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

[Jeff Kleist]

I would say it's possible that in the time between now and when the EEs come out that WB might choose to go back and create a definitive DI for FOTR, but the hysteria definately isn't going to help push them in that direction

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I would say it's possible that in the time between now and when the EEs come out that WB might choose to go back and create a definitive DI for FOTR, but the hysteria definately isn't going to help push them in that direction

Yeah I can't understand why so many people on here can't stop bashing WB long enough to try to find out how to politely contact them after seeing the blu-rays and tell them that they would like a better transfer for Fellowship of the Ring. I intend to do that, myself.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Shark, I really should make note that some people in the industry don’t use the acronym ‘DRS’ to apply to a dirt and scratch remover and simply call it ‘dust busting software’ by ‘x’ or ‘y’ manufacturer and actually refer to ‘DRS’ as the semi-automated tool to remove larger physical imperfections such as tears, warps, glue marks, mislights, and larger scratches.

Both terms are sometimes thrown around interchangeably during conversations but, if you ever read about these tools or attend a conference in which they are discussed, just be cognizant of the ambiguity in the terminology and pay attention to the context in which they are being referred to.

It is probably more often a dust busting tool than most members think when the material that is being worked with has higher amounts of dust, debris, scratches etc.

You previously mentioned Gladiator and Zulu (a movie that looks o so plasticky to me on BR) and I will add to that the Italian Job (1969) that I would wager a guess was done at the same place as Zulu. The German Blu-Rays of Fall of the Roman Empire and El Cid also look deplorable to an even higher degree and given their origin (heavily used 35mm lo-con) certainly were treated with a tool like that to save money, still cannot really believe El Cid was shown like that at the AFI!

Adding to the problem of dust and debris and how it affects BR releases: What many don't know but you certainly do is that scans from the original negatives are not done very often not only in order to protect the OCN but also due to the effort needed to clean up all the small dust and other stuff that has accumulated over the years as it is just too expensive when done right. So in the cases of Baraka and South Pacific work was done from a wetgate 65mm IP with in the case of Baraka a bit too much high frequency filtering added to avoid aliasing, something that I would think could have been done much more competently if one had started at the version with maximum detail and potential aliasing only looking for really problematic areas in order to treat them separately as needed.

So I am applauding SPHE, Grover and his team for giving LOA the royal treatment of an 8k scan from the OCN as per this news from in70mm.com:

THE 70MM RUMOUR MILL
MARCH 2010

"Lawrence of Arabia" is being scanned at 8k toward the creation of a new preservation negative.

That will make sure LOA will not only be ready for Blu-Ray but it should also look its very best for 4K digital cinema and for whatever 4k home format we will hopefully have in the future

And I would ask to please please keep the high frequency filtering to a minimum but I am sure for this title it will be done right without our asking

In fact I hope that LOA will be some kind of a showcase on how to properly treat movies shot large format (hi-rez scan from the OCN, very light use of automated tools, very little filtering, maximum high frequency detail) and the only problem I see is that we will most probably have to wait until 2012 for a release as this will be the year of the 50th anniversary of LOA.

OK, what was the topic of conversation again?

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Baraka is another example. The usual avser's Xylon, Kram Sacu, etc trashed it.. False claims of DNR, etc (despite the actual people who worked on the transfer interjecting the truth).. Just one of countless examples that they really don't know what they are talking about.

I would not say that they looked terrible - they were however selected to show perceived problems of the Blu-Ray some of which really are there (halos) when watching the movie and others that aren't (DNR). As we have noticed for LOTR the same applies here: All the talk about best ever and the 8k scan etc. did not help much so imo some of the criticism was also a result of the marketing hyperbole that came with the Baraka BR.

[Jeff Kleist]

Yum

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Yum

You had something nice to eat? At least tell us what it was

[Biggiesized]

Penton,

Certainly BSD is a dark movie (and what we're not debating per se). The issues that many posters raise is the fact that in many scenes the blacks appear to be crushed. When Harker (Reeves) first explores the castle and there are mice/rats running along the support beams upside down, the black level detail that existed in the DVD release is nowhere to be found on the Blu-ray. Why create a set if it's impossible to view?

Here is the image I'm referring to:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=325

Is it really supposed to be THAT black? It's officially "none more black" at that point.

Also, was it FFC's intention with the color timing to make the lamp flame look green?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...0&postcount=97

[Robert Harris]

There are generally two means of creating "darkness," "dark," black," or as you refer to it in a digital sense "RGB color code 000000."

If one is as brave, dedicated and knowledgeable as cinematographer Gordon Willis, you expose your image so that it can only be printed for density as you intended it to look, and by that I mean nearly clear areas of exposed negative, when what you want in the final product is black or near black.

The other way, which is more sound in a strict archival sense, but can lead to a myriad of problems in translation throughout decades to come, is to fully expose your image and print it down -- as far down as you wish it to be. To black or near black if so desired.

Most have seen productions on TV or home video (or occasionally in theatrical re-prints) that are inclusive of scenes with cars driving during the day with their lights on, or possibly villagers climbing a hillside toward the monster, escaped convict, little lost girl, whatever... and they're carrying torches in broad daylight.

These are typical timing problems that arise when a technician either chooses not to follow earlier timing numbers, not to inspect and compare to an answer print, or not to bring in a director, DP or other knowledgeable crew member to approve what they've created.

The fact that information exists on a negative does not mean that the viewer is intended to see it.

A simple technical example. During the I Could Have Danced All Night sequence in My Fair Lady, Audrey Hepburn reaches over and hits a light switch, taking the illumination in the room down to near dark, but still visible. This does not exist is the original negative. The effect is dealt with in printing as exposure jumps right on frame to yield a far heavier image.

Here's another rather simplistic, and frustrating example. It was 1975 and I had gone to a local cinema to see a new film entitled Jaws. Every reel projected on machine 1 was incorrectly racked so that the frame line was showing at the bottom of the screen, along with a bit of the top of the adjacent image. Several times I requested that an usher go to the booth and ask the projectionist to make an adjustment. The third time they returned with a bit of accurate information that didn't solve the problem.

A motion picture is made of up of frames that run down a very long strip of film. The frames are separated by frame lines. And yes, that's what I was seeing -- the frame lines -- which as the usher explained, were a part of the film. I recall staring incredulously as this was explained to me, obviously passed down from the mount above, behind the port holes, from which the wizard controlled what we were allowed to view.

And I agreed. "Yes," I said. "I understand the concept of frame lines. The problem is we're not supposed to see them."

And a third example. When Citizen Kane was brought out on DVD, it was incorrectly timed. There is a sequence early in the film when a newsreel is run in a small projection room. Mr. Welles was not accorded a huge budget by RKO, and rather than hire extras to be in the group viewing the newsreel, he placed lead Joseph Cotten in a seat. He and his DP, the great Gregg Toland knew that the seen would be timed down and that Mr. Cotten would be nothing more than a shadow.

You know where this is going. The DVD arrives, and brightened to create a pretty image, we suddenly have a odd plot point. Why is a very young Jedediah Leland sitting in on the screening of the newsreel?

Because something is exposed to a film negative's emulsion does not mean that it is intended to be seen during projection or electronic viewing.

Such is the case with FFC's Dracula. BTW, this film was designed to be viewed with lights off, as in a theatrical setting. It should not be treated as a CBS Movie of the Week.

RAH

Originally Posted by Xorp

Sorry for bring "science" into this, but I've analyzed frames (correctly captured) I have taken from the Blu-ray in Photoshop and often large parts of the image are indeed completely gone, akin to cropping. They aren't "hidden" a dark transfer that needs a high quality calibrated display to bring out, they are simply nonexistent. There is only the color black (RGB color code 000000) in the dark areas.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

WB might choose to go back and create a definitive DI for FOTR, but the hysteria definately isn't going to help push them in that direction

Well, is there anything anyone can do?

Not being sarcastic either, it just seems like not talking about it wouldn't accomplish much either.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Well, is there anything anyone can do?

Not being sarcastic either, it just seems like not talking about it wouldn't accomplish much either.

There is of course a very big difference between not making known the complaints you have, and going into a fit talking about it. If you have complaints, try to remain civilized about it. That's productive.

[JimSD]

Penton-Man,

As promised, I have sent you a PM about Race Across The Sky Blu-ray now being up for sale.

[Doctorossi]

Well, P-Man, I finally saw Shutter Island. Wow- that's two absolute beauties in a row for Richardson. I'll be shocked if I see a movie this year I'm more impressed by the look of. It's a shame about the timing because I'd like to see a gold statue land for that one.

I'd gone cold on Richardson for a long time. I thought he peaked with Fast, Cheap and Out of Control, and then kind of crawled up the bum of his own idiosyncrasies for a while. Lately, he's really found a way to keep his habits working for the story and it feels like very mature work. Shutter Island has a lovely '60's-style "production realism" look to a lot of the exteriors, somewhere between Bob Burks and Tonino Delli Colli (as I'm 1000% certain must've been a conscious intent). That's right in my wheelhouse and kept me smiling all the way through the final act, which I must say disappointed me, but only because of the script.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There are generally two means of creating "darkness," "dark," black," or as you refer to it in a digital sense "RGB color code 000000."

If one is as brave, dedicated and knowledgeable as cinematographer Gordon Willis, you expose your image so that it can only be printed for density as you intended it to look, and by that I mean nearly clear areas of exposed negative, when what you want in the final product is black or near black.

The other way, which is more sound in a strict archival sense, but can lead to a myriad of problems in translation throughout decades to come, is to fully expose your image and print it down -- as far down as you wish it to be. To black or near black if so desired.

Most have seen productions on TV or home video (or occasionally in theatrical re-prints) that are inclusive of scenes with cars driving during the day with their lights on, or possibly villagers climbing a hillside toward the monster, escaped convict, little lost girl, whatever... and they're carrying torches in broad daylight.

These are typical timing problems that arise when a technician either chooses not to follow earlier timing numbers, not to inspect and compare to an answer print, or not to bring in a director, DP or other knowledgeable crew member to approve what they've created.

The fact that information exists on a negative does not mean that the viewer is intended to see it.

A simple technical example. During the I Could Have Danced All Night sequence in My Fair Lady, Audrey Hepburn reaches over and hits a light switch, taking the illumination in the room down to near dark, but still visible. This does not exist is the original negative. The effect is dealt with in printing as exposure jumps right on frame to yield a far heavier image.

Here's another rather simplistic, and frustrating example. It was 1975 and I had gone to a local cinema to see a new film entitled Jaws. Every reel projected on machine 1 was incorrectly racked so that the frame line was showing at the bottom of the screen, along with a bit of the top of the adjacent image. Several times I requested that an usher go to the booth and ask the projectionist to make an adjustment. The third time they returned with a bit of accurate information that didn't solve the problem.

A motion picture is made of up of frames that run down a very long strip of film. The frames are separated by frame lines. And yes, that's what I was seeing -- the frame lines -- which as the usher explained, were a part of the film. I recall staring incredulously as this was explained to me, obviously passed down from the mount above, behind the port holes, from which the wizard controlled what we were allowed to view.

And I agreed. "Yes," I said. "I understand the concept of frame lines. The problem is we're not supposed to see them."

And a third example. When Citizen Kane was brought out on DVD, it was incorrectly timed. There is a sequence early in the film when a newsreel is run in a small projection room. Mr. Welles was not accorded a huge budget by RKO, and rather than hire extras to be in the group viewing the newsreel, he placed lead Joseph Cotten in a seat. He and his DP, the great Gregg Toland knew that the seen would be timed down and that Mr. Cotten would be nothing more than a shadow.

You know where this is going. The DVD arrives, and brightened to create a pretty image, we suddenly have a odd plot point. Why is a very young Jedediah Leland sitting in on the screening of the newsreel?

Because something is exposed to a film negative's emulsion does not mean that it is intended to be seen during projection or electronic viewing.

Such is the case with FFC's Dracula. BTW, this film was designed to be viewed with lights off, as in a theatrical setting. It should not be treated as a CBS Movie of the Week.

RAH

Thanks for educating us. A great read.

[sharkshark]

Thanks, RAH, for that excellent post... Despite watching Kane on DVD for years, I never noticed JC was sitting there!!! Please make sure the BD corrects that timing issue...

Originally Posted by Biggiesized

Is it really supposed to be THAT black? It's officially "none more black" at that point.

Excellent Tap reference... But, again, isn't the point that it maybe -is- supposed to be that black? The green flame is a bit more weird, but, hey, FFC. He's kooky.

It's a huge difference from "I prefer the other colour palate" to "there's an egregious error that needs to be fixed". Again, BSD is, I think, a matter of taste (I, for one, think the BD frame with the glorious drop out to solid black is excellent, with the little vignettes of light forming golden pools, versus the heightened fill of the DVD version). I think back to GFII, or Brando in AN, wiping his head while he quotes from the Wasteland, mumbling about "nabobs", with slashes of pure black and bright light forming highly contrasted imagery. At any rate, whatever -I- think, it's vetoed by the subjective input of the DOP/Director.

This is VERY different than, say, Patton, where it's clear there was a mess up, one that can be explained away to deflect from the studio, but still leaves us with something inferior. LOTR sounds to be some sort of middle case, a mix of a softer master with some debatable decisions that some do not like (ie., colour/saturation differences with the broadcast version).

But, as others pointed out, isn't it nice to have a -civil- discussion about such matters. When you stop shouting, you get posts like RAHs, Pentons, Olivers, etc. So... informative!

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There are generally two means of creating "darkness," "dark," black," or as you refer to it in a digital sense "RGB color code 000000."

If one is as brave, dedicated and knowledgeable as cinematographer Gordon Willis, you expose your image so that it can only be printed for density as you intended it to look, and by that I mean nearly clear areas of exposed negative, when what you want in the final product is black or near black.

The other way, which is more sound in a strict archival sense, but can lead to a myriad of problems in translation throughout decades to come, is to fully expose your image and print it down -- as far down as you wish it to be. To black or near black if so desired.

Most have seen productions on TV or home video (or occasionally in theatrical re-prints) that are inclusive of scenes with cars driving during the day with their lights on, or possibly villagers climbing a hillside toward the monster, escaped convict, little lost girl, whatever... and they're carrying torches in broad daylight.

These are typical timing problems that arise when a technician either chooses not to follow earlier timing numbers, not to inspect and compare to an answer print, or not to bring in a director, DP or other knowledgeable crew member to approve what they've created.

The fact that information exists on a negative does not mean that the viewer is intended to see it.

A simple technical example. During the I Could Have Danced All Night sequence in My Fair Lady, Audrey Hepburn reaches over and hits a light switch, taking the illumination in the room down to near dark, but still visible. This does not exist is the original negative. The effect is dealt with in printing as exposure jumps right on frame to yield a far heavier image.

Here's another rather simplistic, and frustrating example. It was 1975 and I had gone to a local cinema to see a new film entitled Jaws. Every reel projected on machine 1 was incorrectly racked so that the frame line was showing at the bottom of the screen, along with a bit of the top of the adjacent image. Several times I requested that an usher go to the booth and ask the projectionist to make an adjustment. The third time they returned with a bit of accurate information that didn't solve the problem.

A motion picture is made of up of frames that run down a very long strip of film. The frames are separated by frame lines. And yes, that's what I was seeing -- the frame lines -- which as the usher explained, were a part of the film. I recall staring incredulously as this was explained to me, obviously passed down from the mount above, behind the port holes, from which the wizard controlled what we were allowed to view.

And I agreed. "Yes," I said. "I understand the concept of frame lines. The problem is we're not supposed to see them."

And a third example. When Citizen Kane was brought out on DVD, it was incorrectly timed. There is a sequence early in the film when a newsreel is run in a small projection room. Mr. Welles was not accorded a huge budget by RKO, and rather than hire extras to be in the group viewing the newsreel, he placed lead Joseph Cotten in a seat. He and his DP, the great Gregg Toland knew that the seen would be timed down and that Mr. Cotten would be nothing more than a shadow.

You know where this is going. The DVD arrives, and brightened to create a pretty image, we suddenly have a odd plot point. Why is a very young Jedediah Leland sitting in on the screening of the newsreel?

Because something is exposed to a film negative's emulsion does not mean that it is intended to be seen during projection or electronic viewing.

Such is the case with FFC's Dracula. BTW, this film was designed to be viewed with lights off, as in a theatrical setting. It should not be treated as a CBS Movie of the Week.

RAH

Wow, educational and a good read. Mr. Harris this drink of Macallen 12yr is for you.

[Oliver K]

Robert,

great post and after reading this:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And a third example. When Citizen Kane was brought out on DVD, it was incorrectly timed. There is a sequence early in the film when a newsreel is run in a small projection room. Mr. Welles was not accorded a huge budget by RKO, and rather than hire extras to be in the group viewing the newsreel, he placed lead Joseph Cotten in a seat. He and his DP, the great Gregg Toland knew that the seen would be timed down and that Mr. Cotten would be nothing more than a shadow.

You know where this is going. The DVD arrives, and brightened to create a pretty image, we suddenly have a odd plot point. Why is a very young Jedediah Leland sitting in on the screening of the newsreel?

Because something is exposed to a film negative's emulsion does not mean that it is intended to be seen during projection or electronic viewing.

I need to have a look at that scene on my DVD of Citizen Kane!

[racerx1965]

Originally Posted by Xorp

Overlayed text is made impossible to read and is nearly invisible. Why would they bother to make those sets or effects if the viewer would never see them?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The fact that information exists on a negative does not mean that the viewer is intended to see it.

Such is the case with FFC's Dracula. BTW, this film was designed to be viewed with lights off, as in a theatrical setting. It should not be treated as a CBS Movie of the Week.
RAH

So in summary, the simple answer is that FFC did *not* want the viewer to see the special effects?

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by racerx1965

So in summary, the simple answer is that FFC did *not* want the viewer to see the special effects?

Maybe he just wanted the writing barely visible, just so that some people might see it, and others won't, so that some people are wondering if they actually saw it in the first place.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by JimSD

Penton-Man,

As promised, I have sent you a PM about Race Across The Sky Blu-ray now being up for sale.

May I please have a link as well? Thanks.

[JimSD]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

May I please have a link as well? Thanks.

You must have some great MTBing in your area SquidPuppet. Here you go:

http://raceacrossthesky.com/store.php

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Across-th...9811553&sr=1-5

The Amazon seller is a couple of dollars cheaper due to lower shipping.