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

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

The screens are from illegally downloaded copies. The disc is not for general sale, but you can download it from one of several torrent sites.

I'm not saying do them for putting up screens, I'm saying investigate them for downloading the movie.

Well i got my copy strait from a store, posted about it online and the TDK thread blew up. you should see my PM box, oh what have i done

[badboi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, what are they accomplishing in the end?
1. They are dissuading some of their members who happen to pass by and read some of the hyped and inaccurate observations in their “PQ issue” threads from purchasing or even renting some fabulous Blu-ray titles.

2. Those that do in fact still rent or buy some of the Blu-ray movies that the screenshot scientists take issue with, still can’t totally enjoy their home media because they have been *pre-conditioned* that something is wrong with the movie so, they end up being unfulfilled in their home theater experience.

Speaking as a film enthusiast, that’s the true shame in what they are doing in the end.

I read those threads over there by the so called "movie lovers" and just 99% of the time because of their horse puckey. Case in point: Zulu that was released in the UK. One of my favorite movies (don't know why, but it is) and I was excited to hear about it being released. The AVS "movie lovers" bashed and *****ed about the release and complained of DNR and EE and all sorts of nonsense. I ordered the movie anyway and received it, and for the life of me, can't see what they are on about. It looks pretty darn good on my ISF calibrated SXRD.

Seems to me that group of clowns are only out to continue the anti Blu propaganda and really have no love of movies or anything remotely associated with the hobby like they claim. Just bitter folk who found comfort in each other and complain 24/7 about things that don't exist (or are so minor they really shouldn't be worried about).

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

it is ridiculous for them to think that their current *digital processing* campaign will even have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, largely due to the fact that they are just so plain wrong and inaccurate regarding their observations and conclusions to begin with.

I've just looked at the DK screenshots over on the scientists' site, and I find it hard to conclude anything other than that there has been some edge enhancement applied somewhere in the chain, using a high threshold so that most of the picture is unaffected, and only very high contrast boundaries have had it applied to them. I haven't seen the Blu-ray yet, so have no idea if this will bother me or not when viewing it, but it strikes me as certainly being unnecessary processing that can never add anything positive to the end result.

The question is what should people do if they want to campaign to try to get Warner to change their behaviour?

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, what are they accomplishing in the end?
1. They are dissuading some of their members who happen to pass by and read some of the hyped and inaccurate observations in their “PQ issue” threads from purchasing or even renting some fabulous Blu-ray titles.

2. Those that do in fact still rent or buy some of the Blu-ray movies that the screenshot scientists take issue with, still can’t totally enjoy their home media because they have been *pre-conditioned* that something is wrong with the movie so, they end up being unfulfilled in their home theater experience.

Speaking as a film enthusiast, that’s the true shame in what they are doing in the end.

I agree that this is bad. If we assume that the people posting have good intentions and don't wish to bring about these negative consequences, the question is how should they go about trying to change studio behaviour?

[Jeff Kleist]

The question is what should people do if they want to campaign to try to get Warner to change their behaviour?

Write snail mail letters to Warner Home video telling them specifically that you don't mind grain, and much prefer it to losing all of the detail that makes Blu-ray such a wonderful product. Also tell them how you pass on buying their discs over others because of the heavy DNR and lack of lossless. Some variation of "I'd rather buy 1 Fox disc at $34.99 than 2 of yours on sale because I know I'll be happy with it" can be very effective (if you all send that verbatim they'll know it's a setup, so make your own)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by badboi

I read those threads over there by the so called "movie lovers" and just 99% of the time because of their horse puckey. Case in point: Zulu that was released in the UK.

I’m happy you liked it.

I haven’t seen Zulu myself but one of our reviewers on this site gave people a heads-up to the fact that this title might create some polarized opinions over the internet due to its appearance despite the fact it apparrently exhibits good detail.

All I’ve heard of the restoration is that apparently the available film elements had extensive embedded dirt which required multiple automated dirt removal passes.......which can have a definite downside depending upon the software employed.

Just the appearnce of the title itself in high definition is somewhat of a happy anomoly because if Sky HD hadn’t heavily funded the restoration, I have my doubts that this movie would have even made it to Blu-ray, at least for a long, long time.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

...Also tell them how you pass on buying their discs over others because of the heavy DNR and lack of lossless. Some variation of "I'd rather buy 1 Fox disc at $34.99 than 2 of yours on sale because I know I'll be happy with it" can be very effective ........

That might work if all Studios were releasing the same movie.
Needless to say they don't. If I want a certain movie I buy
it. DNR and lossless is the least of my concern. How many
people at BestBuy racks concern themselves with the back
of the case? It's the title on the front. Nor does the buying
public distinguish one Studio from another. It's the movie.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by NutsAboutPS3

I've just looked at the DK screenshots over on the scientists' site, and I find it hard to conclude anything other than that there has been some edge enhancement applied somewhere in the chain, using a high threshold so that most of the picture is unaffected, and only very high contrast boundaries have had it applied to them. I haven't seen the Blu-ray yet, so have no idea if this will bother me or not when viewing it, but it strikes me as certainly being unnecessary processing that can never add anything positive to the end result.

Like I said, I only have superficial knowledge of The Dark Knight’s post production based upon one seminar from last summer and my recollection isn’t that great to begin with as it was only about 105 - 110 degrees outside that day on the Uni backlot and I spent much of the time listening while hydrating myself with bottled water because I had been sweating like a pig prior to going inside the building.

I know nothing of the Blu-ray encoding/authoring of the title; however, sharpening was definitely applied during the process for the production of the IMAX theatrical presentation, and if they used that material as a source to strike that HD master, rather than doing a totally new scan on the final 35mm element, then the sharpening is baked into the process and people sensitive to the appearance just have to live with it.

People have to get into their heads that 99% of the time, filmmakers make films for the BIG screen (as in commercial theater), not for enthusiasts’ home theaters. When something like a little sharpening is applied during the post production, the filmmakers do it because they realize that the vast, vast majority of theater goers will not notice its detrimental effects, and will not be QCing their work by staring at the outlines of people and structures hunting for halos while watching the darn movie. A little sharpening may not technically give increased resolution to the motion picture but, its appearance certainly gives that perception to 99.9 % of movie watchers, which is one reason why it was added to Journey to the Center of the Earth, as I commented on the last page.

The same situation applies to adding grain in post. It doesn’t per se result in increased resolution to the motion picture but, its appearance likewise gives that perception to the vast majority of movie watchers as evidenced by experiments with stocastic resonance which demonstrate by in large that optimal human satisfaction with visual imagery occurs when the grain/noise level is intermediate. By that I mean, too little grain/noise and the signal doesn't reach the neural (as in brain) threshold, too much and the signal will be swamped by noise. The noise-benefit relationship is therefore shaped like an inverted U.

[Jeff Kleist]

That might work if all Studios were releasing the same movie.
Needless to say they don't. If I want a certain movie I buy
it. DNR and lossless is the least of my concern. How many
people at BestBuy racks concern themselves with the back
of the case? It's the title on the front. Nor does the buying
public distinguish one Studio from another. It's the movie.

There's a lot of people for whom they are PRIMARY concerns. The goal is to get them to change their policies, so that when the movies you do want come up, they look their best.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

People have to get into their heads that 99% of the time, filmmakers make films for the BIG screen (as in commercial theater), not for enthusiasts’ home theaters.

As most recently evidenced by the fact that Michael Bay is intending to shoot at least three action sequences using Imax cams for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by saprano

Well i got my copy strait from a store, posted about it online and the TDK thread blew up. you should see my PM box, oh what have i done

I'm not saying it justifies stores breaking street date, BUT...Warner Bros. f*cked up not releasing The Dark Knight on Blu & DVD before Thanksgiving...

Clearly the discs are done and in retailers hands as multiple online stores and it seems like more than a few B&M stores in the NY area are selling it...

[Jeff Kleist]

I wouldn't want to be the streetbreaking retailers and I'll leave it at that

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The same situation applies to adding grain in post. It doesn’t per se result in increased resolution to the motion picture but, its appearance likewise gives that perception to the vast majority of movie watchers as evidenced by experiments with stocastic resonance which demonstrate by in large that optimal human satisfaction with visual imagery occurs when the grain/noise level is intermediate. By that I mean, too little grain/noise and the signal doesn't reach the neural (as in brain) threshold, too much and the signal will be swamped by noise. The noise-benefit relationship is therefore shaped like an inverted U.

People have to get into their heads that 99% of the time, filmmakers make films for the BIG screen (as in commercial theater), not for enthusiasts’ home theaters.

As most recently evidenced by the fact that Michael Bay is intending to shoot at least three action sequences using Imax cams for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

If the film makers think film watchers want added artificial grain added in post production like above, why do they think film-making in IMAX is better? If IMAX or higher format film has a smaller grain structure on the same size movie screen than a 35mm film, and IMAX gives a more pleasing, and higher res image, why then do they think that adding more artificial grain to 35mm film would make people like the film more? If IMAX or larger format film is better and gives smaller/less visible grain than 35mm film when shown on the same screen size is better, that means smaller/less visible grains are better and so I can't see how added artificial grain to 35mm film (on top of the grain already in 35mm film) for the reason above can be better.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If the film makers think film watchers want added artificial grain added in post production like above, why do they think film-making in IMAX is better?..............

From the studios’ viewpoint, it’s a marketing enticement to increase attendance at public venues and increase box office revenues as audiences increasingly choose to watch movies at home by whatever means……..Blu-ray, DVD, cable, etc.

From some filmmakers’ viewpoint, vastly increased resolution as well as size trumps the benefit of how much grain is or isn’t in the motion picture. There are real world trade-offs involving all this stuff.

For instance, see……………….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=6000

Filmmaking is a multi-factorial process and does not revolve solely around the presence or absence or grain, plus not all filmmakers think alike nor have similar priorities nor similar budgets.

[Mr_Bester]

I'm not surprised sharpening is SOP for Imax. A couple of weeks ago I took my daughter to see Harry Potter in Imax at the "Omnimax" theater at the St Louis Science center. I did notice the edge halos on 2 of the scenes. It's hard not to notice when the image completely envelops my vision. It is like sitting 1ft away from a 60" screen that wraps around your head. I think I can forgive a bit of sharpening especially when most Imax screens aren't all encompassing. I think possibly the complainers should sit more than 1 ft away from their screen the next time they watch a movie.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I wouldn't want to be the streetbreaking retailers and I'll leave it at that

I think they'll be "fine"...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

.....so I can't see how added artificial grain to 35mm film (on top of the grain already in 35mm film) for the reason above can be better.

That’s not what I was thinking about on the last page.

I was primarily referring to applying grain to CGI so that it flows seamlessly with the non-CGI sequences while viewing the feature film.
However, since you asked, an example of adding additional grain during post production “on top of the grain already in 35mm film” would be a case of balancing out a noticeable variance in the amount of grain between shots during the principal photography.

Also, as an aside, it appears that there is a movement going on (even amongst reviewers) as to discriminating between “natural” and “artificial” grain.
I find it difficult to believe that unless one works with film on a daily basis like RAH or, our newest member Torsten Kaiser (from TLEFilms), that most people can reliably, if at all, make that differentiation based upon looking at Blu-ray movies on their displays in their home theaters.

I personally find nothing wrong or distracting with “artificial” grain as compared to “natural” grain………….the ultimate problem with it seems to be the fact that it creates more havoc with the encoding machines out there, or so the compressionists tell me, if I've heard them right.

I can elaborate a little more when I get the time if anyone is interested.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Mr_Bester

I'm not surprised sharpening is SOP for Imax. A couple of weeks ago I took my daughter to see Harry Potter in Imax at the "Omnimax" theater at the St Louis Science center. I did notice the edge halos on 2 of the scenes. It's hard not to notice when the image completely envelops my vision. It is like sitting 1ft away from a 60" screen that wraps around your head. I think I can forgive a bit of sharpening especially when most Imax screens aren't all encompassing. I think possibly the complainers should sit more than 1 ft away from their screen the next time they watch a movie.

I am looking forward to viewing and showing The Dark Knight at home because I’m hoping it will be a nice Thanksgiving gift for our current house guests who lost their home in the fire.

Plus, it will provide me an alternative to present to them in case they all try to pull me out to see another movie similar to Twilight - like they recently did.
Guys, between the wife and our house guests I’ve got way, way too many female hormones floating around in our house.

The only male hormones left are from me and the dog…….and I think he always takes their part.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Esox50

I think they'll be "fine"...

Esox, I keep losing money daily despite your past reassurances.
As far as I’m concerned, we should nationalize all the banks and outlaw the damn hedge funds.

Maybe then I won’t end up living in a trailer or out of my car.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Esox, I keep losing money daily despite your past reassurances.
As far as I’m concerned, we should nationalize all the banks and outlaw the damn hedge funds.

Maybe then I won’t end up living in a trailer or out of my car.

It'll all be fine. Remember to always be focused on the big picture as far as investing goes. Now, if one is, or more likely was , close to retirement, he may have some issues. But then again, I would argue that if he were that close to retirement the correct mix would have reduced the effect of the bad timing.

Problem is, not a lot of people know how much some of this sh!t is worth and what the real exposure is. However, panic is what's really driving things now...

Stay the course.

[Jeff Kleist]

Guys, between the wife and our house guests I’ve got way, way too many female hormones floating around in our house.

March over to the Sony company store on Main st, or ask archives to send it over as "research" and pick yourself up the third season of Married with Children for this classic ep

http://www.tv.com/married-...-with-c...5/summary.html

I think it addresses your current situation