like a natural juxtaposition of interests.

Robert, this is a challenge which cannot be ignored! People are waiting for your evaluation on pins and needles! And no quibbling or equivocating with these “It is what it is” comments. If this set isn’t a “safe purchase”, your readers are counting on you to expose the malfeasance like with Patton, Gangs of New York, etc. Better yet, begin an online campaign for a remaster!

I will say in the meantime, FOTR will never look as good as film 2 and film 3 for at least a couple of reasons, one being that TT and ROTR were slightly SHARPENED during the DI process with a new tool -and FOTR was not. If memory serves, FOTR is about 70% DI and 30% photochemical -from which an edited film master was then made. However, if the screenshots posted by ‘eric.exe’ are indeed reliable, I honestly don’t understand why the screenshots of the broadcast version of FOTR are ”better” as they claim, compared to the Blu-ray. That just shouldn’t be, meaning the broadcast version should not be of better picture quality than the Blu-ray edition.

I would hope that it really isn't “better” and the broadcast version just ‘looks better’ on screenshot than does the Blu-ray edition of the movie because this is yet another one of those screenshot posting snafus, or....the broadcast version was slightly sharpened or they altered the contrast/gain/gamma when they did that particular master rather than the dreaded……………….needless ’DNR’ application.

I would hope.

I have to say that when you get an idea you really run with it

My post was completely innocent as I did not yet know about those screencaps that look surprisingly similar for both the BR and the broadcast version.

My opinion is that Warner still seems to be hit and miss and if I had to take a guess I would think that here we have more of a miss and if the problem can be tracked back to the DI I suggest to get to work on a new one - that would be money wisely spent for such a high profile franchise.

For me it is always strange to see somebody like George Feltenstein working at Warner who is such an enthusiastic guy and so passionate about what he does and then we see announced releases that are cramming 5 hours of movie on a single BD50 and other questionable stuff.

So if there are issues I hope that reviewers that have some pull, and I'd say that certainly includes RAH, will demand things to be done right the next time around. I will now sit back and watch the drama unfold

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Super35 certainly didn't help anything.

King Kong and Hancock were also shot Super 35 - not too many complaints about these two.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

It's fairly clear to me that there are AVS screenshot scientists in the thread. One of them you can smell a mile away. None seem to be able to accept that we should wait on actual motion reviews rather than spurious screencaps.

I did not know that.

Well, then that means that this is not the first time the advocates for the *screenshot scientists* who have been active, regular posting members of other forums (AVS, etc.) have shown up on this forum with little prior history of positively contributing here to other topics of Blu-ray concern only to now show up and post with reckless abandonment in order to bash a particular Blu-ray title.

At best, I guess you could speculate that means they think that Blu-ray.com has the ear of the studios/content providers to listen to their concerns whereas, other forums are essentially dead zones. At worst, their super selective posting behavior suggests a sense of being disingenuous to the Blu-ray community here.

In the past, the *screenshot scientists* have given us several examples of incorrect assumptions and conclusions regarding a particular Blu-ray product even when their ‘evidence’ has not been tainted either intentionally or out of ignorance by doing nonsensical things such as comparing I and B frames rather than I to I or B to B, for which the vast majority of their readership are clueless to the inherent inaccuracy of that ‘evidence’. What bothers me a bit though is that I know of no such posting irregularities by the screenshot engineer ‘eric. exe.’ So, we need a real-time expert like Mr. Robert Harris to clearly separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

As Joe B. so eloquently put it yesterday and I think it applies to LOTR on Blu-ray……..”This is a BIG F****ing deal , and not just for fanboys of the trilogy. What I’m getting at is that the DI process was in its infancy when LOTR came out, heck it was almost neonatal when the work was being done on FOTR because they were essentially using a Beta product at the time which evolved into what is now known among digital colorists as ‘Lustre’.

The significance of this trilogy in terms of cinematic history should not be underestimated! Allow me to quote Scott Higgins in his book published in ’07 by University of Texas Press -Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow: Color Design in the 1930s, in which he addresses the importance of LOTR in the development of digital grading………………..

“From a technological standpoint, the most important laboratory for digital technology has been Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) trilogy. As with Gone with the Wind, a superproduction provided a thoroughgoing test of the technology and encouraged experimentation. The economies of scale involved in producing three back-to-back features effectively turned the Lord of the Rings franchise into a research and development corporation. In a dynamic relationship reminiscent of that between Technicolor and Pioneer [producer of Becky Sharp, the first three-strip Technicolor feature], Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie employed a prototype digital system manufactured by the UK-based 5D company. In turn, 5D, refined its Colossus system to meet the producer’s needs, reasoning that this would make it more compatible with the norms of film production and more appealing to the industry.”

Mr. Harris please stand up and give us a thorough unequivocal review with the screenshots presented for correlation…………”Your huddled Blu-ray masses are yearning to breathe free”.