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

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

My deepest apologies gentleman. I didn't mean to kick the hornet's nest. Penton is absolutely correct-there's titles I've avoided due to the many sub-par reviews I've read(including Star Trek). The irony here is that I thought Patton was one of the best! It's the disc I use to show off my set up when I have friends over. Everybody w/o exception sez they can't believe how such an old film can look so good. Two of my friends went out and bought blu-ray players after seeing it! Yet that is the one people seem to be the most disappointed in(DNR). You'll have to excuse me now-I'm gonna go watch a John Wayne flick on VHS with my 1987 19" color General Electric...

We return to old news, and I'll repeat the basics. Many will disagree. Some people reviewing discs have no idea what they're reviewing, as they have no basis of comparison. The trick here, as I've noted before, is to find someone whose eyes and ears match your own. At that point, right or wrong, you'll be happy.

Perception of Blu-ray disc quality is based upon several elements, among them the size / quality of the hardware system in use, an individual's background and knowledge of films and their history, and lastly at least a modicum of technical expertise.

I'm going to repeat some things that I brought up at the time of the P***on
release on Blu-ray, and these are concepts that go to the heart of the Blu-ray matter, and are unfortunately beyond the control of those who created and support the format.

At the most basic, there are no controls in regard to the quality of any film released on Blu-ray, as Blu is used merely as a digital bucket, simply holding data on a small shiny disc.

The original concept of motion pictures released via the Blu system, and one of the major elements that made it immediately a higher quality carrier than HD, was the ability to carry 50GB of information. With longer films spread out within this far greater real estate, it became possible for one of the great promises of the format to be realized. That is the reproduction of film in the home theater setting... accurately replicating all of the visual and aural textures of the commercial motion picture theater.

Look at the Blu-ray of P**tton on a 30-40" screen, and it can look quite nice. View it at 60 or 100 and the image belies its technical limitations, as created NOT BY THE FILMMAKERS, BUT BY TECHNICIANS WHO THINK THAT THEY KNOW BETTER.

The film in question is of 65mm origin, shot on a relatively fine grained negative stock (Eastman 5254), and generally fully exposed. This means that the original OCN is thick, full-bodied, and gorgeous. It will reproduce with little or no grain evident on Blu-ray, and needs absolutely no help from anyone to look terrific. It is a matter of less is more. Take the film, scan it, reproduce it without any changes and put it out on Blu-ray. It may well have been the best Blu of the year, as opposed to one of the worst.

What is not in place, and it's something that probably cannot be put in place, is a means of controlling what comes out on Blu-ray -- what is placed in those buckets. What some technician does in a post house can easily make Blu-ray, as a format, look horrific as opposed to extraordinary. This isn't fair to Blu-ray, and shouldn't be used as a basis of considering a format.

In the end, it comes down to three points.

The first concerns the consumer. Many people feel that P****n is reference quality, but may have no idea what the motion picture PATTON, the Best Picture of 1970, can and should look like.

This is unfair without reference. I would bet that had these people seen the film properly mastered and released on Blu-ray that they would immediately note the difference in FAR higher resolution and detail, and would be even more amazed at the potential of the format as well as the quality of the film. The point is that as released on Blu, we are seeing merely the shadow of Patton, and are not experiencing the film. There is no way that anyone who has not seen the film in 70mm on a huge screen can know this.

Which brings us to the second point. And that is that the consumer should be able to fully rely upon those at the studio level to accurately, and with full quality, reproduce the motion pictures in their care for the Blu-ray audience. If this were done, and in many cases it is not, the consumer would not be placed in the position of spending their hard earned dollars, not receiving the absolute best that Blu-ray can provide -- and not knowing that there's a problem. The consumer SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE EDUCATED in film history and technical matters. They should, in the purchase of a Blu-ray, simply know that they are receiving the absolute best.

THIS IS NOT OCCURRING!

The final point is the education of the industry itself toward meeting the Blu-ray challenge and promise of accurately reproducing film for home video.

This is not difficult.

All that's necessary is the elimination of smoke, mirrors, and those entities that do far more damage than good as they sell their wares to the studios. Further, the studios need to get past the concept that the public wants glossy, smooth images on their 32" LCD. The audience doesn't know what they want, because they have been misled and miseducated. This is akin to adding more salt and harmful fat in the production of fries for a public that will step up and buy them at the fast food counter because they're there.

The ultimate answer is doing far less than many people are doing. If one simply leaves out a few steps, spends less of one's budget on making the image prettier, or easier to compress where a problem doesn't exist, we'll have the majority of Blu-ray releases meeting that promise of quality.

There's nothing really difficult here. We just need to get the industry away from snake oil, as well as the old way of thinking for standard definition DVD, that grain must be killed off in order to compress an image. That kind of thinking is as archaic as a horse and buggy caught in freeway traffic at 70 mph.

The image is imbedded in the film. It is made up of grain. The job is NOT to remake the film to one's personal liking. The job is simply to reproduce it as the filmmaker's intended and to give the highest possible quality to the public, without having them wonder if the disc that they have purchased is accurate or good enough.

Quality should be assumed in Blu-ray.

RAH

[Doctorossi]

As usual, you preach a pretty post, Robert.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

We return to old news, and I'll repeat the basics. Many will disagree. Some people reviewing discs have no idea what they're reviewing, as they have no basis of comparison. The trick here, as I've noted before, is to find someone whose eyes and ears match your own. At that point, right or wrong, you'll be happy.

Perception of Blu-ray disc quality is based upon several elements, among them the size / quality of the hardware system in use, an individual's background and knowledge of films and their history, and lastly at least a modicum of technical expertise.

I'm going to repeat some things that I brought up at the time of the P***on
release on Blu-ray, and these are concepts that go to the heart of the Blu-ray matter, and are unfortunately beyond the control of those who created and support the format.

At the most basic, there are no controls in regard to the quality of any film released on Blu-ray, as Blu is used merely as a digital bucket, simply holding data on a small shiny disc.

The original concept of motion pictures released via the Blu system, and one of the major elements that made it immediately a higher quality carrier than HD, was the ability to carry 50GB of information. With longer films spread out within this far greater real estate, it became possible for one of the great promises of the format to be realized. That is the reproduction of film in the home theater setting... accurately replicating all of the visual and aural textures of the commercial motion picture theater.

Look at the Blu-ray of P**tton on a 30-40" screen, and it can look quite nice. View it at 60 or 100 and the image belies its technical limitations, as created NOT BY THE FILMMAKERS, BUT BY TECHNICIANS WHO THINK THAT THEY KNOW BETTER.

The film in question is of 65mm origin, shot on a relatively fine grained negative stock (Eastman 5254), and generally fully exposed. This means that the original OCN is thick, full-bodied, and gorgeous. It will reproduce with little or no grain evident on Blu-ray, and needs absolutely no help from anyone to look terrific. It is a matter of less is more. Take the film, scan it, reproduce it without any changes and put it out on Blu-ray. It may well have been the best Blu of the year, as opposed to one of the worst.

What is not in place, and it's something that probably cannot be put in place, is a means of controlling what comes out on Blu-ray -- what is placed in those buckets. What some technician does in a post house can easily make Blu-ray, as a format, look horrific as opposed to extraordinary. This isn't fair to Blu-ray, and shouldn't be used as a basis of considering a format.

In the end, it comes down to three points.

The first concerns the consumer. Many people feel that P****n is reference quality, but may have no idea what the motion picture PATTON, the Best Picture of 1970, can and should look like.

This is unfair without reference. I would bet that had these people seen the film properly mastered and released on Blu-ray that they would immediately note the difference in FAR higher resolution and detail, and would be even more amazed at the potential of the format as well as the quality of the film. The point is that as released on Blu, we are seeing merely the shadow of Patton, and are not experiencing the film. There is no way that anyone who has not seen the film in 70mm on a huge screen can know this.

Which brings us to the second point. And that is that the consumer should be able to fully rely upon those at the studio level to accurately, and with full quality, reproduce the motion pictures in their care for the Blu-ray audience. If this were done, and in many cases it is not, the consumer would not be placed in the position of spending their hard earned dollars, not receiving the absolute best that Blu-ray can provide -- and not knowing that there's a problem. The consumer SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE EDUCATED in film history and technical matters. They should, in the purchase of a Blu-ray, simply know that they are receiving the absolute best.

THIS IS NOT OCCURRING!

The final point is the education of the industry itself toward meeting the Blu-ray challenge and promise of accurately reproducing film for home video.

This is not difficult.

All that's necessary is the elimination of smoke, mirrors, and those entities that do far more damage than good as they sell their wares to the studios. Further, the studios need to get past the concept that the public wants glossy, smooth images on their 32" LCD. The audience doesn't know what they want, because they have been misled and miseducated. This is akin to adding more salt and harmful fat in the production of fries for a public that will step up and buy them at the fast food counter because they're there.

The ultimate answer is doing far less than many people are doing. If one simply leaves out a few steps, spends less of one's budget on making the image prettier, or easier to compress where a problem doesn't exist, we'll have the majority of Blu-ray releases meeting that promise of quality.

There's nothing really difficult here. We just need to get the industry away from snake oil, as well as the old way of thinking for standard definition DVD, that grain must be killed off in order to compress an image. That kind of thinking is as archaic as a horse and buggy caught in freeway traffic at 70 mph.

The image is imbedded in the film. It is made up of grain. The job is NOT to remake the film to one's personal liking. The job is simply to reproduce it as the filmmaker's intended and to give the highest possible quality to the public, without having them wonder if the disc that they have purchased is accurate or good enough.

Quality should be assumed in Blu-ray.

RAH

This post needs to be circulated and read by all. It's one of the most enlightening posts that I've read on the subject and could save a lot of ?'s later...

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

We just need to get the industry away from snake oil, as well as the old way of thinking for standard definition DVD, that grain must be killed off in order to compress an image. That kind of thinking is as archaic as a horse and buggy caught in freeway traffic at 70 mph.

I have long suspected the real motive in eliminating grain was to improve the ability to data compress a movie more severely. A grainy image takes up a lot more space than a smooth image.

It's all about saving money. Costs can be reduced by squeezing the movie onto a BD-25 as a certain studio has done repeatedly with a lot of new and catalog BD releases. Costs will be lowered if one can squeeze both the movie and lots of extras onto just one BD-50 instead of creating two discs.

Naturally, much of the blame for eliminating grain gets passed onto the general movie viewing public. A few casual viewers complain about obvious grain on 300 or Close Encounters of the Third Kind and with that the disc authors, movie studios, etc. have the perfect scapegoat on why grain is reduced, "we're just trying to make the customers happy."

Certain releases, such as Dark City as one example, should have been spread across 2 discs rather than only one. In that particular case the movie had two different cuts with different editing schemes that made seamless branching use impossible. To squeeze both cuts of the movie onto one single disc much had to be done to reduce the file sizes of each cut and still leave room leftover for extras. A significant amount of image detail was scrubbed away in the process. In defense of the studio, Dark City as good a movie as it is has only been of limited appeal and sales potential. I seem to remember it being a commercial flop when it hit theaters in 1998. Why waste a lot of extra money making a package with a pair of BD-50 discs when only so many copies are going to sell? My own feeling is New Line should have merely released one cut of the movie instead of trying to cram both cuts into just one disc if they were worried at all about limited sales potential.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I've personally seen a lot of people ranting about bad PQ who were never "red ants", or HD DVD supporters either, so I'm not sure of the connection there myself.

How's this for a connection?

Red Ants = Rant

Call me Robert Langdon. Oh wait. That Blu-Ray has soft PQ, d@mn that cinematopgrapher!!!

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Which brings us to the second point. And that is that the consumer should be able to fully rely upon those at the studio level to accurately, and with full quality, reproduce the motion pictures in their care for the Blu-ray audience. If this were done, and in many cases it is not, the consumer would not be placed in the position of spending their hard earned dollars, not receiving the absolute best that Blu-ray can provide -- and not knowing that there's a problem. The consumer SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE EDUCATED in film history and technical matters. They should, in the purchase of a Blu-ray, simply know that they are receiving the absolute best.

THIS IS NOT OCCURRING!

Thank you, Robert. My posts above tried, vainly perhaps, to make this point that you so eloquently have made. I'd like to add, if I may, that it shouldn't matter who is doing the criticism, as long as it's valid criticism. Once it has been determined by you or others with similar sensitivities to the actual comings and goings of film production and disc creation, there should be a clear an open discussion, free from rhetoric, or defensiveness, or, ideally, agenda.

This comes back to something we discussed long ago, my worry about technicians modifying films without explicit instruction from the director or DOP (ie., wire removal). Without retreading the argument, the concern stems from the slippery slope that's a very REAL possibility. While a film like, say, Metropolis will have a "clean up" that will be done with great sensitivity (and the oversight of lots and lots of film nerds), what about lesser films that are thrown on the digital container of Blu in order to make a shiny disc double dip? If they can do this to Patton, or the Star Trek Films, or Kubrick (first release of FMJ), what the heck will they do to films that didn't make money, or that fly under the critical radar?

This is a big deal for the very survival of the format, I think. And while I think Penton is right to be pi$$ed at the hyperbole from those picking apart frame by frame small errors, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture, those transfers that are, by all rational technical analysis, wrong headed, and never should have left the hard drives of the mastering engineers. If someone as esteemed as you, Robert, makes such a stink about this title, and yet =nothing= is done by the studio to either rectify or even address the claims, where are we at?

Well, we're at the point where the vast, vast majority of new releases are prefect, and excellent additions to our libraries. That, of course, is not the issue (as you addressed above) - we should, as consumers, have the expectation, at least from the giants of cinema, that they're treated the way a roadshow or retrospective print would be treated, with cotton gloves and utmost care that the best possible presentation is made, with no compromises on quality from any stage of the process. That's the ideal, that's what we're paying for, that's what we expect from films the like of Patton. And, sadly, it's often not the case for these catalogue titles...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

We return to old news....
RAH

That we do.
Thanks for the input Robert, truly , if only for the sake of new membership like Constitution 101.

However, to keep things in perspective, the video lunatics bring up Patton and its peculiar production as the poster child for nearly every Blu-ray movie now that does not meet their criteria for the presence of grain, as they see it. That was one misstep by one technician at one mastering facility that was not caught by a “hawk” in QC at 20th Century Fox.

I think that Fox paid its penance a long time ago for that hiccup and has demonstrated its sensitivity to excessive digital manipulation by either outside contracted mastering facilities or Blu-ray encoding/authoring facilities with the release of subsequent catalogue titles with superb picture quality……..actually, the Sand Pebbles looks pristine and was released at the same time as Patton – so there is/was no ‘conspiracy’ at Fox even at that time to rob people of their daily dose of bran (grain).

I’m told that the digital grain reduction is baked into the HD master (by an outside contractor) and unfortunately the digital files are no longer available, so a brand new scan, etc. would have to done to lead to a more transparent product in the future.

Continuous discussion about or using the example of Patton to make a point in regards to studio intentions or oversight by people other than yourself (who could arguably be considered the ‘original critiquer for that Blu-ray product and thusly excused ) to me is kinda like President Obama’s advisors constantly telling him about the past history of sending troops into Iraq searching for *those weapons of mass destruction*, when he’s trying to get us out of there as soon as possible.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

.....That's the ideal, that's what we're paying for, that's what we expect from films the like of Patton. And, sadly, it's often not the case for these catalogue titles...

^
RAH, see what I mean.

[Penton-Man]

I have a serious request for any of our industrious members here or one of the moderators….

I am interested in an online poll on Blu-ray.com that inquires as to whether or not the members feel that SPE should start using DTSHDMA and drop Dolby True HD. We are just checking public interest, nothing decided, nothing eminent. It would just be good to know if many, anyone ? would get bent out of shape because they have an early player that does not support DTS lossless.

I would appreciate if someone could run the survey when they get a chance (posting a link to it here on my thread to save me time in not searching for it) and hopefully there will be some statistically significant participation from our members here. This is one of those rare opportunities in which your direct input could influence the policy of the home video division of a major Hollywood studio.

Thanks

[Doctorossi]

Penton, isn't it possible for TrueHD to occupy a little less real estate on-disc than DTSHDMA, for a given source file?

I'm happy with either codec; just don't give me both.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

This is a big deal for the very survival of the format, I think.

I'm still very bullish on the prospects of Blu-ray despite the mishandling or compromises made with certain catalog titles released on the format. The movie titles that typically sell the most copies are new releases of recent hit movies. Many of those tend to look great on Blu-ray.

Prices of standalone players are dropping to more affordable levels. We may see a few $99 BD players by the holiday shopping season. The computer industry (sans Apple) has already made serious progress in transitioning to BD-based optical drives. During my last visit to Sam's Club I noticed several HP Pavillion desktops well under $1000 boasting BD combo drives. We just bought a Dell Vostro desktop machine to replace a dying kit-built PC; that one has a full blown BD burner, quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM and a very good 256MB video card for just $1100 (20" monitor included).

There is no stopping the Blu-ray format from going mainstream. That is a foregone conclusion. It absolutely will happen. Blu-ray will eventually supplant DVD.

The ongoing concern is not whether Blu-ray will succeed. It's whether or not certain catalog titles will be handled as good as possible when authored to Blu-ray. The situation has been a hit or miss affair in some cases, but hopefully the situation will improve.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I am interested in an online poll on Blu-ray.com that inquires as to whether or not the members feel that SPE should start using DTSHDMA and drop Dolby True HD.

I'm fixing to get a receiver capable of "lossless" (hopefully this month or next), so it doesn't matter to me (with my PS3), BUT as someone currently WITHOUT a "lossless" capable receiver, I've always favored DTS-HD MA because of the higher bitrate core... so I get a BETTER sound in the meantime, and when I get a "lossless" capable receiver, I'll get an even better one still...

Besides, with Disney basically switching to DTS-HD MA, Summit Entertainment using it, Image, Criterion, and several indies, as well as CBS using it on their TV titles ("Star Trek: The Original Series" and "CSI: Crime Scene Investigations"), I'm afraid people with older players incapable of DTS-HD MA are going be slowly losing out on "lossless" regardless of Sony's plans.

~Alan

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I know how PeterTHX will feel about it...

I'm fixing to get a receiver capable of "lossless" (hopefully this month or next), so it doesn't matter to me (with my PS3), BUT as someone currently WITHOUT a "lossless" capable receiver, I've always favored DTS-HD MA because of the higher bitrate core... so I get a BETTER sound in the meantime, and when I get a "lossless" capable receiver, I'll get an even better one still...

~Alan

I'm quite fond of DTS HD MA, don't know what it is but True HD always lacks punch (ok not always, 30 days of night is one of my favourite audio BDs)

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I would appreciate if someone could run the survey when they get a chance (posting a link to it here on my thread to save me time in not searching for it) and hopefully there will be some statistically significant participation from our members here. This is one of those rare opportunities in which your direct input could influence the policy of the home video division of a major Hollywood studio.

Interesting. I can think of excellent examples of both. Generally though, DTS sounds a bit more punchy and dynamic to me (more like the old uncompressed linear PCM). For whatever reason...could just be the mixes.

What surprised me recently is that I am so used to lossless sound now; I went back and popped in the old Jurassic Park DTS DVD. To think we home theater enthusiasts used to consider that the "ultimate"!!!! Was tough to bear that once you get used to DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD.

I will participate in the poll. I owe paidgeek for the old Spiderman poll I did and which he used for the release of the Trilogy. Though paidgeek is losing points with me each day that passes without "The Mask of Zorro" on Blu. CZJ in HD...

[Y3k Bug]

Here is your poll Penton:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ewpost&t=99791

I hope it is satisfactory.

[Jeff Kleist]

Besides, with Disney basically switching to DTS-HD MA, Paramount trying it out on their TV title ("Star Trek: The Original Series" and "CSI: Crime Scene Investigations"), I'm afraid people with older players incapable of DTS-HD MA are going be slowly losing out on "lossless" regardless of Sony's plans.

CBS operates independently of Paramount, just like HBO is DTS even though they're Warner

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think that Fox paid its penance a long time ago for that hiccup and has demonstrated its sensitivity to excessive digital manipulation by either outside contracted mastering facilities or Blu-ray encoding/authoring facilities with the release of subsequent catalogue titles with superb picture quality……..actually, the Sand Pebbles looks pristine and was released at the same time as Patton – so there is/was no ‘conspiracy’ at Fox even at that time to rob people of their daily dose of bran (grain).

I’m told that the digital grain reduction is baked into the HD master (by an outside contractor) and unfortunately the digital files are no longer available, so a brand new scan, etc. would have to done to lead to a more transparent product in the future.

To be clear, I use the P**ton example not as a current example of Fox's output, but specifically toward explaining what has been occurring, and is now occurring presently with releases from a number of studios, inclusive of a recent release of Amadeus from WB. ***ton is old history.

I believe that Fox's fortunes with Blu-ray are now very fortunately tied to the work of Schawn Belston, who will preserve, protect and defend Fox's productions from further granular dismemberment. His work on The Sand Pebbles is superb.

RAH

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I am interested in an online poll on Blu-ray.com that inquires as to whether or not the members feel that SPE should start using DTSHDMA and drop Dolby True HD. We are just checking public interest, nothing decided, nothing eminent.

I believe both give essentially the same final product. It is important to have one or the other for newer titles.

RAH

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

CBS operates independently of Paramount, just like HBO is DTS even though they're Warner

I know... just a brain fart! I edited my post.

~Alan

[horseflesh]

Isn't the only difference that DTS-HD MA goes to 11??
Seriously, aren't they both essentially the same except DTS is something like 6db louder? In other words if you had both played concurrently, if you turned the Dolby track up by 6db you'd hear exactly the same results?
Obviously I don't know if one is easier to work with for the audio guys, and of course there may be financial considerations for SPE (which is nobody else's business anyway).
Basically, I'm happy with either.

Now, just tell us when LoA is due