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

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

It is not:

Blu-Ray disc - it is all about the movie

nor is it:

purchasing a title on Blu-Ray should always be about the film

or something like it

I believe that a generalization can be quite proper here.

Blu-ray will generally make well-produced data look far better than standard definition, while sub-par material will be on display, without the aid of lower resolution, looking precisely as it does.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Is Blu-ray always the answer to the finest possible quality?

When based upon less than stellar transfers, absolutely not!

In certain situations, standard definition is clearly the superior format.

RAH

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I believe that a generalization can be quite proper here.

Blu-ray will generally make well-produced data look far better than standard definition, while sub-par material will be on display, without the aid of lower resolution, looking precisely as it does.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Is Blu-ray always the answer to the finest possible quality?

When based upon less than stellar transfers, absolutely not!

In certain situations, standard definition is clearly the superior format.

RAH

Thank you Mr. Harris!!

Maybe that is why we will never see Lost Horizon (1937) on Blu-ray?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Amen to that - we are all kidding ourselves when on one side we want a movie on Blu-Ray (as opposed to TV, VHS, LD, DVD, D-Theater, you name it) and on the other hand when the Blu-Ray is far from being as good as it could it is suddenly all about the movie. That does not help the advancement of the format in the least and negates the fact that we are NOT buying a Blu-Ray because it is all about the movie but mainly because it looks better on Blu-Ray and to a lesser degree also because it sounds better and to probably an even lesser degree because it has some gizmos like BDlive, animated menus, downloadable content etc.

And may I remind everybody regarding a catchy slogan that tries to put into very few words what Blu-Ray is all about that by the way I found on the website of a company named Sony DADC :

Blu-ray Disc - Beyond High Definition

It is not:

Blu-Ray disc - it is all about the movie

nor is it:

purchasing a title on Blu-Ray should always be about the film

or something like it

Again...

I don't think the movie itself is the only thing that matters when it comes to a Blu-ray release, but it should be the primary reason for purchasing a disc. There are people who buy movies they hate simply because the PQ and AQ are amazing. Likewise, there are people who avoid their favorite movies because minor to moderate issues render their AV presentations imperfect. Both scenarios are baffling to me.

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Again...

I don't think the movie itself is the only thing that matters when it comes to a Blu-ray release, but it should be the primary reason for purchasing a disc. There are people who buy movies they hate simply because the PQ and AQ are amazing. Likewise, there are people who avoid their favorite movies because minor to moderate issues render their AV presentations imperfect. Both scenarios are baffling to me.

e.g. French Connection I will not buy due to quality issues and I had to have The Princess and the Frog due to the stunning look and sound.

Edit: I still will not buy if the movie is a total waste of time regardless of how it looks

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Originally Posted by spookmag
There are some like our movie Burn after Reading which was an upscale and had poor quality for Blu-ray.

A late April Fool's Day post. Almost funny. The HDCAMSR I held in my hand some months ago with a clearly native status must have been an illusion than. Probably courtesy of Terry Gilliam . Somebody apparently likes to read his name and loves the chatter.

Heh, I guess my "smelling weird" comment (I hate to knee jerk call bullshite on somebody immediately, especially as I'm way, way to uninterested in order to wade in to the Avatar thread) was on the money. Well, that and given the fact that the BD looks pretty good (certainly like the theatrical presentation), and that the Coen's were forerunners in the DI game, that title in particular I call BS on.

However, he names a number of other titles (such as Robocop) - if I'm understanding correctly, he's talking about taking a 720x480 file and up-ressing to HD resolution. That's very different than, say, the Alliance practice of using broadcast HD source (ie., 1080i/30) and slapping those on a disc for Canadian consumption.

So, somewhere within the mess, is there any truth to this claim? Jeff, you say no major studio is doing this, can you point to any titles where it -has- been done?

Hell, the practice happens all the time for audio (SACDs from 44.1 digital masters, 5.1 upmixes from 2ch sources run through a Lexicon, etc.)

Meanwhile, Torsten, I wonder what your home setup is? If I were you, I'd attach HDCAM playback to my home Imax screen, but that's only because I have an inflated view of what a rich and successful video guru would have for his own setup.

[DenonCI]

The original Robocop that was never released looked pretty bad (or so I've heard) and the Universal release of "Traffic" on HD DVD was accused of being an upconvert, but that film has never had a HD "look," so it's hard to say if it was or not.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Again...
I don't think the movie itself is the only thing that matters when it comes to a Blu-ray release, but it should be the primary reason for purchasing a disc.

I think that especially with Blu-Rays other factors need to be as important or more important than the movie itself as otherwise one could always purchase a cheaper DVD. Indeed I think that is why classics do not sell as well on Blu-Ray as the attitude is often that people do not want to pay a lot of money for a "old" movie that they have already watched on TV, DVD etc. and that usually is MUCH cheaper on DVD and still the same movie after all.

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

There are people who buy movies they hate simply because the PQ and AQ are amazing.

I agree that in these times this is ridiculous as everybody should be able to find a movie that they like AND that has very good AQ and/or PQ, especially among releases of new movies there is plenty to choose from.

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Likewise, there are people who avoid their favorite movies because minor to moderate issues render their AV presentations imperfect.

This is also strange as the best we can do is to watch a movie in its best available presentation or not at all. Usually though I do not buy subpar titles as I do not like the idea of rewarding that kind of product with a purchase, in those cases I prefer to rent.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

By the way, for those followers of “Xylon” who refused to reward the studio that gave you Baraka on Blu-ray by refusing to purchase the disc since, how did “Xylon” term it… something like ‘the only thing good about Baraka is the soundtrack’, is that a more or less correct quote Monkey?

Anyway, don’t ever say I didn’t do anything for you guys.
Here’s a heads-up for tomorrow evening…

http://www.americancinematheque.com/...010.htm#BARAKA

Make sure you bring your cameras.

Hear Hear ! I would certainly say that a 70mm screening of Baraka is the way to go for those that live close enough - followers of Xylon or not.
So I hope that this will be sold out or close to it so that more screenings can follow.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

By the way, for those followers of “Xylon” who refused to reward the studio that gave you Baraka on Blu-ray by refusing to purchase the disc since, how did “Xylon” term it… something like ‘the only thing good about Baraka is the soundtrack’, is that a more or less correct quote Monkey?

Anyway, don’t ever say I didn’t do anything for you guys.
Here’s a heads-up for tomorrow evening…

http://www.americancinematheque.com/...010.htm#BARAKA

Make sure you bring your cameras.

Here you go:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1082785

Xylon: The only thing that is worth praising in this transfer is the lossless audio. DTS-HD Master Audio at 96k/24bits sure is impressive and it sounds impressive.

Xylon: And DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing.

Just for laughs , A Kram quote on Baraka:

Xylon, thank you for confirming the obnoxious DNR on this title.

After the utter rediculousness that ruined the other thread (ie "screenshots aren't valid", "no DNR or EE", must be your eyesight or your display, anti-Sony conspiracies, etc) it's refreshing to read an honest opinion from someone who clearly indentifies this destructive unfilmlike filtering AND doesn't give it a pass.

It truly boggles the mind why an ultra-high resolution scan from a 65mm source would need to be filtered and artificially sharpened. Just insane.

Good lord Baraka is a hideous transfer (look at all the DNR on the grass, I can't even make out the individual blades, it is just sloppy green blurr) YUCK!!!:
http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/n...1110195445.png

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

The original Robocop that was never released looked pretty bad (or so I've heard) and the Universal release of "Traffic" on HD DVD was accused of being an upconvert, but that film has never had a HD "look," so it's hard to say if it was or not.

The existing ROBOCOP on the market is a native master, no doubt, though not a perfect one [for reasons of lack of color depth and color timing]. As for TRAFFIC, that one is a "classic".

One thing to keep in mind is that a film element with a very grainy image, little gradation/depth [intentionally made or not] and the manipulation of the resolution of a master or transfer tape to achieve a higher amount of pixels than the native one are two very different things and can be told apart from another. Now, many of you will say now "why is he telling us this - of course they are different". The problem is that some who order for distribution, review products or sit in position in broadcast, do not know or can tell the difference when confronted with such a Master/DUB. Both exhibit or suggest low resolution [an effect Soderbergh indeed intended on film] but only one of the two comes with a corrupted pixel structure "in its wake".

Case in point: I had a debate with a "reviewer" over this [and Penton, don't send me mails protecting this site's very own, he is not among of them] who claimed noone [regardless whether you professionally work in this field or are a layman] can really say whether TRAFFIC is an upconvert unless one was present during the transfer. Well, if that were true QCs would, according to that theory, be totally useless. Film can be exposed, developed and copied in all sorts of ways down the line, with many changes that can affect the gradation, density and depth, color registration and detail in the shadows. What is not part of the attributes is a change in the pixel structure - since film doesn't have any. TRAFFIC on HD DVD has a very clearly noticeable corruption of the pixel structure that as it presents itself can only stem from one course of action: a manipulation of the natively lower pixel count to a much higher one - i.e. an upconversion from a master [very likely the NTSC] to a new, DUB in 1080 @ [very, very likely] 23.976psf. The pixels on TRAFFIC [again, only the HD-DVD version issued in the US] instead of being naturally sharp and distinguished are very soft, have no distiguished edges and incorporate [and this is important] no color and grayscale information that is unique to themselves, rather inheriting along with their own a mix from other pixels surrounding it. This is what leads to significant loss in accurate color registration, natural sharpness and depth.

By the way, to conclude the story, the "reviewer" did not change his stance, saying later in a forum I "had a history" and that this degradation is not due to an upconversion, but solely to the nature of the film elements and the maximum of the film's potential. The STUDIO CANAL HD DVD came out, with a much better picture quality, and NO corrupted pixel structure. Then the German Blu-ray came out, based on an HDCAM @ 25psf 1080 DUB. That master was fine, too. Neither release was commented on by the "reviewer". The new Universal Blu-ray is a new, native 1080 master - though someone should provide the colorist with a bigger monitor - the added sharpness from the SPIRIT is everywhere, almost like APOLLO 13. So, I guess, working in a profession does make a difference compared to merely commenting on one. But that is not the problem. If more people were made aware as to how to distinguish these attributes and what to look for, releases like TRAFFIC and others would never have happened.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

(...)However, he names a number of other titles (such as Robocop) - if I'm understanding correctly, he's talking about taking a 720x480 file and up-ressing to HD resolution. That's very different than, say, the Alliance practice of using broadcast HD source (ie., 1080i/30) and slapping those on a disc for Canadian consumption.

So, somewhere within the mess, is there any truth to this claim? (...)
Meanwhile, Torsten, I wonder what your home setup is? If I were you, I'd attach HDCAM playback to my home Imax screen, but that's only because I have an inflated view of what a rich and successful video guru would have for his own setup.

Forget everything you read. As for the ALLIANCE DUBs, these are 59.94i 1080 tape copies intended or made originally for Broadcast purposes. These features are CROSS CONVERTED, but the conversion artefacts from that interlaced master/DUB are much different to those of UPCONVERSIONS from a lower native resolution. I hope this helps.

As for my IMAX screen: yeah, you got me. But only when I'm in Hong Kong watching my features projected on a sky scraper across town.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Penton-

I was responding to the point that Ken Brown made (https://forum.blu-ray.com/3178437-post13455.html), which I interpreted to mean something like, Regardless of what it looks like, if you like the film buy the Blu-ray 'cause only the movie itself matters!

I understand.

I think the point that Ken was trying to make is that the overwhelming tone of some audio/video forums has gone from actually watching a movie on Blu-ray to analyzing pixel structure, when in reality, other than some members of Club Penton, none have even the foggiest idea of what this slide means...

[Penton-Man]

^
P.S.
And it’s about time for some hobbyists that claim to be "enthusiasts" to move just a little bit back *toward the center*, if you will.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

and Penton, don't send me mails protecting this site's very own, he is not among of them...

You do realize that I scored in the 99% percentile (or so the teachers told me) in 'protectionism apptitude' while in highschool.

Hello Torsten!
What the heck is going on here? We’ve got you, Blaumann and Oliver K. all showing up on this thread at almost the same time!

Did they declare some National holiday in Germany today because of Bayern’s win yesterday?…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5djtS36PuM


b.t.w., very nice job with “M”.

[Jeff Kleist]

So, somewhere within the mess, is there any truth to this claim? Jeff, you say no major studio is doing this, can you point to any titles where it -has- been done?

There's a lot of anime upconverts out there, mostly because pretty much everything made between the late 90s and the late 2000s was finished at 480p. Making those shows HD would require digging out the pencil drawings and re-ink and painting the entire show (digital coloring).

Highlander TV show is upconverted

Oh there WAS 28 days later, because that was shot on PAL video

There's a lot of people who are convinced a lot of older, cheaper or indy films are upconverts because they don't look like what they expect an HD film to look

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Here you go:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1082785





Just for laughs , A Kram quote on Baraka:



Good lord Baraka is a hideous transfer (look at all the DNR on the grass, I can't even make out the individual blades, it is just sloppy green blurr) YUCK!!!:
http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/n...1110195445.png

The shot he chose of the children is a stupid example. No pores, no wrinkles... LOL, they are 8-10 years old. Their faces are smooth and blemish free.... Well I HOPE SO, they are only ten years old. Duh.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There's a lot of people who are convinced a lot of older, cheaper or indy films are upconverts because they don't look like what they expect an HD film to look

...yeah, I've been going through "WW II in HD", and can't help but think that some people would be disappointed that handheld footage from Tarawa doesn't look like Planet Earth

I find the zoomed 4:3 material a bit disappointing, aggravating some of the issues and making the composition wonky at times, but, after all, doesn't everybody who buys HDTV do so to not have those damn black lines?

*cough*

An amusing a/b, as it were, is when they show footage from a transfer of the doc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_the_Marines_at_Tarawa), one that incorporates the same shots we've seen earlier in remastered, recomposed 16:9. The (Oscar winning) doc -hasn't- been cleaned up, or zoomed (IIRC), and the brief moment shows how the two sources compare.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You do realize that I scored in the 99% percentile (or so the teachers told me) in 'protectionism apptitude' while in highschool.

Hello Torsten!
What the heck is going on here? We’ve got you, Blaumann and Oliver K. all showing up on this thread at almost the same time!

Did they declare some National holiday in Germany today because of Bayern’s win yesterday?…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5djtS36PuM


b.t.w., very nice job with “M”.

Hello Stranger !

Didn't you know ? All Bavarian beer is free today, on the house of BM

Thanx re: "M". But as you probably already know, some [few though vocal] people have their own taste and let me have some of that, too.
But seriously, I am very happy with the outcome, and couldn't thank Criterion more for giving me the opportunity in the first place. Robert Harris mentioned over on HTF a critical aspect - [some of] the essentials that can and need to be used as reference, and happily such materials were available and of great help. Such references [AP, samples, etc] are also becoming hugely important in mastering titles from the original CN or IP these days. I have seen already too many masters even of newer features that were made without such references and that have nothing to do with the film. Look no further than AMERICAN GANGSTER or GALAXY QUEST.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Thanx re: "M".

Let me take the opportunity to thank you, as well. I'm very eagerly anticipating my disc.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Let me take the opportunity to thank you, as well. I'm very eagerly anticipating my disc.

Here', I'm doing a one consonant review in advance:

"M. Mmmmmm."