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

[DenonCI]

Penton,

Have you seen Super 8 yet? Outstanding film that was a lot of fun to watch. One question though, why the heck does Abrams love lens flare so much? It's all over the place throughout the movie and I found it distracting at times.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

it was any water. I didn't at that (young) age distinguish between nurses and the bitey kind.

Nurses can be the bitey kind.

My neck learned that well when I dated one back in college.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I meant to reply to week before last, but every time I sat down to do so, something came up... and last week, I was sick.

For the most part, the tornadoes that affected Georgia were in the Northern part of the state, and I live in Southern part, so they didn't affect me....~Alan

My, my you have been busy. Thanks for the update. Concerning the tornado zone, I’m also a bit concerned further toward the west as we haven’t heard from Bobby Henderson in awhile.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You may want to widen your pool for data capture.

Perhaps so. I’ll have to remedy that.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dennis M

Wow, people are having a meltdown in the LOTR thread....

Well, as far as I’m concerned the case is closed, see –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post4844913

Either the screenshot providers or the spin control doctors advocating the greatness/color accuracy of the FOTR Blu-ray will, or at least should, end up with pie on their faces...and deservedly so.

I can assure you that if in the future you get to see a 4K digital presentation of Lawrence of Arabia that it will not appear significantly different (in terms of an overall hue) compared to the upcoming Blu-ray release as the same digital colorist, or else his well-trained clone will do both the DCP master as well as the Rec 709 HD master.

No spin control should be necessary regarding colors.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Penton,

Have you seen Super 8 yet? Outstanding film that was a lot of fun to watch. One question though, why the heck does Abrams love lens flare so much? It's all over the place throughout the movie and I found it distracting at times.

lol, I don’t know. He is a rather funny guy though. I guess in regards to the Citizen Kane Blu-ray news I should post a nice short read by another lenser, see this fine website -http://3cp.gammadensity.com/index-3-Learn-Toland.html

P.S. You’ve got to tell me who you favor in Stanley Cup now? And I am happy to report that U.Va. is going to Omaha –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...jTH_story.html

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol, I don’t know. He is a rather funny guy though. I guess in regards to the Citizen Kane Blu-ray news I should post a nice short read by another lenser, see this fine website -http://3cp.gammadensity.com/index-3-Learn-Toland.html

P.S. You’ve got to tell me who you favor in Stanley Cup now? And I am happy to report that U.Va. is going to Omaha –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...jTH_story.html

I still think Vancouver is the better team and they squeak out a nail-biter in Canada tonight.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Penton,

Have you seen Super 8 yet? Outstanding film that was a lot of fun to watch. One question though, why the heck does Abrams love lens flare so much? It's all over the place throughout the movie and I found it distracting at times.

Wrong question to ask Penton on many levels:

1. Produced by Paramount and Bad Robot Productions
2. Filmed in 2D anamorphic 35MM Panavision
3. VFX by Industrial Light & Magic

Abrams has said in interviews he's "addicted to lens flares". He just loves them.

[Mr. Cinema]

I'm a fan of 3D. I've seen 3 so far. Avatar, which is obviously the top 3D presentation, then Piranha, which was a poor conversion and gimmicky, but given the kind of film that is, it gets a pass. I saw Thor as well in 3D and although a conversion, it was done well. Green Lantern will be the 4th 3D film I plan to catch.

The only issue I have with 3D is the screen does seem darker compared to a regular presentation. I don't have issues with the glasses. I just picked up a 47" Vizio 3D set over the weekend and have watched The Green Hornet 3D on it. Though a conversion, I thought it provided some nice 3D effects. I sent off for my Avatar disc, so I eagerly await to check it out. 3D at home might be more enjoyable as the screen isn't as dim as what we get theatrically, at least to my eyes.

I don't mind the $3 add-on to the price. I did avoid the cheap 3D conversion of Clash of the Titans. That was an obvious last second cash grab. The less of those we get, the better.

Anyone know how many true 3D films we're supposed to be getting this year?

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by CraigW

....limited entertainment funds are not helping 3D growth..... It might help pull you into the frame, but it does not turn junk into gold.

........cheap 2D->3D conversions are not helping. It is souring audiences on the experience. ...........Making them a motion popup book is not something I am excited about.

The above observations are realistic. If 3D conversions are new to the 21st century i.e. not present in the 1950's for audience responses, testing is needed which becomes the historical data used for future projects.

IMO, many CGI conversions look great in 3D. Shrek trilogy, Toy Story, etc. and classic stop-motion-animation like "Nightmare Before Christmas 3D" becoming a positive success in theaters with the incentive for Blu-ray 3D.

A fact of life for a movie like "Kung Fu Panda II" is that it's going to draw the young crowd. That in itself explains why families with young children would prefer a 2D showing. When my 1,2, and 3 year-old grandchildren visit, I can forget about showing the family a 3D movie on TV. You have to gear the entertainment to fit the audience.

Paul

[Steedeel]

I had mixed feelings about 3d making a comeback, but having seen Avatar and Final Destination (you read that right!) i am bought. A certain scene in FD where i could see a piece of timber from a fire travel outwards towards me and then float in front of me was a game changer. Previous to that i watched peoples reaction thinking why are you ducking or jumping back, the 3d isn't that good! It was that scene i mentioned that did it for me. for the first time ever i actually thought something was floating in front of me for a few seconds (until my brain told me otherwise) I don't know the technical term for the effect but it seemed to travel to the left of me inside the screen and then continue out of the screen. Unfortunately, i have not seen anything as impressive lately but i still want to invest in a 3d plasma in the future. The option of 3d and 2d bluray would be great and i would be pleased for forum members who have really bought into the format because they seem to be very enthusiastic about it. I know this will sound like a very simple version of my experience but i am not a tech head or insider just a huge film fan.

Oh, clash of the titans, in my opinion, was a shockingly bad conversion job! Just my thoughts.

[Penton-Man]

Whoa, seems like this *tint* controversy has extended all over the world wide web, as in answer to my above post(https://forum.blu-ray.com/4845405-post17268.html) I was sent this link from HDD, a forum which I had completely forgotten about since the format war ceased –

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...ml#post2195265

I don’t know what the poster means by “the transition scene” but this does not bode well for an accurate Blu-ray rendition of FOTR when the Digital Cinema version differs that much.

Anyway, accuracy to Director intent aside (unless Peter intended theatrical audiences see a *white* version of FOTR and Blu-ray watchers a *green* version of FOTR )…on the upside, for home theater fans of the Blu-ray of FOTR, the good thing is that the eye adapts rather easily to different color temperatures (within reason)…much more so than the viewer trying to adapt to the edginess related to excessive sharpening…

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post4833026

And when one sees halos like that ^ around the heads and such of the actors, generally one of two things is happening (despite how some uninformed reviewers may positively spin it)....either an old HD master is being used as the source, and/or a cheap sharpening solution is being utilized by the technician to make things *pop*. In regardd to the later, see - -

Sharpening 101
There are significant issues in applying a stock sharpening algorithm (such as in an encoder) to a movie and really….in this day and age (2011) such practice is not acceptable…unless it is with extreme care and very minimally. Because, firstly, it nearly always affects the image in a uniform way which means every pixel of every frame is treated as an edge with no regard to exactly where the pixel is located with respect to the focal plane.

Also, such stock algorithms show a tendency to only analyze the RGB values to determine where there are edges which ignores the fact that it is more critical to picture quality to concentrate on luminance values than chroma values and also the FACT that different degrees of sharpening may be required for the shadows than for the highlights….in essence, what you see in the above screenshot is either a cheap and easy fix with little thought utilizing a stock algorithm or the appearance is secondary to an old master done on a CRT display which could hide such an appearance to the technician.

I think in either case, given ‘understood’ Blu-ray benchmarks of the last couple years, such a practice with the resultant appearance not acceptable. If one is really compelled to ‘do it’ (sharpen) do it at the DI level using a modern solution. Hell, it’s commonly done in the DI suite to bring back what the temporal degrain/denoise filter kills in the image and 99% of viewers are clueless to the practice if it is done well (i.e. Less tends to be More…unless of course you desire deliberate ‘edginess’ for something like a public service announcement).

[Penton-Man]

Given all the 3D postings above, for any of you truly geeky 3D aficionados who wish to learn about the most cutting edge 3D nuances, the SMPTE 's 2nd International Conference on Stereoscopic 3D for Media & Entertainment is coming soon to N.Y.C. –
http://www.dvexpo.com/content/dvexpo..._headlines.php

P.S.
Here’s a direct link – http://www.smpte.org/events/2nd_Annu...ll_for_Papers/

[sharkshark]

weird, this sounds like "screenshot science"...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Whoa, seems like this *tint* controversy has extended all over the world wide web, as in answer to my above post(https://forum.blu-ray.com/4845405-post17268.html) I was sent this link from HDD, a forum which I had completely forgotten about since the format war ceased –

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...ml#post2195265

I don’t know what the poster means by “the transition scene” but this does not bode well for an accurate Blu-ray rendition of FOTR when the Digital Cinema version differs that much.

Anyway, accuracy to Director intent aside (unless Peter intended theatrical audiences see a *white* version of FOTR and Blu-ray watchers a *green* version of FOTR )…on the upside, for home theater fans of the Blu-ray of FOTR, the good thing is that the eye adapts rather easily to different color temperatures (within reason)…much more so than the viewer trying to adapt to the edginess related to excessive sharpening…

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post4833026

And when one sees halos like that ^ around the heads and such of the actors, generally one of two things is happening (despite how some uninformed reviewers may positively spin it)....either an old HD master is being used as the source, and/or a cheap sharpening solution is being utilized by the technician to make things *pop*. In regardd to the later, see - -

Sharpening 101
There are significant issues in applying a stock sharpening algorithm (such as in an encoder) to a movie and really….in this day and age (2011) such practice is not acceptable…unless it is with extreme care and very minimally. Because, firstly, it nearly always affects the image in a uniform way which means every pixel of every frame is treated as an edge with no regard to exactly where the pixel is located with respect to the focal plane.

Also, such stock algorithms show a tendency to only analyze the RGB values to determine where there are edges which ignores the fact that it is more critical to picture quality to concentrate on luminance values than chroma values and also the FACT that different degrees of sharpening may be required for the shadows than for the highlights….in essence, what you see in the above screenshot is either a cheap and easy fix with little thought utilizing a stock algorithm or the appearance is secondary to an old master done on a CRT display which could hide such an appearance to the technician.

I think in either case, given ‘understood’ Blu-ray benchmarks of the last couple years, such a practice with the resultant appearance not acceptable. If one is really compelled to ‘do it’ (sharpen) do it at the DI level using a modern solution. Hell, it’s commonly done in the DI suite to bring back what the temporal degrain/denoise filter kills in the image and 99% of viewers are clueless to the practice if it is done well (i.e. Less tends to be More…unless of course you desire deliberate ‘edginess’ for something like a public service announcement).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You may want to widen your pool for data capture.
Online and just talking to friends and co-workers (people in no way involved with the industry) a blowback is happening. People are generally pi--ed about the higher premiums, poor 2D-3D conversions (conversion = kiss of death), poor presentation (dim screens, headaches, etc). They feel ripped off.

Well, I’ve taken your advice to heart as to broadening my pool of data capture (at least with regards to 2D which everyone loves ) for as you see above, I’ve posted a link to HDD which someone PMed me. So, now I’ll give the folks at AVS equal exposure -

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1353 < Not looking good for the color accuracy of the FOTR Blu-ray.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

weird, this sounds like "screenshot science"...

I’ve become a convert.
But to be a little more exact, it is non-linear colorist science.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

With Jackson saying the version being shown in cinemas now and the Blu-ray should be the same, does that mean something was done to the Blu-ray master without his approval?

[Dennis M]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ve become a convert.
But to be a little more exact, it is non-linear colorist science.

It's definitely sounding like there has been a revisionist approach to the colour timing. Which I believe many of us here do not support.

Now as to how heavy handed its application has been in this case is still in question.

Personally I believe the captures propagating the net are coming from uncalibrated systems. This of course is making the new colour timing look worst then it actually is.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and wait till the discs are available, then judge for themselves.

As for the reassurance that the Desert picture will not be subjected to such treatment, that deserves one of these.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

It's only FUD, if your side loses right?

No man FUD is FUD no matter what side wins. For example to go back to the original discussion "BD-50 is sci-fi" it would have been just as much FUD if HD-DVD won instead of BD since in 2006 movies on BD-50 showed up.



On the other hand I said delusional and those are not the same thing. FUD does not need to be delusional (most of the time it starts from dishonesty, for example every few days in 2006/early 2007 when I was on AVS there were new threads started on a new BD only studio flipping side, the person (people) starting those rumours where all dishonest since there was no reason (no matter how delusional one is) to start such a rumour without anything to back it up, now obviously the people spreading it where gullible and delusional, but the people starting it (on the site or not) were intent on misleading and they knew it was not true and it was something they made up. On the flip side something can be delusional but not be FUD, back when I was on AVS I was once called an HD-DVD fanboy because some guy did not want to understand that there was no chance we would see movies on BD-100. Saying we will have films on BD-100 soon cannot bring fear uncertainty or doubt but it was delusional. If someone did not care HD-DVD was 30 and BD was 50 because 30GB was the right amount for every movie (while 50 is way too big and 25 way too small) they would not care anymore if BD had 100, and for someone that thought the more capacity the better 100GB would be nice since for example that would mean WB would not need to split the EE of LOTR films but 50 would have been better then 30.



Now you are a bit correct in a way (even though I don't think it was what you mean), if there are legitimate claims one does not need to resort to FUD and weaken their argument. But if FUD never worked it would not be used so much, so sometimes FUD does flip the situation.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Paul Go - I finally got around to reading the article and Paul H’s comment above pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the matter….not to mention the fact that making a 3D animation movie is much easier than making a high quality 3D live action motion picture.
Also, everyone I know predicted that after a year or so, there would indeed be a dip in the theatrical audience attendance once the *novelty* of the format wore off. I don’t see this situation as “genuine distrust” by the audience of this material or “betraying the consumer” as noted in the piece.

novelty can be an issue and definitely loss of novelty will show a dip, even if interest has not changed. But there is also an other factor that I think is more in play at this time and people tend to overlook. It is one of simple accounting. 3D needs a different infrastructure (i.e. a 3D projector in the room) and there is a cost. So, as far as I know, all multiplexes have some 3D/2D rooms and some 2D rooms. Now when you have a lot of rooms and few movies, it is not an issue you can show what you want (i.e. think of Jan 2010 when the only 3D film was Avatar being shown) but when you have a lot of films and a few rooms (the other day I looked at the list of films now playing in a different discussion and 1/3 where 3D) it forces what is shown. This is part of the natural rhythm, new tech is introduced, people want content for it, there is too much content, more tech is introduced to take advantaged of the content and so on.



To put it simply let's take three simple scenarios. There is a 3D movie that came out and Joe wants to see it and goes to the cinema



scenario #1 either because it is sold out or there never was the option Joe has to buy a 3D ticket. Joe has two options buy the 3D ticket or not see the film, so unless he realy does not want to see it in 3D (either due to hatred of 3D or higher cost) he buys the ticket. You can't differentiate if Joe is pro 3D or just does not mind paying more because it was the only option.



scenario #2 Joe goes to buy the ticket and has the option of 3D or 2D. If Joe picks 3D then it is because he likes 3D enough to pay the higher price and you can't tell the difference if it is love (not willing to see a 3D movie in 2D) or just does not mind. If he buys 2D then you can't tell if it is hatred of 3D or would rather just save a few $



scenario #3 Joe goes and there is only 2D tickets. This is the opposite of #1, unless Joe has decided it must be in 3D he will most likely see the film in 2D.



For me the world (due to the number of titles available at any given time) has shifted more from 1&2 which it was last year to 2&3 and so they don't show the same sets any more. (i.e. if someone made a survey that asked would you watch X in

a) 2D only

b) prefer 2D but don't mind paying more for 3D

c) prefer 3D but will watch 2D if it is the only option

d) 3D only



scenario 1) has b,c and d counting as 3D sales but a is not even counted (i.e. since there are no 2D tickets available)

scenario 2) has c & d count as 3D and a & b count as 2D

scenario 3) has a,b and c as 2D sales but d won't count.

you don't even need a change in peoples attitudes if the scenario changes.