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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I don't follow you.

What I was trying to say is that the primary imaging characteristic that many people use to critique the picture quality of a film is its ‘sharpness’. Often people equate a higher “k” scan with their perception of the ‘sharpness’ of a film, i.e. higher the “k”, the sharper the film.

For instance, using a 4k scan of 35mm film as an example, a 4K scan will not always guarantee a ‘sharper’ image. A D.P.’s choice of glass and his lighting on the set will have much more of an impact on the perceived ‘sharpness’ of the image than the scan.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yes, this matches everything I understand from folks like Galt and the TDs at Double Negative doing FX work on The Dark Knight. The latter party did early pre-test work to 8k, but once they'd had a chance to do projection tests, they switched to 5.6k, since they couldn't see a difference.

Because of the nature of the principal photography. It was low-lit like The Da Vinci Code, for example.

Do you work in some aspect of the motion picture business?
Do you know Franklin or Simon Burley?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

What I was trying to say is that the primary imaging characteristic that many people use to critique the picture quality of a film is its ‘sharpness’. Often people equate a higher “k” scan with their perception of the ‘sharpness’ of a film, i.e. higher the “k”, the sharper the film.

For instance, using a 4k scan of 35mm film as an example, a 4K scan will not always guarantee a ‘sharper’ image. A D.P.’s choice of glass and his lighting on the set will have much more of an impact on the perceived ‘sharpness’ of the image than the scan.

Gotcha. Thanks for the detailed clarification!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

I recall the American Cinematographer article on THE DARK KNIGHT mentioned that the contact-printed footage from the IMAX negative (i.e., the IMAX stuff that underwent no digital manipulation whatsoever, just clean negative capture to print) was the equivalent of 16K resolution (EDIT- I don't have the article in front of me, but reading the links above I think it might have actually said the 18K figure).

Vincent

Vincent, I don’t know offhand what was written in the ASC article but, I do know that David mentioned 18k contact printing at the seminar entitled “PREVUE OF THE DARK KNIGHT” here last summer (scroll down to bottom of the page)…………

http://www.cinegearexpo.com/seminars2.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

I know I'm a few days late. Well thank you for your implication and efforts.
Could you share a little bit more with us?

One moment……….thinking and typing. Must be careful.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Because of the nature of the principal photography. It was low-lit like The Da Vinci Code, for example.

If you believe Galt, it's because IMAX lenses can't resolve any more than that, even in the most optimal lighting conditions.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do you work in some aspect of the motion picture business?

I'm an unproduced feature screenwriter, a sometime producer and an aspiring picture editor. Oh, and a former actor.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Do you know Franklin or Simon Burley?

No. Should I?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

I know I'm a few days late. Well thank you for your implication and efforts.

Could you share a little bit more with us? Anything concerning this change like when we can expect it to take effect? And its meaning. Is everyone opened to completely eradicate DNR in their mastering and encodes practices? (unless desired by director or DP)

I assume some people over at WB are opened to change while some are not... Are we to still assume it's still really not that simple?

Well I don't know what to say. Jeff didn't seem too optimistic (my perception) about when WB would put in place new practices. It seemed the "who knows when..." and "WB is a big corporation; it thinks about its short term revenues and change can be dangerous, will cost money and is complicated" beliefs were still in place.

Anything you are able to share with us. Your own optimism about the issue perhaps. Your understanding of its current status. Are we almost there?. etc. You know what I mean. As much as you can share with us without putting yourself in a frail position.

Sorry, I can’t offer much anything else publicly – except to say that my WB friend admitted that he felt the format war significantly delayed their procedures and processes regarding the quality of their Blu-ray product. I don’t know about that, and I don’t care to even guess, if that is a legitimate excuse for what some home theatre enthusiasts would politely describe as perhaps being ‘behind the curve’, so to speak, on some of their audio and picture quality issues.
I can tell you one thing though, I’m already getting word back from people that I certainly stirred the pot in their home video dept. ……….for the good.

I’ve been informed that some other WB employees are doing an upcoming chat on HTF………….
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/chat...ome_Video.html

You might want to tune into the chat ^ to see if you can glean some further information from that WB trio. I can say that George F. (the Senior VP of the bunch) is a good man and has discerning home theater enthusiasts’ interests at heart. He’s been in the game for a long time working for David B. (President, Worldwide, SPHE) before David came to Sony and George went on to WB. He’s a dog lover (has two basset hounds, “Gus” and “Lola” [Gus being the elder] that like to exercise their vocal cords by barking) so, if you get an opportunity to ask him a question, possibly you could preface it with the fact that you luv basset hounds. Maybe then you can charm him into being forthcoming with substantive information that you personally desire concerning the picture quality of WB’s Blu-rays.

Problem is though, in the grand scheme of things, George F.’s Fiefdom is pre-1970 classics; however, he does have input into other home video stuff at WB.
On the other hand, it seems everyone has input over there and what they really need is some Leadership, i.e. a General to take the reins and sort things out.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

... especially since the problem is that they're doing too much to the image, not too little!

Now, be kind, as I’m told that the Home Theater Forum voted WB the Best Studio (Blu-ray and DVD) of 2008.
So, in the eyes of some, they must be doing something right………right?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

If you believe Galt, it's because IMAX lenses can't resolve any more than that, even in the most optimal lighting conditions.

I don’t know if John is speaking in terms of theory or in terms of actual practice.
Few people have A/B’ed well lit IMAX capture at 8k vs 5.6k.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sorry, I can’t offer much anything else publicly – except to say that my WB friend admitted that he felt the format war significantly delayed their procedures and processes regarding the quality of their Blu-ray product.

A product of being geared up to meet multiple production standards (vis-a-vis audio formats, scripting, etc.), I imagine the explanation would be? Otherwise, I'm not sure what could've slowed them down...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I don’t know if John is speaking in terms of theory or in terms of actual practice.
Few people have A/B’ed well lit IMAX capture at 8k vs 5.6k.

For the most part, he's talking about practice and has described, among other things, an IMAX in-house resolution test he attended in which the MTF on an electronically-sourced test pattern film peaked at less than 3k horizontal. And that's without lens optics limitations and without generation-loss!

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So, even if Keighley is right about needing 18k for an IMAX frame (which would translate to 9k of captured resolution) and someday being able to capture and project it all, no one's quite going to be able to see it.

Meanwhile, his company is busy installing (and affixing its once-significant name to) a bunch of 2k projectors all over the place.

The new motto seems to be: Nobody can resolve 18k anyway, let's go for 2k instead

One could imagine that having the idea to go for digital they would downplay the resolution advantages of Imax, instead they rather exaggerate it and then choose 2k instead of 4k for digital Imax - unbelievable !

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

For the most part, he's talking about practice and has described, among other things, an IMAX in-house resolution test he attended in which the MTF on an electronically-sourced test pattern film peaked at less than 3k horizontal. And that's without lens optics limitations and without generation-loss!

Provided the filmout was done with film stock and techniques comparable to a 35mm production this should have been a much larger number. So if the numbers are so low what could be the explanation for such a dismal performance ?


I share your enthusiasm for Technirama by the way but more with regard to productions from the 60ies - with the option to do filmouts from 6k to 70mm we should be able to get superb 70mm prints from some movies shot in Super Technirama 70 or maybe even standard Technirama, there are certainly a lot of worthy candidates for this.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No. Should I?

Well, if you’re *between jobs* and you have real world skills in either scanning/mastering of film or VFX work, it wouldn’t be a bad idea as both are nice chaps.

But, what I was alluding to is that unless Paul or Simon had spoken to you personally (and you had misinterpreted what they said), you mischaracterized the process that you described in your post #7617 on the last page with a resultant misleading conclusion to other readers.

No matter, I get the impression we’re crossing swords now and I’m not here for a debate.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

A product of being geared up to meet multiple production standards (vis-a-vis audio formats, scripting, etc.), I imagine the explanation would be? Otherwise, I'm not sure what could've slowed them down...

I’m with you there, as it does seem a rather feeble excuse this far after the format war ended.
However, people should not discount the real fact that all studios spent a great deal of time and resources ($$) in fighting the format war which could have been better utilized ultimately in a common goal or standard (Blu-ray format) from the very beginning.
Off the record, executives from all the studios admit to that now.

In particular, with regards to WB, my friend admitted that Nickerson was an impediment to Blu-ray, a name that I had long since forgotten about, so, the majors that were ‘dual format providers’ or HD DVD exclusive may indeed have had some degree of an excuse as to catching up to speed. How valid those excuses are at this point in time….I’ll let you guys decide.

[Penton-Man]

RAH, did your team scan the subtitle stuff of Godfather II at 6k and then downrez to 4k?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Provided the filmout was done with film stock and techniques comparable to a 35mm production this should have been a much larger number.

You'd think, wouldn't you? In the end, I'm very skeptical about both Galt's silly-low numbers and Keighley's silly-high numbers. What can you do? Only a smattering of people have really done many relevant tests and there doesn't seem to be any consensus at all.

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I share your enthusiasm for Technirama by the way but more with regard to productions from the 60ies - with the option to do filmouts from 6k to 70mm we should be able to get superb 70mm prints from some movies shot in Super Technirama 70 or maybe even standard Technirama, there are certainly a lot of worthy candidates for this.

Robert, wasn't some restoration work done on El Cid a handful of years ago?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

RAH, did your team scan the subtitle stuff of Godfather II at 6k and then downrez to 4k?

Incidentally, did I hear somewhere that the main titles for the Godfather series were digitally reconstructed? Or am I mixing memories?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

If you get the chance please let that action feature lenser know that large format is addictive and therefore with future action feature films using traditional 65mm instead of anamorphic 35mm would be very much appreciated

I want my two dollars!

Someone from Variety was there who moderated the keynote, so keep an eye out on their website, as I imagine they will do a short spiel on the expo sometime in the near future.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

But, what I was alluding to is that unless Paul or Simon had spoken to you personally (and you had misinterpreted what they said), you mischaracterized the process that you described in your post #7617 on the last page with a resultant misleading conclusion to other readers.

Ah! Sorry about that. Hmm... not sure if I misunderstood the process from the beginning or just misremember it now. Would you mind clarifying (and correcting) my mistake?

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No matter, I get the impression we’re crossing swords now and I’m not here for a debate.

Oh, fine- issue the challenge question and then abdicate responsibility!

Seriously, though, I'm not here for a debate, either. If your sword has struck something, it's only my shield. I apologize if I gave an impression of stubbornness, but it wasn't my intention.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You'd think, wouldn't you? In the end, I'm very skeptical about both Galt's silly-low numbers and Keighley's silly-high numbers. What can you do? Only a smattering of people have really done many relevant tests and there doesn't seem to be any consensus at all.

Indeed from what RAH did write a few posts above the truth should be somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Robert, wasn't some restoration work done on El Cid a handful of years ago?

I would like to expand the question and ask if ANY feature film shot in Technirama or Super Technirama 70 has been worked on recently with a 4k or 6k scan being done ? I know of not even a single example, but hopefully a title or two are in the works.

That being said there is one rather nice Blu-Ray of The Pink Panther, but I would not be surprised if it came from a 2k scan.