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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Joseph Goodman

With regards to the potentially "waxy" look of heavily noise-processed film-sourced images, could a more natural appearing noise-reduced image be produced by doing the intial noise reduction at a highly over-sampled image size? My reasoning behind asking this is that the knock against scanning resolutions over 4k-equivalent pixel density (beyond the huge file sizes & expense) is that at those resolutions (6k, 8k, etc.), you aren't really resolving any extra recorded detail from the film, you're simply getting a clearer picture of the gaps between the grain... in other words, noise. It seems to me that if the goal is to remove noise, wouldn't better results (i.e. not filtering out actual detail along with the noise) be achieved with more a more clearly resolved "noise" structure?

Granted, with most software de-grain solutions, before you turn on the magic ‘dnr knob’, the operator first turns on the magic ‘Analyzer’ knob which essentially activates some spatial-temporal filters, based upon the motion estimation algos, which analyze the grain /noise in the image….which automatically sets the parameters for the processing (which can be manually changed) but,….

Keep in mind, no matter if you scan at 8K, 6K, etc. unless you’re goal is to digitally preserve the raw material, you’ve got to output at 4K (or lower) anyway to use the post production color grading software tools on the market for things such as digital noise reduction.
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/data...LMultiNode.pdf

The big benefit to scanning at higher than 4K resolution (like 6K) for Super 35 format is that the over-sampled image size ultimately avoids or suppresses aliasing artifacts. For those unfamiliar with “aliasing”….what aliasing does is that it negatively affects the MTF to essentially decrease one’s perception to the sharpness of the image (less sharp or less detailed, if you will) because of the artifacts it produces.

The trade-off to using higher (>6k) scanning resolutions with some scanners is that because of sensor science, the signal must be amplified, which leads to higher noise and thusly compromises the image quality. Also, it seems that when you go up to super high (> 6k) scanning resolutions with Super 35 film, (depending on the size of the grains and the scanner) you can actually create digital artifacts on the super sharp grain itself, thus making the situation worse.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Predator with less grain and in scope would have been a different movie...

As an aside, Alien was shot in the anamorphic format under challenging lighting conditions and the DP initally wanted to shoot the movie at 25 frames rather than 24.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Welcome Back!

And thanks, that is very interesting. It also goes to show that many things might not be intended by the director but nonetheless they finally make the film what it is - Predator with less grain and in scope would have been a different movie and maybe the director would even have liked some different actors for some roles - so where do we draw a line?

That depends on the particular studio and the particular collaboration (if any) between the filmmaker(s) and the VP for asset management, film restoration, and digital mastering.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Ok, everybody's still gun shy, I get it...

Still, this is some nerdy fun - 3D...

I think that people who have followed me over the course of time know that I am far from shy but rather, more like Harry S. Truman …”I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”

Plus, I’ve been busy counting me money from my investments….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3477873
viola –
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...1&ref=verttech

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The trade-off to using higher (>6k) scanning resolutions with some scanners is that because of sensor science, the signal must be amplified, which leads to higher noise and thusly compromises the image quality. Also, it seems that when you go up to super high (> 6k) scanning resolutions with Super 35 film, (depending on the size of the grains and the scanner) you can actually create digital artifacts on the super sharp grain itself, thus making the situation worse.

The solution is to avoid Super35 and shoot true 'scope!

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Welcome Back!

And thanks, that is very interesting. It also goes to show that many things might not be intended by the director but nonetheless they finally make the film what it is - Predator with less grain and in scope would have been a different movie and maybe the director would even have liked some different actors for some roles - so where do we draw a line?

I guess the line is being drawn for us by the releasing studio based on some blend of artistic license and financial considerations.

Therefore I think it is best to strive for the look that comes reasonably close to a good premiere print that the director would have approved within the limits of the production at the time.

Why? What would be the point? Who remembers the condition of the print on opening night. No....it's the story. It's always about the story.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Taffy

I guess the line is being drawn for us by the releasing studio based on some blend of artistic license and financial considerations.

Well, it was really meant as a rethorical question

Originally Posted by Taffy

Why? What would be the point?

I am not surprised you do not get the point and I certainly won't try to convince you if you here.

Originally Posted by Taffy

Who remembers the condition of the print on opening night.

It is not a question of remembering it as in most cases the negative of a movie is still there and scanning and handling it by people who know what they do usually gets you pretty close to that without too much guesswork. In more difficult cases you can also get additional info from for example Technicolor prints that are less prone to fading than many Eastman Kodak prints.

Originally Posted by Taffy

It's always about the story.

The whole point of having the Blu-Ray medium is that of course it is about the story but not exclusively so, it is also about superior picture and sound. You can easily get the story by watching the movie on TV, on VHS or on a DVD, but the existence of this forum should give you an indication that it is also about something else

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As an aside, Alien was shot in the anamorphic format under challenging lighting conditions and the DP initally wanted to shoot the movie at 25 frames rather than 24.

That is strange what were the reasons he wanted such a small increase ?
Of course it would be nice for PAL video and TV releases but I guess this wasn't the reason he did it

[Oliver_A]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

That is strange what were the reasons he wanted such a small increase ?
Of course it would be nice for PAL video and TV releases but I guess this wasn't the reason he did it

Didn't James Cameron shoot Aliens in 25 fps so they could use all the PAL monitors and cameras unmodified to avoid "rolling black bars" on film?

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

...The whole point of having the Blu-Ray medium is that of course it is about the story but not exclusively so, it is also about superior picture and sound. You can easily get the story by watching the movie on TV, on VHS or on a DVD, but the existence of this forum should give you an indication that it is also about something else

Good morning Oliver. Now that I've got my cup of coffee...I can do some thinking.

I've always been a buyer of entertainment electronics over the years and having the latest video/audio state of the art equipment is a big plus in watching todays HD capable movies. There's nothing like watching my all time favorite movie "West Side Story" on a 9' screen in HD with DD 5.1 sound.

My wife, on the other hand... could watch it on our 19" TV in our exercise room (and has) and be just as thrilled. So you're right. You can just as easily enjoy this feature on DVD without the hi tech accoutrements. Maybe this in part explains why Blu-ray as a medium is just limping along.

Anyway, back to the importance of the story. I don't know about you, but what guides my decision to spend, or not spend, on movie software is really nothing more than story appeal. I know that's terribly old fashioned, but it's true. I'm astounded by the reasons some posters buy software these days (CGI and big explosions) and even more so by more than a few pronouncements of " If the movie ain't on Blu-ray, it ain't worth watching". That's just nuts.

Over on the Predator thread, people are calling each other idiots for liking different technical versions of the same movie. Now...isn't that the height of something or other. To me this is a good example of how "superior picture and sound" of late...can, unfortunately, become the story with many hi tech enthusiasts....if you know what I mean.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, this post, from another thread, will have to do you for awhile (I previously had promised OliverK this info anyway)…….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post3496726

Oliver, I’ll add this addendum to the Predator linked post above regarding the film stocks, with an s. As I think much has been said online seemingly ‘authoritatively’ about the Director’s intent and the use of the film “stock” to make Predator intentionally look gritty or grainy. Well, that’s pretty much inaccurate speculation according to someone I recently spoke with intimately involved in the production.

Hi Penton,

Very interesting stuff. So, in regards to the new Predator BD, do you know if there was direction given from anyone involved in the original production who had actual input to the new disc? I know there were some color and gamma changes as well as DNR.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Taffy

Good morning Oliver. Now that I've got my cup of coffee...I can do some thinking.

I've always been a buyer of entertainment electronics over the years and having the latest video/audio state of the art equipment is a big plus in watching todays HD capable movies. There's nothing like watching my all time favorite movie "West Side Story" on a 9' screen in HD with DD 5.1 sound.

My wife, on the other hand... could watch it on our 19" TV in our exercise room (and has) and be just as thrilled. So you're right. You can just as easily enjoy this feature on DVD without the hi tech accoutrements. Maybe this in part explains why Blu-ray as a medium is just limping along.

Anyway, back to the importance of the story. I don't know about you, but what guides my decision to spend, or not spend, on movie software is really nothing more than story appeal. I know that's terribly old fashioned, but it's true. I'm astounded by the reasons some posters buy software these days (CGI and big explosions) and even more so by more than a few pronouncements of " If the movie ain't on Blu-ray, it ain't worth watching". That's just nuts.

You are pointing out two issues: First why Blu-Ray is not doing as well as we would like (the DVD is good enough mindset) and on the other hand why Blu-Ray needs people who do not only care about the story. Rebuying a classic on Blu-Ray we are mostly getting an upgrade in presentation quality with a Blu-Ray, NOT a new movie so we need customers who are buying because they want the best presentation that is available to them and in some cases it CAN be like watching that movie for the first time, especially with epic movies.

Originally Posted by Taffy

Over on the Predator thread, people are calling each other idiots for liking different technical versions of the same movie. Now...isn't that the height of something or other. To me this is a good example of how "superior picture and sound" of late...can, unfortunately, become the story with many hi tech enthusiasts....if you know what I mean.

Well I guess that is the kind of circular argument that you get on a forum that is dedicated to the best media currently available to people at home and where people are passionate about presentation

[Penton-Man]

Comic-Con attendees might want to head on over to Regal Horton Plaza….
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2010/0...28MarketSaw%29

(and no, I’m not part of the Piranha 3D viral marketing campaign - http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/05/...ar-boob-filled)

Anyway, since Horton Plaza is down the road a piece, a shout out to real scientists at UCSD –
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/gen...ualReality.asp

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Taffy

Why? What would be the point?...

Well, Oliver’s point is that modifying the film by changing its look to make it much different than the original achievement flouts the historical principle of getting back to what people actually saw. If you are the studio’s preservationist/archivist, the answer is clear, namely, you respect the film’s original look as much as possible and I must say, I concur.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Taffy

Who remembers the condition of the print on opening night?..

If it’s fairly recent, like in the case of The Road, I do………..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3122350

The funny thing is though, that when you indeed make the Blu-ray an exact replication of the theatrical experience’s original look, for example, in the case of The Road, many Blu-ray film *purists* seem to have a problem with that. Seems some *purists* compromise their PQ principles when it suits them.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

That is strange what were the reasons he wanted such a small increase?

To better synchronize with the TV monitors that were placed all around the spaceship, through the corridors, in the mess area, etc.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To better synchronize with the TV monitors that were placed all around the spaceship, through the corridors, in the mess area, etc.

I believe that all of the musical segments in A Hard Day's Night that featured television monitors in the background were shot at 25 fps for this very reason. Interestingly, when projected back at 24 fps, the slow-down had the unfortunate effect of lowering the pitch of those musical numbers by a semitone as compared to their album counterparts.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To better synchronize with the TV monitors that were placed all around the spaceship, through the corridors, in the mess area, etc.

I have to say that at 24 fps it still worked out nicely, was that because they ultimately used NTSC monitors or did it work out just fine to film 50 Hz monitors at 24 fps?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Hi Penton,

Very interesting stuff. So, in regards to the new Predator BD, do you know if there was direction given from anyone involved in the original production who had actual input to the new disc? I know there were some color and gamma changes as well as DNR.

I’m not at liberty to comment about that…..at least not at this time; however, here’s another question which may be just as important though (or more) for future Blu-ray movie micro-analysis, which I pose to you, Heavy....

Have some of the more infamous screenshots posted on the internet truly looked exactly like what you saw in those scenes when viewed while watching the movie in real-time on your greater than 42” sized calibrated display at home?....I assume you’ve watched the Blu-ray in question by now and I know you as an unbiased fellow.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JamesN

I believe...

James, I don’t remember if you’re from the L.A. area but, if so, this is a freebie in Calabasas….
http://www.blufocus.com/3d-focus/

and if you’re not from SoCal, but are an Adobe type guy who would like to get more involved in this stuff, here is an online tutorial…
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/davtechtab...ro-cs5-winosx/