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

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Not only bleached, but filmed using Kodak's grainy, now-discontinued fast 800ASA filmstock*, which was then pushed in the processing. The result is all that beautiful grain in the final (very underrated IMO) film.

Vincent

* Which was also used to shoot DONNIE DARKO.

Yeah in fact I remember on the DVD extras Spielberg specifically saying "I said I want this to be the ugliest film I've ever made"

[Bobby Henderson]

Minority Report looks gritty enough on DVD. Anyone already familiar with the movie should expect the grit to be much more at the forefront on Blu-ray. I recall the movie being noticeably gritty, grainy and very drained of color when watching it at the movie theater. Personally, I'm not so sure that sort of stylistic choice really fits in a glossy, sterilized future world.

I sort of expected this movie to have an existing digital intermediate, but DI use wasn't quite so common back in 2002. It's scary to think Minority Report is already 7 years old. Time flies fast!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by abintra

The more qualified and knowledgeable people that are involved with things such as making the releases as authentic to the source as possible and providing reviews and transfer information via various outlets, the better the industry and consumers of its products will be.

As with most things, a shift towards more qualified voices disseminating information on what makes a quality transfer, versus a manipulated one in order to appeal to a specific demographic or taste, would be most welcome. I'd imagine it might even be welcome by those that currently judge a transfer by some other criteria.

It’s hopeless.
For instance, I’ve already mentioned (several times on this and other threads) that video masters (un-manipulated ones to use your words) commonly show scene to scene or even shot to shot variability in regards to the grain or focus which were not apparent during the film theatrical presentations at your typical local Multi-plex.

A specific title that comes to my mind for example, is for the Blu-ray Shawshank Redemption in which during the first scene of the movie, the imagery is shown to be slightly out of focus after it pans from the night shot of the lodge house to the profile close-up of Tim Robbins (out of focus) sitting in the car. This was not apparent in any film theatrical presentation which people watched in a public theater, thusly I read on one forum at the time the Shawshank Redemption Blu-ray streeted, that either the master or the Blu-ray encode was at fault due to the application of dnr or a low bitrate during this particular shot.

Despite my efforts, I find myself still reading comments from some Blu-ray ‘enthusiasts’ (to use the term loosely) labeling these inconsistencies in focus, grain, contrast, etc. as signs of a defective or poor transfer when in fact, if anything, it is an indication of how good the HD video master is, given the principal photography involved and how technologically accurate the Blu-ray can be to that original cinematography!

These same ‘enthusiasts’ being so confident and expressive about their knowledge of HD masters despite the fact that they have never even seen one HD master run in real-time, much less worked with them or are even cognizant of the fact that there are archival masters, clone masters, broadcast masters, ‘pulled back’ broadcast masters with broken 3:2 at every edit, even transfer masters, although that term would appear redundant to online mastering “experts” however, in reality, is an intermediate piece in the production of the final master used for the video deliverable in Rec 709 video gamma / color space.

I’m pretty much done with it all, esp. given the lack of respect shown on other threads.

The only silver lining to all this has been that unbiased people are realizing that Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has been doing excellent work with their catalog titles as well as their modern day fare………and has been doing so for a long time, and does not “manipulate in order to appeal to a specific demographic or taste” – exception being, of course, that of the “specific taste” of the original filmmaker involved (be it D.P., Director, or assigned trustee) who is viewing and approving the Blu-ray movie at the time of production.

[abintra]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m pretty much done with it all, esp. given the lack of respect shown on other threads.

I hope not. I know there are at least a handful of people that greatly appreciate the knowledge you, and others, share.

[D]

Penton, I understand how you feel, and just would like to say that although I do not visit this thread very often, nor do I post here. I have the utmost respect for you Sir! As well as for all of the Insiders here that generously give their time and insightful knowledge to all those who ask. For the ones who disrespectfully take the expert opinons and statements given by You and the other Insiders, and argue their pointless banter as if they are the experts, I say shame on you, and grow up! Best Regards, D.

[KubrickFan]

First I'd like to say what a great read this thread is. I haven't been through every page (500+ pages is a bit too much ) but even a sampling of those is another wealth of information. I just have some questions.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

It’s hopeless.
For instance, I’ve already mentioned (several times on this and other threads) that video masters (un-manipulated ones to use your words) commonly show scene to scene or even shot to shot variability in regards to the grain or focus which were not apparent during the film theatrical presentations at your typical local Multi-plex.

A specific title that comes to my mind for example, is for the Blu-ray Shawshank Redemption in which during the first scene of the movie, the imagery is shown to be slightly out of focus after it pans from the night shot of the lodge house to the profile close-up of Tim Robbins (out of focus) sitting in the car. This was not apparent in any film theatrical presentation which people watched in a public theater, thusly I read on one forum at the time the Shawshank Redemption Blu-ray streeted, that either the master or the Blu-ray encode was at fault due to the application of dnr or a low bitrate during this particular shot.

Excuse me for asking, but if it wasn't visible in the theatrical presentations, what is the cause then of the shot being out of focus?

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Despite my efforts, I find myself still reading comments from some Blu-ray ‘enthusiasts’ (to use the term loosely) labeling these inconsistencies in focus, grain, contrast, etc. as signs of a defective or poor transfer when in fact, if anything, it is an indication of how good the HD video master is, given the principal photography involved and how technologically accurate the Blu-ray can be to that original cinematography!

These same ‘enthusiasts’ being so confident and expressive about their knowledge of HD masters despite the fact that they have never even seen one HD master run in real-time, much less worked with them or are even cognizant of the fact that there are archival masters, clone masters, broadcast masters, ‘pulled back’ broadcast masters with broken 3:2 at every edit, even transfer masters, although that term would appear redundant to online mastering “experts” however, in reality, is an intermediate piece in the production of the final master used for the video deliverable in Rec 709 video gamma / color space.

I’m pretty much done with it all, esp. given the lack of respect shown on other threads.

I hope you don't mean that. I realize I still have a lot to learn about all this, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The only silver lining to all this has been that unbiased people are realizing that Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has been doing excellent work with their catalog titles as well as their modern day fare………and has been doing so for a long time, and does not “manipulate in order to appeal to a specific demographic or taste” – exception being, of course, that of the “specific taste” of the original filmmaker involved (be it D.P., Director, or assigned trustee) who is viewing and approving the Blu-ray movie at the time of production.

I agree, Sony's releases have been excellent. I can't even come up with an exception, like most other studios have. Even though some titles got complaints (Ghostbusters and Dracula), that says more about the people complaining than the actual discs. I really hope Sony isn't going to change their way of doing things because of these reactions.
And I'd also like to ask if you have any more information about Punch-Drunk Love coming to Blu-ray. It's a great, underrated movie.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The only silver lining to all this has been that unbiased people are realizing that Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has been doing excellent work with their catalog titles as well as their modern day fare………and has been doing so for a long time, and does not “manipulate in order to appeal to a specific demographic or taste” – exception being, of course, that of the “specific taste” of the original filmmaker involved (be it D.P., Director, or assigned trustee) who is viewing and approving the Blu-ray movie at the time of production.

Yes, Sony has been outstanding. If only they owned Gladiator.

I will also say Fox has been doing a great job.

[Trogdor2010]

What do you think of front projection and do you ever used it? I'm asking since often many people often seem to criticize a transfer but they always use small screens. You get to see a larger and far more immersive picture, but people think it's screens are too large and find it "not as sharp" as on a flat panel, another problem people claim is that they see more flaws with grain and pixel size. I'm a front projection user and I have been more than satisfied with my projector and love larger screen sizes (Especially with my 165 inch screen I use outdoors for the summer) and even my 96 inch screen I'm using now looks alot better than most flat panels I seen (Excluding CRTs, and good plasmas in terms of contrast), and it's an entry level 1080p projector with Dark chip 1. I see some people wanting a flat panel because big screens are too big, but many living rooms I seen with small 32 inch screens seem that they can put a 100 inch screen easily. I'm kind of surprised how discouraged customers are towards front projection, when they buy some flat panel (let's face it, even a plasma such as pioneer Kuro will be small when you buy a larger screen such as one that even 100 inches, no matter how great it's contrast is), if contrast is the issue, go buy a front projection CRT or high contrast LCoS projector (JVC, Sony). I wonder what you express.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by abintra

I hope not. I know there are at least a handful of people that greatly appreciate the knowledge you, and others, share.

+1

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For instance, I’ve already mentioned (several times on this and other threads) that video masters (un-manipulated ones to use your words) commonly show scene to scene or even shot to shot variability in regards to the grain or focus which were not apparent during the film theatrical presentations at your typical local Multi-plex.

High speed film printing for 35mm release prints is a big variable that affects presentation quality at the local multi-plex. The particular print making facility is an issue. When those prints were made, what equipment was used and how that equipment was maintained are yet more variables.

I've heard lots of complaints about Deluxe. Technicolor has one certain facility that does a very good job with high speed 35mm film printing. A lot of kind words were said about their work on the release prints for Inglorius Basterds. Nicely sharp and rock-steady prints. Very little in the way of jumping, side-weave and other such nonsense.

But, yeah, the generational loss that does occur with 35mm release print creation adds a layer of sorts to hide tiny errors, such as focusing errors. I never noticed it before, but check out the Braveheart Blu-ray for one of these kinds of things. In one of the scenes between The Leper and Robert The Bruce one of the shots of The Leper is obviously out of focus. I never noticed this before until seeing it on Blu-ray. This is no problem with any HD master. The problem is an in-camera error. If you miss focus then the shot is screwed up period. No amount of Photoshop work in post is going to fix it.

Another thing I think about is Blu-ray possibly showing off little problems in set decoration or makeup effects on actors. There's more to worry about than an actor trying to hide fine aging lines on his face!

P.S. Had to add one more thing on the Spielberg topic.

Whenever Universal and Amblin get to work on the Jurassic Park Blu-ray, obviously I hope they use the highest standards in creating the disc. I would also like them to "fix" one glaring issue I've noticed ever since the movie was released. There is a big color shift that occurs in the big T-Rex attack scene (the one where he demolishes a Ford Explorer SUV). Jeff Goldblum is waving a road flare. You can easily see where the live action plate cuts to the CGI plate. The T-Rex roars at Jeff Goldblum and you see a global color shift towards red. I've seen the issue on film, DVD and even on HBO HD. If Universal does a new film scan and DI treatment they may be able to correct that color shift. They may be able to do even more to correct it if the original CGI modeling and render data is still usable. Customized versions of Alias Power Animator and Softimage were used to create that shot. But problems can and do occur when you try to open and manipulate files made by software 17 years old.

[Jeff Kleist]

I want them to use CG to create more shots of Timmy getting zapped. Preferably landing on and killing his sister.

[Bobby Henderson]

Yeah. That would be very good. Especially because exactly what the hell kind of dumb-ass movie character grabs a 2 million candle power spot light and turns on the damned thing when a Tyrannosaurus Rex is stomping around on the outside of the vehicle? Someone stupid who wants to get other people killed? Like her younger brother? Yeah. That kind of stupid.

Actually, I really think Ariana Richards (who played the stupid character Lex Murphy) has a bone to pick with all this. She didn't exactly get a whole lot of work after her part in Jurassic Park. It is as if the blatant stupidity of her character penalized her in real life. Sheesh! Blame that crap on the writers! It's not her fault. Dang.

Now you know why so many actors have to be such angry turds when it comes to second-guessing a script. They're the ones standing in front of the camera acting out the lines and then catching the flak for their aftermath.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yes, Sony has been outstanding. If only they owned Gladiator.

I will also say Fox has been doing a great job.

Please add Warner to the list. Warner is going in the right direction. Ned Price's recent announcement regarding The Wizard of Oz has delighted me.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

What do you think of front projection and do you ever used it? I'm asking since often many people often seem to criticize a transfer but they always use small screens. You get to see a larger and far more immersive picture, but people think it's screens are too large and find it "not as sharp" as on a flat panel, another problem people claim is that they see more flaws with grain and pixel size. I'm a front projection user and I have been more than satisfied with my projector and love larger screen sizes (Especially with my 165 inch screen I use outdoors for the summer) and even my 96 inch screen I'm using now looks alot better than most flat panels I seen (Excluding CRTs, and good plasmas in terms of contrast), and it's an entry level 1080p projector with Dark chip 1. I see some people wanting a flat panel because big screens are too big, but many living rooms I seen with small 32 inch screens seem that they can put a 100 inch screen easily. I'm kind of surprised how discouraged customers are towards front projection, when they buy some flat panel (let's face it, even a plasma such as pioneer Kuro will be small when you buy a larger screen such as one that even 100 inches, no matter how great it's contrast is), if contrast is the issue, go buy a front projection CRT or high contrast LCoS projector (JVC, Sony). I wonder what you express.

A good front projection setup can be sharp as plasma although it has glass in front of the image panels. Based on my experience, Sony projectors when coupled with a PS3 produce an absolutely breathtaking picture (provided the blu-ray disk is faithful to the theater release). It can be absolutely beautiful…

Many people prefer front panels since it is convenient to set up and ideal for ad-hoc viewing. A front projector needs more commitment since it needs light control and space to produce a high quality large picture.

100" is not too big for a suburban lounge room - that size is absolutely perfect for a wall mounted front panel display. Although 40" to 60" is the norm today, IMO, in two years time it would be 60" to 100" and would enable for the majority to enjoy movies in the way that they can be enjoyed.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Excuse me for asking, but if it wasn't visible in the theatrical presentations, what is the cause then of the shot being out of focus?

not to put words in PMs mouth but you are missing the point. The issue is not that the bad (out of focus) looks good (like the rest which is in focus) but the good (shot in focus) looks bad (not as in focus as it was filmed)

the original film negative can have a lot of detail, every time you make a copy some detail is lost (the same way that a photocopy is not 100% perfect), the film that goes out to theatres tends to also be of lesser stock (you need many copies for all the theatres so even saving a bit by using cheaper film many times adds up because of the number of copies needed), then you have your film (with a lot less detail) and you project it, what is the quality of the screen, how well is the projector focused, age of bulb.... all of these will affect (and kill) some more detail in the final presentation that you will see in a theatre. What happens is due to the loss of detail (between what was filmed and what you see) some issues might not be as obvious. Let me put it this way, if you see a slightly out of focus picture on screen, will it be easy to tell if it is that way because the focus was a bit off while filming but it is shown perfectly in focus compared to it being filmed perfectly but shown a bit out of focus. But when you make a digital transfer (for example for BD)you won't take it from the theatrical presentation film, you won't see the issues of the projection in the theatre, if there is enough resolution it will help highlight the issues in the filming.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Actually, I really think Ariana Richards (who played the stupid character Lex Murphy) has a bone to pick with all this. She didn't exactly get a whole lot of work after her part in Jurassic Park. It is as if the blatant stupidity of her character penalized her in real life. Sheesh! Blame that crap on the writers! It's not her fault. Dang.

I have no issues with the kids in the JP movies at all... but I did want to add that I hope Universal offers the episode of "Storm Stories" about JP (in HD) on the eventual JP Blu-ray release. It has videos shot during filming of JP, and Ariana Richards was interviewed (recently) about the Hurricane.

Since Universal now owns The Weather Channel, it shouldn't be too hard to add it.

~Alan

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Actually, I really think Ariana Richards (who played the stupid character Lex Murphy) has a bone to pick with all this. She didn't exactly get a whole lot of work after her part in Jurassic Park. It is as if the blatant stupidity of her character penalized her in real life. Sheesh! Blame that crap on the writers! It's not her fault. Dang.

I don't think being in a groundbreaking blockbuster and having a prominent role in the highest grossing film of 1993 hindered her career any. She probably took it easy, went to school, painted, etc.

Now Carrie Henn (Newt) just left the biz all together after Aliens and that script was pretty damn good!

[Esox50]

I'm really looking forward to Jurassic Park & Indiana Jones 1-3 on Blu. Hopefully in 2010!!!

[Jeff Kleist]

Harrison Ford said they have their MacGuffin for Indy 5 and they're scripting. I'd count more on 2011-ish when the movie comes out (Summer 2011 would be suicide though, it's jam packed already)

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Harrison Ford said they have their MacGuffin for Indy 5 and they're scripting. I'd count more on 2011-ish when the movie comes out (Summer 2011 would be suicide though, it's jam packed already)

Boooooo!! So we went from "Almost in 2008 with Indy IV" to "coming in 2009" to "pushed into 2010" to "Let's tie it into Indiana Jones V in 2011".

Well, maybe they'll give us Jurassic Park or Star Wars in the meantime. Oh wait, let's wait for Jurassic Park IV in 2013 and until 2020 to see if George ever does that third "tangential" Star Wars trilogy he mentioned back in 1979.

- Esox (trying to focus on the good of "Blu 2009" like Braveheart and Ghostbusters, etc)