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

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

Sad but so true. I've had at least 5 people from Best Buy and even "specialty AV stores" tell me that. Like older films won't look good since "they're not hi-def". And then tell me something like Pirates of the Caribbean 2 looks so good because it was shot on HD cameras. I'm like WTF are you talking about??

Superman Returns looks weak BECAUSE it was Genesis-borned (my opinion).

And then they ask me what resolution is film. And then they really can't get the fact that film is an analog format and has no resolution until it is scanned and transfered in the digital realm. And even then that really doesn't cut what film is.

Film has resolution in terms of resolvable lines per picture height. People have no idea whether they went back to the original camera negatives or anything else like whether filtering or DNR was applied to a title and how much, or how high or not the video bitrate was.

It might be a good idea if consumers could be told the approximate amount of resolvable resolution that is in every Blu-ray title. This would tell them approx. how "high definition" every title is. They could give other figures for different aspects of a title, like the amount of colour range in the encode, whether and how much blacks/whites are crushed, amount of temporal resolution, amount of colour banding or totally random noise or grain and other figures. This could be made available online by some totally independent standards company or the BDA, and could be printed on the back of the disc case too next to 1080p. Different sequences could have different amounts of resolvable resolution but they could average the figure for the entire title. It would probably make the studios aim for the highest quality for every release.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nice to see you back Bobby H. I was wondering where you've been.

Hadn't had as much time to post comments lately between getting some details finalized on a house I'm buying and having my computer consumed with some vehicle wrap graphics work. Nothing like having a few gigs worth of open Photoshop files to scare you away from opening a browser window.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I've seen footage that hadn't been sent through the smoothie machine, it's not lacking

Superman Returns looked pretty weak blown up to IMAX-sized proportions. Others may have liked it, but I was not impressed. The imagery didn't even have the level of detail normally seen with most 35mm-thru DMR-to IMAX blow-ups. It sure didn't hold a candle to real IMAX. I watched the same movie projected in 35mm on a normal sized movie screen and the show actually looked better.

I'm not sold on throwing 2K quality imagery on giant sized screens whether it's blown up to IMAX or projected straight via a 2K projector or glorified 2K IMAX Digital projector. The imagery is just not quite a sharp and detailed as it should be for that level of scale.

[Jeff Kleist]

[quote]Superman Returns looked pretty weak blown up to IMAX-sized proportions. Others may have liked it, but I was not impressed. The imagery didn't even have the level of detail normally seen with most 35mm-thru DMR-to IMAX blow-ups. It sure didn't hold a candle to real IMAX. I watched the same movie projected in 35mm on a normal sized movie screen and the show actually looked better./quote]

Definately not. Blowing up any movie shot on the digital cameras has been a mistake to be honest. At least it's not like the Matrix films. Those blowups were UGLY with the grain freezes.

The 3D thing I think was an afterthought. If you notice very few movies are doing that now (Potter 6 has a scene specifically designed for it like 5 did, so the results aren't crappy). I frankly don't think Star Wars 3-D is ever going to work unless Lucas goes back and re-does every single ship scene (yes I know, don't tempt him).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Sharkskinz. For when you cartwheel on play days.

He actually slide out.
If he ever cartwheeled, and the wife saw it, I doubt he would ever be allowed on the track again.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Superman Returns looked pretty weak blown up to IMAX-sized proportions.

Well, Bobby, you personally should get a kick out of this tidbit.
For the record, the Director (Bryan Singer) shot a screen test of one of the actors both in Super 35 and 65mm. He was so amazed by the resolution and lack of grain of the 65mm capture that he initially contemplated shooting all of the movie in 65mm.

Then, realistic technological as well as logistical (they were shooting in Australia) concerns kicked in and that dampened the inspiration to do so.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I'm not sold on throwing 2K quality imagery on giant sized screens whether it's blown up to IMAX or projected straight via a 2K projector or glorified 2K IMAX Digital projector. The imagery is just not quite a sharp and detailed as it should be for that level of scale.

You can’t successful blow up very much anything that has a measured resolution of only 1920×1080 (like the Genesis, etc.).

Just as an aside, you start to see the difference in resolution between 2k and 4k acquisition/exhibition when the traditional screen size starts getting larger than about 35-40 ft.

At least I can........as well as the geek.

[Penton-Man]

Another day, another dollar.........
I'm off tomorrow in order to feed my four legged girls.

Carry on.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, Bobby, you personally should get a kick out of this tidbit.
For the record, the Director (Bryan Singer) shot a screen test of one of the actors both in Super 35 and 65mm. He was so amazed by the resolution and lack of grain of the 65mm capture that he initially contemplated shooting all of the movie in 65mm.

Then, realistic technological as well as logistical (they were shooting in Australia) concerns kicked in and that dampened the inspiration to do so.

There's actually a short bit in the documentary on SUPERMAN RETURNS of Singer holding up a piece of 65mm negative talking about his plans to shoot the film in that format. It's never mentioned again, and later of course we see the DP talking about shooting using the Genesis.

Vincent

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

He was so amazed by the resolution and lack of grain of the 65mm capture that he initially contemplated shooting all of the movie in 65mm.

Fellow alums of School of Visual Arts, NYC do tend to have an eye for detail. But that damned budget thing does tend to get in the way. Maybe if they weren't filming in Australia (to cut the high costs of shooting in the USA) and were closer to some labs that could process 65mm negatives quickly things may have been different.

I heard something disturbing regarding the upcoming release of Star Trek. The movie is doing much to spam the IMAX brand name. However, rumor has it the movie will only be available in the fake-IMAX format. Oh. I'm sorry. I meant to say "IMAX digital."

IMHO, IMAX is sealing its own fate by pursuing this 2K IMAX digital nonsense. It's trashing the IMAX brand name. Dual projector effective 2K imagery is not the sort of thing appropriate to replace 15-perf 70mm projection.

[Jeff Kleist]

Frankly I think IMAX digital is an attempt to head RealD off at the pass more than anything, and to reduce their distribution costs on their upconverts

I did hear something about one of the execs there who's disgusted with the 2K thing is trying to figure out a way to "interlace" the 2 projectors for 4k display.

With IMAX finally penetrating into feature film production (Transformers 2 and Iron Man 2 have/are planning true IMAX sequences), getting rid of real IMAX is going to be difficult.

[Bobby Henderson]

Getting rid of true IMAX is going to be difficult if the actual IMAX company expects to survive.

If they really think they're performing a move of brinkmanship against RealD they need to check their brains on that one. RealD is a 3D format designed for normal sized movie theater auditoriums. There is a LOT more of those kinds of auditoriums than big or giant sized houses. Real IMAX-sized houses are very few in number in ratio and proportion to traditional movie theater auditoriums. Basically it's an orange in a contest with an apple with the orange trying to pretend to be an apple.

Hardware wise, the vast majority of theater operators will choose to install a RealD system on a single Christie CP2000 projector (or similarly compatible projector). They're not going to go to the much larger expense of installing a dual Christie projector setup and spend even more money licensing out the IMAX brand name. Have the IMAX guys even bothered to look at the beating THX has taken over the last decade? The theater operators don't think they need to spend that extra money. And even if they choose to do so, they're more likely to spend some money on an industrial dish washing system so they can use Dolby's competing Dolby 3D process (the Dolby 3D glasses are expensive and must be returned after the show - the RealD glasses are cheap and disposable).

The only thing IMAX really has to leverage is 15-perf 70mm presentation. Sure. I know it costs a hell of a lot to make 15/70 movie prints. But doing this "digital" thing is suicidal. IMAX would be better served by having a less expensive but far more effective 5-perf 70mm method deployed rather than this dual projector 2K digital nonsense.

Frankly, I believe certain executives at IMAX got hosed by that very stupid and meaningless "digital" buzzword. Damn, I freaking hate that word with a passion anymore. It means NOTHING. The doofus lame-brains getting snowed over by this nonsense need to wake up and focus for once already. The viewers (read: customers) really don't give one hoot whether the imagery is analog or digital. They don't even understand half that crap in the first place. Who do they think they are trying to kid? Themselves? They need to just open they stupid blind eyes already and look at the results objectively. If they bothered to do that they would stick with the 70mm stuff. 15/70 for true IMAX films and 5/70 for blow up feature films.

I'm a seasoned graphic artist and make my living using lots of "digital" tools. Regardless, I know full well that certain analog methods still stomp the crap out of anything "digital." The quality of the end product should be the top concern, not some stupid buzzword.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I heard something disturbing regarding the upcoming release of Star Trek. The movie is doing much to spam the IMAX brand name. However, rumor has it the movie will only be available in the fake-IMAX format. Oh. I'm sorry. I meant to say "IMAX digital."

At least it's being shot in true 'scope Panavision.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I know that the purchasing power of all the forum members combined is “but a drop in the bucket” but, I am not solely “preaching to the choir”.

You see, since George Feltenstein (WB), Rich Marty (Sony) and other industry folks regularly read this thread, I’m using you guys as a sounding board for them ^.

Well, if they are reading this, I have to say that pricing Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz at $84.99 is not a move in the desired direction.

Maybe they go on the premise that the niche of consumers willing to buy classics on Blu-ray is very limited but they will pay any price for those. Hence the price skimming.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Maybe they go on the premise that the niche of consumers willing to buy classics on Blu-ray is very limited but they will pay any price for those. Hence the price skimming.

I think you've got it in one- witness the Casablanca strategy.

I'm about as in-the-demographic-pocket for these releases as it gets and there's no way I'm buying them.

[Doctorossi]

Anybody have any word on Memorial Day releases this year? I'd certainly dig me some Tora! Tora! Tora! and The Great Escape action.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

Or they could do what small music bands have already done in the past. They pre-sale the classic films before any work has begun until they reach their pre-sales objectives and can start working on the title.

Of course the budgets are much higher than an overnight afterhours recording (anybody liked Once )
If a restoration would cost 500 000$, it would need about 16 000 people pre-buying a particular title. Ouch.

Plus the studios' egos wouldn't take the hit perhaps. "What? We can finance our own restorations! We're not a freaking funding show hosted by some of those TV people "

That is another idea but as you say the studio looks cheap in that scenario which is not a good thing, plus of course the infrastrusture needed for this and the embarassement if not enough people are coming together and have to be refunded, the rights situation etc. etc.....

With a rich patron and lover of the arts so to say he might be getting a little credit as supporter of the restoration after the end credits or an insert up front and that is that - much more discreet.

Originally Posted by GabrielB

--> What I wonder though is how the BD catalog sales compare to the catalog sales of DVD back in the days. Are classics selling less on BD than on DVD?

I too would like more numbers. Some classics might fare well with regard to the relative numbers but if the absolut numbers are not high enough that does not help a lot. Also keep in mind that classics on Blu-ray are much more costly to produce than on DVD so the sales will have to be higher to break even for a Blu-Ray-release.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

This kind of thing has already been done with various catalog movie releases on home video. I remember WB having a limited theatrical release for Superman: The Movie in relation to its DVD-18 release. The Godfather has had limited theatrical showings for both its previous DVD release and recent release on Blu-ray.

Unfortunately, there are very few theaters left in the United States that can really do justice to a revival release of films like Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur or even Cleopatra.

For one thing, the theater needs a good 70mm projection setup (and booth personnel competent enough to not damage prints). 35mm or digital projection just isn't going to cut it for those movies.

Next, the theater needs to be really nice and not some ordinary stadium seated screening room. Premiere class theaters like The Uptown in Washington, D.C. or Ziegfeld Theatre in New York are very few in number and not easy to book either. Out of the best new theater locations in the country virtually none have 70mm projection. The 70mm format only seems to be surviving in IMAX theaters, and those auditoriums don't really provide the kind of "environment" I would associate with watching a classic epic movie. The old "movie palace" experience is needed for this kind of thing.

I visited Warren Theaters' Moore 14 last weekend to see Watchmen in one of the theater's two grand auditoriums. They have balconies (for adults only), traditional seating, lavish decor, very good THX-certified sound systems. This company is doing much to duplicate that movie palace experience. Unfortunately, 70mm capability is coming along as part of the package. It's all exclusively Dolby Digital Cinema.

Agreed on the overall scarcity of 70mm playback capabilities but there quite a few houses left that regularly or at least occasionally show 70mm and they do so because they like the format and with that approach usually comes the ability to properly handle and show the format. So imo the bottleneck would not be the number of cinemas but the number of available prints. But as this would be special bookings in selected cinemas anyway I do not see that as much of a problem if a studio was to try that approach with a limited number of cinemas across the United States.

While I know that there are new prints of The Godfather has this also been advertised along with the Blu-Ray release ? Of course the whole idea would be to have some kind of synergy so having theatrical screenings and not telling anyone about a Blu-Ray release and vice versa does not use the momentum of one presentation form for the other.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Well, if they are reading this, I have to say that pricing Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz at $84.99 is not a move in the desired direction.

Maybe they go on the premise that the niche of consumers willing to buy classics on Blu-ray is very limited but they will pay any price for those. Hence the price skimming.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think you've got it in one- witness the Casablanca strategy.

I'm about as in-the-demographic-pocket for these releases as it gets and there's no way I'm buying them.

Penton, and anyone one else (especially Warner people obviously) who may be reading, I can only agree 100% with both of these posts.
These prices won't attract anyone new to Blu-ray, and the portion of existing BD purchasers who want these titles and will pay that much for "special editions" must be very small.
Ideally there should be two releases of each; the special edition and a "normal" release without the filler.

For the record, I did buy Casablanca, but sold it on when I realised the "special" stuff was just useless filler.
(I also bought it on HD DVD, meaning I've bought it on at least 4 times, so you owe me to at least consider what I'm saying )

[Jeff Kleist]

The WB stuff will all come out in normal versions down the line so far as I know.

I agree that $90 SRPs is a bit over the top

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I agree that $90 SRPs is a bit over the top

Only a slight understatement!