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

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Speaking of David F., primary photography and such, remind me to tell you all how some people in Hollywood believe to this day how David and Connie Hall hood-winked the studio executives at Columbia Pictures (who were paying the bills) into forking out more dough for the post production of one of his past feature films.

I am extremely excited about this film... can't wait to hear the story! Was it Connie Hall with David F. or Connie Hall Jr.? Could this be a Panic Room story?

[Bobby Henderson]

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Michael Bay publicly stating that whenever Transformers made it onto Blu-ray it would do so with a different, higher bit rate video encoding from what was used on HD-DVD.

[Kris Deering]

What Michael failed to mention was that he personally approved the encode for the HD DVD, so obviously it wasn't too bad. I haven't looked at the BD yet (will tonight) but I hope it is a bit grainier since the AVC encode on the HD DVD did remove some grain. But it still looked spectacular.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

What Michael failed to mention was that he personally approved the encode for the HD DVD, so obviously it wasn't too bad. I haven't looked at the BD yet (will tonight) but I hope it is a bit grainier since the AVC encode on the HD DVD did remove some grain. But it still looked spectacular.

If Michael Bay approved the encode on HD DVD, perhaps he WANTED the grain removed some.

I heard one review state that this release is LESS grainy than the HD DVD, SEVERAL reviews that state it looks exactly the same as the HD DVD, and assorted other reactions (which are Blu-ray only reviews).

I was concerned when I read the "less grainy" part, but I've come to the conclusion that a LOT of people don't know what "grain" even is...

~Alan

[Uxi]

Or perhaps Bay settled for the best he thought HDDVD could/would deliver.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

If Michael Bay approved the encode on HD DVD, perhaps he WANTED the grain removed some.

I heard one review state that this release is LESS grainy than the HD DVD, SEVERAL reviews that state it looks exactly the same as the HD DVD, and assorted other reactions (which are Blu-ray only reviews).

I was concerned when I read the "less grainy" part, but I've come to the conclusion that a LOT of people don't know what "grain" even is...

~Alan

A lot of people confuse film grain with video noise grain or compression grain. Admittingly, on my 60" display it can be hard to tell the difference at times. Film grain often has tight patterns and an almost green and blue look to it although even that can be hard to see sometimes depending on the image brightness, contrast, color, etc. Compression artifacting is usually blockier looking and video noise is usually colorless and sparklie.

If the Blu-ray has less "grain," I'd have to assume it has less video noise or compression artifacting since it's encoding at a higher bit rate.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

What Michael failed to mention was that he personally approved the encode for the HD DVD, so obviously it wasn't too bad. I haven't looked at the BD yet (will tonight) but I hope it is a bit grainier since the AVC encode on the HD DVD did remove some grain. But it still looked spectacular.

Originally Posted by Michael Bay

"As a director, my critical eye is that Blu-ray is where my money is. Consumers are smart, and they are going to wait it out."

Since Transfomers was imminent at the time of the Paramount temporary defection, it would seem he must have approved of the BD encode at least as much. He sure was p!ssed when Paramount wouldn't release it.

But, generally, isn't it the MASTER that the director gets to approve?

Gary

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

If Michael Bay approved the encode on HD DVD, perhaps he WANTED the grain removed some.

I heard one review state that this release is LESS grainy than the HD DVD, SEVERAL reviews that state it looks exactly the same as the HD DVD, and assorted other reactions (which are Blu-ray only reviews).

I was concerned when I read the "less grainy" part, but I've come to the conclusion that a LOT of people don't know what "grain" even is...

~Alan

True. I find many of these so called professional online review sites very less than professional.

Take Patton for example (duck!), some sites gave glowing reviews while others derided it.

The problem is that there are two groups of people currently buying and reviewing BDs: The film purists and the HD fanantics.

The film purist wants the end product to approximate the look as if it were a piece of film being projected while the HD fanantic wants an ultrapure clean picture that looks like it was shot yesterday and they want it to look like the hyper-realistic demo material they saw on the showroom floor.

Which side is right? Apparently the content providers are struggling with it also.

If the director approves the final transfer then I can live with their decision, but as Patton showed the larger screen its deficiencies became more visible.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by CraigW

True. I find many of these so called professional online review sites very less than professional.

Take Patton for example (duck!), some sites gave glowing reviews while others derided it.

The problem is that there are two groups of people currently buying and reviewing BDs: The film purists and the HD fanantics.

The film purist wants the end product to approximate the look as if it were a piece of film being projected while the HD fanantic wants an ultrapure clean picture that looks like it was shot yesterday and they want it to look like the hyper-realistic demo material they saw on the showroom floor.

Which side is right? Apparently the content providers are struggling with it also.

If the director approves the final transfer then I can live with their decision, but as Patton showed the larger screen its deficiencies became more visible.

The “problem” is that few hobbyists really know anything specific about grain/noise reduction but speak as though they are sudden authorities on the subject, and now the result on some consumer forums is that whenever somebody sees “soft”, they scream “DNR’ed” and they are literally taking the fun out of actually watching movies in high definition for many film enthusiasts.

Just like few “film purists” know anything whatsoever about low contrast or high contrast film stock and how it affects sharpness and which years in the past showed a definite trend for filmmakers to use either, let alone for specific titles.

Combine this with the fact that you have people claiming they have photographic recollections of the theatrical presentations from years ago.

The “struggle” in the future will have little to do with the issue of grain but, more to do with the economic decisions of whether/when some content providers will appropriate funds for new HD transfers of some older titles that were mastered solely utilizing CRT monitors in the past.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Ok, I'm a novice or even less by anyone's standards, but how can you possibly tell the difference on a heavily compressed video? Isn't this quite a bit different than a full-blown film on an HDTV or projector?

I agree there are limitations of the compressed source presented by Panavision but, don’t use it as a test for resolution of 35mm. film vs.1080p digital capture.

Use it as a test to identify any differences in how the capture devices image color esp. in regards to the highlights, i.e. clipped or smooth fall-off.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Just curious. I was interested in trying.......

Me thinks you don’t have the, ah….......*fortitude* for serious forensic video or forensic screenshot work.

And that’s a compliment.
Don't strain your eyes, it was difficult to tell any difference even with the original presentation.

[Mystery Clock]

PM,

wrt. the Olympics Opening Ceremony -- I know NBC is already marketing the DVD -- any chance of them offering it on Blu? Or, not to put to fine a point on it, is there any point in them offering it on Blu, given the compressed mess that the NBC broadcast was?

-John

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ben

I am extremely excited about this film... can't wait to hear the story! Was it Connie Hall with David F. or Connie Hall Jr.? Could this be a Panic Room story?

Yes, to the bolded part above.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Since Transfomers was imminent at the time of the Paramount temporary defection, it would seem he must have approved of the BD encode at least as much. He sure was p!ssed when Paramount wouldn't release it.

But, generally, isn't it the MASTER that the director gets to approve?

Gary

Actually that isn't what happened with this title. The HD DVD encode was done first and Bay signed off on it. The BD encode was done after and was quite a bit different, which created its own issues.

Again, from what I've been told from people involved, you didn't want that original BD encode for this film.

I finally got the chance to watch this one last night. The difference in PQ between the two is nearly non-existant. They both look incredible. The AQ had some EXTREMELLY subtle differences in the lower end with the BD sounded slightly more controlled in the lower bass regions, especially near the infrasonic range.

[Kris Deering]

Hey Penton

On another note, have you had the chance to look at a certain BD that recently underwent the first ever 8K scan from a 65mm source? Quite impressive!! Though I would have loved a feature where they had a small segment scanned at various resolutions so you could compare.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

The difference in PQ between the two is nearly non-existant. They both look incredible.

Your Denon 3800 (do you still use it?) should be a bit better than any Toshiba unit at 1080p/24. Is this why you say "nearly"?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Combine this with the fact that you have people claiming they have photographic recollections of the theatrical presentations from years ago.

I felt that "The Hulk" (the Ang Lee version) HD DVD LOOKED exactly like it did in my theater... but I wouldn't bet my life on it...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The “struggle” in the future will have little to do with the issue of grain but, more to do with the economic decisions of whether/when some content providers will appropriate funds for new HD transfers of some older titles that were mastered solely utilizing CRT monitors in the past.

For the record, my comment was simply referring to the MULTITUDE of differing opinions regarding the look of a title on Blu-ray. "Grain" being one of the hot topics... from both sides. For instance, on one title, I read a review saying that it had "no visible grain", another review saying "light grain", another review saying "moderate amounts of grain", and finally, "excessive amounts of grain in some scenes".

You can take other issues besides "grain" and find similar results, but "grain" has certainly become one of the more noticeable issues in which there are such differing opinions.

While I'm still curious as to KD's response to my comment about Bay and "grain", I really don't expect to see much difference in the PQ on "Transformers" on Blu-ray compared to the HD DVD. As Kris said, they both look "incredible".

~Alan

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The “problem” is that few hobbyists really know anything specific about grain/noise reduction but speak as though they are sudden authorities on the subject, and now the result on some consumer forums is that whenever somebody sees “soft”, they scream “DNR’ed” and they are literally taking the fun out of actually watching movies in high definition for many film enthusiasts.

Just like few “film purists” know anything whatsoever about low contrast or high contrast film stock and how it affects sharpness and which years in the past showed a definite trend for filmmakers to use either, let alone for specific titles.

Combine this with the fact that you have people claiming they have photographic recollections of the theatrical presentations from years ago.

The “struggle” in the future will have little to do with the issue of grain but, more to do with the economic decisions of whether/when some content providers will appropriate funds for new HD transfers of some older titles that were mastered solely utilizing CRT monitors in the past.

Penton,

I agree with you. I am just pointing out that there are some people who expect ultra-clean hyper-realistic images out of films made long ago.

I never claimed DNR is the issue.

I agree that many casual viewers who consider themselves film purists are NOT film experts.

I like my titles to approximate the look of film, but I don't scream DNR on every soft title I see. One thing I hate though is that 120Hz motion interpolation feature that today's sets can apply to film sources. Nothing takes the feel of traditional 24 frames/s film than that useless feature. But I am sure the average Joe with his new fancy HDTV and BD player think it's best their set can do.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Hey Penton

On another note, have you had the chance to look at a certain BD that recently underwent the first ever 8K scan from a 65mm source? Quite impressive!! Though I would have loved a feature where they had a small segment scanned at various resolutions so you could compare.

I think I've seen that on a 4K

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Me thinks you don’t have the, ah….......*fortitude* for serious forensic video or forensic screenshot work.

And that’s a compliment.
Don't strain your eyes, it was difficult to tell any difference even with the original presentation.

Not only do I not have the fortitude, I don't want to! I mean, I'm still able to enjoy Dark City despite all its various obvious shortcomings.