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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I take those as a derisive dismisal of my point and a lack of respect, all in emoticon form. Ah well, guess I'm being too sensitive.

Yup, you are. As I said above, I was not singling you out personally. That response was more directed to all the ‘worry’-warts out there in blogger land that have difficulty in enjoying their chosen hobby. I can’t tell you how many provocative PM’s I’ve received over the past several months from members linking posts on the internet to others that they are/were ‘worried’ about some aspect of film or Blu-ray.

For instance, the latest ………………..
“Should we worry” (or something to that effect) being the title of a thread on some other forum……….either HDD, HTF or AVS. I can’t remember which.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

"we know what we're doing, we're experts!"

Yes, yes you are.

I would hope so , as there have been quite a number of other professionals relying upon us over the years……..
http://www.jts2004.org/english/program.htm

http://www.jts2007.org/program.htm

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Sorry, but there a quite a number of situations that will go unrecorded by me publicly. At least until I do my tome on precisely how poorly film can and has been handled, shortly available for pre-order on Amazon, and available in vinegar impregnated leather binding...

Please note that I acknowledged you in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of post #7126.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

At least I have time to ‘recover’ my loses……….or so says Essox, our on staff accountant and financial advisor.

Accountant? I'm "offended". I am no such thing!!!

Deep breath...it's going to be alright after the politicians are done with their fear mongering to get certain bills passed...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m back from a Valentine’s Day of romantic frolicking with my wife at a popular resort in the desert, in order to attend a little known Awards show and dinner this evening at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryId=3275&cs=1

^
Well, last night Chris Nolan (The Dark Knight) was given the American Society of Cinematographers Board of Governors Award.
Anthony Dod Mantle (Slumdog Millionaire) picked up the feature film prize for doing great stuff with the camera(s) and that funky machine in the DI suite…………….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=6907

Someone that should not be overlooked is his colorist, across the pond, so I’ll post a link to his showreel for any lensers out there that may be interested in using his services in the future……………

P.S.
The showreel isn't working properly, must be some computer glitch, so I deleted the follow-up posting.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Accountant? I'm "offended". I am no such thing!!!

Deep breath...it's going to be alright after the politicians are done with their fear mongering to get certain bills passed...

Alight .........C.F.O.........and I see I also misspelled your name.
Now, don't bug me, I'm looking for an obscure link to my last post.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

What Mr. Harris is trying to say is that this WAS how it was seen originally in cinemas. Things like wires were shot and "protected" counting on the resolving capability and characteristics of the stocks at the time.

But in the cinemas they didn't see a picture with the wires digitally completely removed. I don't think all wires in all old films shown in cinemas would have been completely invisible. If the wires were hidden because of multiple generation copies or multiple levels of grain etc. then the picture that they saw would have been different to one scanned from the original camera negative with digital wire removal techniques applied. Because in the days when those films would have been made, it would probably have been impossible to create a picture exactly like that that can be done today using digital techniques.

The one done from the original camera negative with digital wire removal effects techniques applied might look better and more realistic with a better picture quality and higher resolution, but it won't be exactly what was shown at the very best cinemas originally. It isn't preserving the film exactly. It's altering the film using the latest digital effects techniques. It's not giving a presentation exactly like it would have been shown in it's very best cinema showing.

The prints that DVDs and even many LD/VHS tapes were run off of are superior in quality to the print that would have run 2001 in theaters.

I thought 2001 was supposed to have been shot in 65mm and I've read that it was shown in 65mm/70mm in cinemas? Wouldn't a 65mm/70mm showing of a 65mm film be higher resolution than DVD & Blu-ray?

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Now, don't bug me, I'm looking for an obscure link to my last post.

[Doctorossi]

I, too, specifically remember reading about the 65mm source for the MGM Special Edition 2001: A Space Odyssey LD set. It was of particular note because of the rectified-70 origination of the film. Special equipment (a one-off adaptor for the telecine) was required to de-anamorphose the source and, with the rarity of the rectified-70 format, this was the first time, to the transfer team's knowledge, that rectified-70 source materials were correctly de-anamorphosed for use in the production of a home video release.

I wish I could find and cite the article I read (probably in Widescreen Review or, maybe, The Perfect Vision), but I do remember the unique circumstances.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I, too, specifically remember reading about the 65mm source for the MGM Special Edition 2001: A Space Odyssey LD set. It was of particular note because of the rectified-70 origination of the film. Special equipment (a one-off adaptor for the telecine) was required to de-anamorphose the source and, with the rarity of the rectified-70 format, this was the first time, to the transfer team's knowledge, that rectified-70 source materials were correctly de-anamorphosed for use in the production of a home video release.

I wish I could find and cite the article I read (probably in Widescreen Review or, maybe, The Perfect Vision), but I do remember the unique circumstances.

Your screen name refer to #46? The GOAT turns 30 today.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Your screen name refer to #46? The GOAT turns 30 today.

Aye, Chihuahua! Viva il piccolo bambino!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Aye, Chihuahua! Viva il piccolo bambino!

I think he is going to be dangerous right out of the gate this year. Can not wait. Single tire rule will be interesting as well.

Many as the 250's go away.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I, too, specifically remember reading about the 65mm source for the MGM Special Edition 2001: A Space Odyssey LD set. It was of particular note because of the rectified-70 origination of the film. Special equipment (a one-off adaptor for the telecine) was required to de-anamorphose the source and, with the rarity of the rectified-70 format, this was the first time, to the transfer team's knowledge, that rectified-70 source materials were correctly de-anamorphosed for use in the production of a home video release.

I wish I could find and cite the article I read (probably in Widescreen Review or, maybe, The Perfect Vision), but I do remember the unique circumstances.

2001 was a spherical production. It was not rectified. The only rectified elements may have been prints for curved screen projection.

You may wish to attempt to find whomever wrote the notes.

RAH

[Doctorossi]

He gets to have Sete admiring his butt again this year, too.

I'm a little frustrated about the tire rule, though.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

2001 was a spherical production. It was not rectified. The only rectified elements may have been prints for curved screen projection.

I think that was the case. I think it was a Super Cinerama 70 release print that was the best available source under time and budget. I don't want to go too much deeper into this without having the article for reference, but I can say that I'm 100% certain that it was this LD release of this movie that the article detailing the custom rectified-70 adaptor was about.

[horseflesh]

Penton/RAH......just a pretty unspecifc question, so a pretty unspecific answer will do

Is Lawrence of Arabia going to be as beautiful as many of us are setting our hopes for?
Do you anticipate it being a (THE??) landmark catalogue Blu-ray release?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

Is Lawrence of Arabia going to be as beautiful as many of us are setting our hopes for?
Do you anticipate it being a (THE??) landmark catalogue Blu-ray release?

Oh, man! I'm gonna be hanging on the answer to this one!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

He gets to have Sete admiring his butt again this year, too.

I'm a little frustrated about the tire rule, though.

Yeah, Gibber is going to be one frustraded Spaniard come November.

The tire rule does not bother me as much as does the loss of Melandri and Hopper (shrinking field). I am a bit concerned about 2010 as well.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The tire rule does not bother me as much as does the loss of Melandri and Hopper (shrinking field).

Hopper got exactly what he deserved.

... and that's coming from a Hopper fan.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Penton, just to change from the technical discussion for a bit, what are your views on Hollywood remakes?

I saw last month that Roland Emmerich is remaking Fantastic Voyage with SPE, I'm not sure why, and it doesn't look like a good idea to me, so I was just wondering what the view in Hollywood circles is about remakes...

Not just remakes.....Hollywood is just not coming up with original ideas.
Of the five Best Picture nominees, only one (Milk) is not adapted from a previous work.
The top ten grossing films for 2008; all but Wall-E, Hancock and Kung-Fu Panda were sequels or book/comic adaptations.
This year what will we get.....more of the same; Transformers 2, Wolverine, Harry Potter 6, GI Joe, Watchmen, Angels & Demons, Star Trek, Terminator 4, Sherlock Holmes, Ice Age 3.
I'm not necessarily saying these will all be bad films (they won't), but where are the original ideas? Is Hollywood really that cautious and conservative??
Off the top of my head the only "big" original films I can think of are Inglorious Basterds, Up (God bless Pixar again) and Avatar.

It's all a bit depressing really.....