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

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

Yes telecine is a transfer to video format.
Scanning is a transfer to digital files. DIs, restorations, etc.

correct, forgive my laziness in termenology...

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Wrong.
Even back in the days where everything was telecined, digital grain/noise reduction was possible via “DVNR” hardware, as was sharpening for that matter (i.e. aperture correction).

ah, fair enough. Pure conjecture on my part, as I hoped I made clear... So, at time of -capture- (be it telecine or laser scan) they're already tweaking the image? Is this reel-by-reel? I'd guess it's not a global setting for the film, but it may well be. This is all well outside my experience...

My point was that all the crap stuff we're talking about was the result of post-caputre information (DNR, compression artifacts, etc.) as opposed to things in/on the print (ie., bad matte lines, hair/dust, scratches/tears, etc.) The film looking like crap could be a symptom of the print/capture, the film looking like plasticy manequins would be the fault of overly aggresive post-processing.

I take it I'm wrong...

Thanks Penton for that slippery slope argument, I well and truly am sympathetic for the balance between having the space for extras (I really do go through them all) versus maximising bitrate. I hope that you too share the belief that simply by expanding capactity and bitrate one doesn't automatically benefit, and it's perfectly capable to have a film that looks tremendous at a much lower bitrate versus one that's given as much bandwidth as possible yet still looks like crap. This, I guess, is where the "art" of compression/encoding/mastering comes in...

And while I agree that bitrate information (or lack thereof for HD-DVD) can be a point of interest and discussion, the fact that the meter on the PS3 is often cited in some sort of pissing match is what I'm wishing to abandon. Not, of course, that that type of talk goes on -here-, but there are plenty that espouse these views scattered throught this and other fora.

And, yeah, LoA to start the Oscars. I got chills. When do we get that damn disc already?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I know the American Society of Cinematographers gave Slumdog Millionaire its 2009 Motion Pictures award for cinematography. Nevertheless, it really bothers me that this film won the Oscar for cinematography. Are the voters really that blind?

Even out of movies shot on video, this certainly was NOT nearly the best looking/most artistic of that group.

Well, I have to be politically correct in this matter, so let me just say that it’s best to keep in mind that with Cinematography, it’s not just the “best looking/most artistic of the group”, as the primary job of the Cinematographer is considered to be to make the visuals in synch with the story and help create the mood for the story……………….

And Slumdog had one heck of a story.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

ah,
And, yeah, LoA to start the Oscars. I got chills.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

When do we get that damn disc already?

When the Senior VP of asset management, film restoration and digital mastering for Sony Pictures Entertainment (who by the way, reads this thread) says it’s done.

[Penton-Man]

Open note to members and lurking non-membership………
I have contacted a person (via e-mail and private line [corrected]) at the Vice Presidential level over at Warner Bros. in regards to the recent discussion we’ve been having over the past couple pages.

As of yet, I have received no meaningful reply.

[mikey p]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Open note to members and lurking non-membership………
I have contacted a person (via e-mail and private line [corrected]) at the Vice Presidential level over at Warner Bros. in regards to the recent discussion we’ve been having over the past couple pages.

As of yet, I have received no meaningful reply.

Just a simple, Thanks, for all your effort to this end.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

..As of yet, I have received no meaningful reply.

Maybe they all have Oscar hang-overs. Or watching todays
Stockmarket and getting ready for another hang-over.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/mark...york/index.htm

[Jeff Kleist]

Welcome to my world Penton

[GGX]

Why do Sony Blu-ray's always have some cheap looking menu design? Kramer vs Kramer for example:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...255&position=7

Why cant they have more of a professional look? The way the pillars and gavel are animated just look poor. Reminds me of some low budget PC game from back when the CD medium first came to market.

Not to mention the stupid sound effects that play (and yes I'm aware of the icon to mute them). Why cant there be an option in the PS3 settings to disable all menu effects for all Blu-ray movies?

Another thing thats annoying is all the ads/trailers that play before the Blu-ray gets to the main menu. Lionsgate in this case is the worst offender. Having to skip through each one by pressing the next chapter button. Keep in mind they have 7 trailers that play in a row!

Then there is the ads themselves. I want to watch the movie not some infomercial telling me how great Blu-ray is. I already bought into the format!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mikey p

Just a simple, Thanks, for all your effort to this end.

Well, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere in the sand.
For example (based on prior internet chatter) for the record, to people that like to call themselves film aficionados and loudly promote their support of film heritage, the love of film, etc.

Gangs of New York – is NOT on AFI’s Top 100 List
The Longest Day - is NOT on AFI’s Top 100 List
Patton - slots in at No. 89 on AFI’s Top 100 List

and

Amadeus(theatrical) --slots in at No. 53 ! on AFI’s Top 100 List

By the way, for those who may think that Patton appears ‘worse’ than Amadeus does on Blu-ray, the point is, we are addressing ‘policies and procedures’ here and I highly, highly doubt that the so-called “dnr knob” (there really is no knob, per se) was turned any higher on Patton than it was on Amadeus, because Patton had little random noise to begin with, in its source.
If anything, I would bet that the grain reduction modulation on Amadeus was at a higher setting than that for Patton, which has been peoples’ internet whipping general for months now.

P.S.
Just to keep things in perspective, Guns of Navarone, which isn’t even in the Top 100 List received a brand spankin new HD transfer with a state of the art dirt and stratch removal (considered the best in the business) because the currently available HD master at the time was found wanting.

[Jeff Kleist]

Not to mention the stupid sound effects that play (and yes I'm aware of the icon to mute them). Why cant there be an option in the PS3 settings to disable all menu effects for all Blu-ray movies?

Panasonic players have this option, I don't know about other brands, but you'd have to take that up with Sony Computer Entertainment.

Another thing thats annoying is all the ads/trailers that play before the Blu-ray gets to the main menu. Lionsgate in this case is the worst offender. Having to skip through each one by pressing the next chapter button. Keep in mind they have 7 trailers that play in a row!

Marketing department mandates it. You can hit the menu button for most discs

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BluDomain

Maybe they all have Oscar hang-overs. Or watching todays
Stockmarket and getting ready for another hang-over.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/mark...york/index.htm

For cripes sakes, nice thing for me to think about on the drive home.

Question to our financial advisor, Essox, and I’m serious, as I’ve given you mucho free original Blu-ray news as well as technical pearls of wisdom over the years here at Blu-ray.com

I have $490,000 coming in lump sum around June of this year from sale of an investment property. I am not interested in doing a tax exchange, so don't even go there. I believe that I am currently a little over-weighted in the U.S. stock market (despite how well or poorly it is doing).

Where do I put the dough?
I need specifics.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

By the way, for those who may think that Patton appears ‘worse’ than Amadeus does on Blu-ray, the point is, we are addressing ‘policies and procedures’ here and I highly, highly doubt that the so-called “dnr knob” (there really is no knob, per se) was turned any higher on Patton than it was on Amadeus, because Patton had little random noise to begin with, in its source.
If anything, I would bet that the grain reduction modulation on Amadeus was at a higher setting than that for Patton, which has been peoples’ internet whipping general for months now.

Penton,

We disagree on this one. A year has passed since the release of Patton, which I consider to be quite long enough for folks to get things together. My perception is that Amadeus is hardly in the same category. The disc is viewable, while not correct, while Patton I consider to be impermissible.

As to the "knob," my take is that we're dealing with different processes, which cause the files to react in different ways.

The resolution of the OCN on Patton is probably three to four times higher than that of Amadeus, and on older stock. The de-graining performed on Patton has turned it into total plastic, while Amadeus simply annoying, and no longer film like.

I've just spend the past 90 minutes with the new BDs of Gandhi and Kramer vs. Kramer, both from Columbia / Sony. Both have all of their detail (high frequency visual information) intact.

Very nice work. Now I need to find the three hours plus to enjoy Gandhi from beginning to end.

RAH

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Where do I put the dough?
I need specifics.

Berkshire Hathaway..you can get 6 shares

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6082889.html

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...esp, in this case which contains a lot of indoor imagery all shot on Kodak 5293, if memory serves...

When was the 200-ASA 5293 introduced? I thought that was a latter "T-grain" stock, introduced either in the late 1980s or early 1990s. When I directed A BETTER PLACE way back in 1995, we used 7293 (5293's 16mm equivalent) for a lot of the shoot, and it was one hell of a great film stock. I just loved the look of it, and how versatile it was. I think I remember reading that 5293 was once voted the most popular filmstock of all time among cinematographers, in fact.

Vincent

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

...

I think Wally Pfister got robbed for The Dark Knight. At least the ASC gave Christopher Nolan their Governors Award. I can't help but wonder if some voters actually deduct points if you shoot in 65mm...

I've wondered that ever since FAR AND AWAY wasn't even nominated back in 1992. Hell, BARAKA wasn't nominated for cinematography! Blasphemy, I say.

Vincent

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

so let me just say that it’s best to keep in mind that with Cinematography, it’s not just the “best looking/most artistic of the group”, as the primary job of the Cinematographer is considered to be to make the visuals in synch with the story and help create the mood for the story

I understand that, but I see no artistic merit in having a movie image of a love story that, putting it bluntly, just looks like ass. Maybe it's not as bad as all the MiniDV to film gunk I see on IFC from time to time, but it doesn't look a whole lot better than that. It's certainly not a good example of digital movie production from any sort of standpoint on good image quality.

Normally, with today's technology level of film and digital tools, one usually shoots a very high quality image out in the field and then only "trashes it up" in post production (leaving a still sharp, high contrast image underneath the filtering). This movie looks like it started out with limited quality right in the camera.

IMHO, the selection of Slumdog Millionaire as the Best Cinematography Oscar winner is the worst choice I can remember out of movies to win that award in modern times. Really, I can't think of any movies that have given me as much of a "WTF?" kind of reaction as that one.

I think Conrad Hall should have won the 1988 Best Cinematography Oscar for Tequila Sunrise, but I didn't get bent out of shape about it (Peter Biziou won that year for Mississippi Burning). This year's choice has me wondering about the eye sight of some Oscar voters. Did Stevie Wonder vote?

If I was an AMPAS member and able to vote in the cinematography category, I would have considered The Dark Knight, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Changeling and The Reader all ahead of Slumdog Millionaire. That award win only smells like high school popularity contest nonsense to me.

Sure, Slumdog Millionaire may have been a very good movie and a good underdog story about a little film that could. I won't argue against it winning the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Score and Best Song. The movie is worthy of those "big" Oscars. I believe Slumdog Millionaire picked up the Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing awards as bonus gimmies for a movie with a groundswell of popularity among AMPAS voters.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

When I directed A BETTER PLACE way back in 1995, we used 7293 (5293's 16mm equivalent) for a lot of the shoot, and it was one hell of a great film stock.

I CAN'T BELIEVE I did not recognize your name sooner...

~Alan

[sharkshark]

really? yeah, I've been taunting poor vincent at AVS for years for his, uh, "askew view" of the universe...