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

[SquidPuppet]

Looks like we average joes notice things that some people dont want us to.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...98#post1899198

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In the end, I think that there is always an *element* out there that chooses to believe what they want to believe based on their own online agendas and biases despite what sticker you place on the disc or what the Director says.

Yes, there is. But, if the problem is addressed head on, it turns this negative into a positive.

Imagine a campaign that labels movies with actual director involvement. You promote it as a response to the fans who want the very best. You make it clear that everyone involved in the process loves these movies. If you do it right, you cut the legs out from under that element. You've addressed their "issues" head on. Unless they want to say they know better than the director, they'll be exposed for the hyper-critical gotcha artists that they are.

Basically, I'm describing a mainstream Criterion.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Remember the Blu-ray disc of Casino Royale?
It had some slight grain reduction applied during the encoding phase- which the Director approved of and was actually quite happy with after seeing how grainy the HD master was.
Despite this inside knowledge of the Director's wholehearted approval that was posted on forums by myself and paidgeek, how was that information 'received' ?

I think it's a case of too much information in the wrong hands. I don't want to know how sausage is made. I just want it to be safe and taste good. If Casino Royale had a "director approved" sticker, etc. on it representing greater filmmaker involvement, you wouldn't need to talk about slight grain reduction.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Superbit was essentially what you're describing. Didn't work out so well

Didn't work out so well in what way? Did it not sell well or did people think the improvement was negligible?

I never bought a Superbit because I didn't think the improved quality was worth it. But, i knew that Superbit meant encoded at the highest possible bitrate. (Whether it was or not, is a different discussion).

The benefit to a special label is that you wouldn't need two separate encodes. Every item sold would be "Superbit" you'd just be doing more to advertise the extra time put into making a quality release.

[Jeff Kleist]

Didn't work out so well in what way? Did it not sell well or did people think the improvement was negligible?

I never bought a Superbit because I didn't think the improved quality was worth it. But, i knew that Superbit meant encoded at the highest possible bitrate. (Whether it was or not, is a different discussion).

For the most part- both

Some films had problems with the initial versions like Das Boot and Lawrence of Arabia, and new transfers and color timings were done for the latter that generated a much improved image, but when doing apples to apples, the benefits were mostly placebo.

That's why Superbits have been on sale as low as $5 apiece for about 2 years now, just trying to get rid of them. Ironically probably far more pirate discs that stole the logo have been sold (Superbit Kiki's Delivery Service anyone??) than the actual lineup.

It was a noble attempt, but in the end it simply didn't justify its existence via sales or actual benefits

As far as IMAX goes, I can't emphasize enough that you write SNAIL MAIL letters to AMC corporate, or whereever else you see IMAX Lite going in, and tell them on no uncertain terms that you refuse to pay extra for IMAX without getting the full experience, and that with more movies like Dark Knight and Transformers 2 (and Iron Man 2 supposedly last I checked) shooting true IMAX, that that giant majesty and incredible resolution is what you pay for, and what makes the moviegoing experience special instead of sitting in your home theater,and not visual trickery.

A fast google should get you your local theater chain's corporate address

[HeavyHitter]

I think the biggest issue people had with them was why not release every title as a "Superbit" and just put the extras on the back side or seperate disc. When you have a normal version and Superbit version it says something negative about the normal version if you will...such that it's image isn't really good enough and a shameless double or triple dip. I know this was not the intended message by Sony, but that's how it was largely perceived.

I sold most of my DVDs and the only Superbit I have left is Heavy Metal - a classic IMO. Any chance that will ever reach Blu-ray?

[Anthony P]

You make it clear that everyone involved in the process loves these movies. If you do it right, you cut the legs out from under that element. You've addressed their "issues" head on.

it does not

Unless they want to say they know better than the director, they'll be exposed for the hyper-critical gotcha artists that they are.

that is exactly what happens (either way). At least some version of it

When Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula came out even though everyone working on it said that it was colour corrected to be the real colours, the comments continued with "it is not how I remember it in theatres" or "it does not look like the DVD".

I don't remember what movie it was (TDK?), but the owner/group at one of the other sites where saying something like "the transfer could not be any closer to the original master" the comments where "HE is just saying that to sell more copies, and it looks bad"

but it plays both ways

When Transformer was released on HD DVD and Bale said that it had many issues, These same people attacked him to the point where he said http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum...=6069#post6069

in the end some people want to believe crap that is not true and no matter what is said/done it won't help, they just dismiss it. For the rest it does not matter. If someone loathes grain, does it matter that it was in 300 on purpose? If someone loathes DNR/EE and it is there in an other, does it matter that it was director approved? On the other hand, guys like me don't loath anything, to be honest I would prefer grain to DNR and usually not revising stuff just because they can, but in the end what ever it is (and what ever is done), it is the very best available, so who cares past that.

[micks_address]

one thing thats really great out of all this debate is how we actually can get close to what a film is supposed to look like now with Blu-Ray... i cant imagine it was such an issue with dvd.. or maybe the same debate was there?

For reviewers its a no win situation.. you cant know what a film looked like in the theatre or was supposed to.. i mean who knows if their local cinema is actually set up right? How do you know if the sound is properly configured? How can you honestly say that a film that you seen 4/5 months ago looked like in terms of what you seen in the shawdows or softness of picture etc nevermind catalogue titles that are years old?

unless blu-ray reviewers are brought to a theatre and shown the film and then they actually are given the blu-ray to review that day - that is the only way they can accurately critique the image on the blu-ray in reference to the film itself.. even then they are at the mercy of what the director or someone else may have approved in terms of changes to the picture on the journey to the blu-ray disc..

i do think though that before outright slating a disc it would be a worthy goal for a reviewer to seek out more information in those cases - especially with high profile releases.. but then how much time does a reviewer have to do each title justice?

maybe cinematographers would make good reviewers?

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, that’s fine and dandy in a perfect world but, I can just hear some studio executives saying something to the effect…..

“And when exactly are we obligated to inform viewers as to certain cinematographic styles and when are we not? Where do we draw the line as to what technique and how much of it (% of the movie) deems ‘needing explanation’.”

It isn't an obligation, just something that might be in their interests to do, as it could improve perception of their product. You have obviously thought it worthwhile to give some inside information about the source material for various movies, so you have been happy to make a judgement about when it is beneficial to do so. It could be argued that such information should be passed on to everyone who buys the discs, not just those who read this forum, though of course those who read this forum can help by passing on your words to others, if they see people complaining about things that you have addressed.

Of course, if every Blu-ray disc came with a statement that it looks exactly like it should, then it would just become like those statements we have on food here in the UK, where everything you buy says it may contain nuts, and the statement becomes worthless. To be effective, it would need to be specific to each movie. Sometimes I've seen discs where the director gives a brief intro to the movie, and perhaps that could be a good place for the director to mention any limitations that the Blu-ray version will reveal, and explain how they came about. Some people may be so cynical that they will look at anything as merely an attempt to sell more discs, but there is nothing you can do to impress those people anyway, so I would focus more on the people who would appreciate the director taking the time to convey such information.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by micks_address

one thing thats really great out of all this debate is how we actually can get close to what a film is supposed to look like now with Blu-Ray... i cant imagine it was such an issue with dvd.. or maybe the same debate was there?

There was a lot of debate about EE, but not so much about DNR. After all, you're talking about a medium that had barely above VGA resolution which already reduced visible detail drastically.

Now we've come to something that approximates a 35mm projected image much more, so the filtering issue comes to the fore, as it draws as away from "transparency to the source."

(A phrase that most audiophiles here will recognize BTW.)

Come to think of it, now is the time that we really have "high fidelity" in video - a good 30-40 years after audio!

[Kris Deering]

Since we are talking about what a film should be when it is mastered I would like to give a big kudos to Criterion for their recent efforts with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

In the insert they clearly state what they used as the mastering source and what color gamut it was mastered in and at what framerate. I wish more would offer this. Something that said what the source element was, what color space was used in the encode (SMPTE C, REC 709), and another nice addition would be what was the gamma used on the display (2.2, 2.4, 2.5). For those looking for the most accurate presentation as possible in the HT enviroment, these are key details that are generally ignored. While many here and every other board complain about digital altering and what was the "director's vision" and preserving what the film is supposed to look like, many don't have their system's calibrated to the point that even if you had a perfect copy of the director's vision that you'd be displaying it correctly anyways. Grayscale, RGB balance, gamma, and color gamut are all a part of accurately reproducing the director's intent and information out there is still pretty sketchy on what color space and gamma films are being mastered in. It also seems like each authoring house is a bit different, especially with color gamut.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

While many here and every other board complain about digital altering and what was the "director's vision" and preserving what the film is supposed to look like, many don't have their system's calibrated to the point that even if you had a perfect copy of the director's vision that you'd be displaying it correctly anyways.

This can not be overemphasized as it is too often overlooked or just taken for granted.
Also, keep in mind that all ISF calibrators are not created equal.

P.S.
How the hell are you?
I thought you fell in some hole somewhere as I haven't seen you around.

[Jeff Kleist]

Definately if you're serious about an ISF calibration, ask around and don't call Best Buy. There's a bunch of guys out there like Greg Loewan (sp?) and more that do tours. They're very good and very serious about getting it right.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

This can not be overemphasized as it is too often overlooked or just taken for granted.
Also, keep in mind that all ISF calibrators are not created equal.

P.S.
How the hell are you?
I thought you fell in some hole somewhere as I haven't seen you around.

I'm good. I started a new full time real job. As many already know I used to be full time Navy (Submarine Sonarman) working in ocean engineering but I got out last year and now I work for the Navy as a civilian in Acoustic Engineering. My work requires lots of travel and most of the time I'm riding a sub so no link to the outside world. Makes for lots of catch up when I'm around!

Couldn't agree more about the ISF calibrator thing. Everyone should do research on potential calibrators as the class itself is pretty generic and doesn't guarantee that your calibrator has any idea what he is doing, especially since every display is different.

I find it almost comical how much people complain and nitpick some of the small issues with BD picture quality when in most cases their setup is probably adding more issues than the authoring. Especially with all of the bogus display "enhancements" on the market today. I imagine the percentage of viewers using a display that is actually accurate is less than 5%, even on this kind of board.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Definately if you're serious about an ISF calibration, ask around and don't call Best Buy. There's a bunch of guys out there like Greg Loewan (sp?) and more that do tours. They're very good and very serious about getting it right.

Absolutely! Some that I would recommend right off the bat are the folks at LionAV and Avical. I've had calibrations done by both David Abrahms and Michael Chen and can't recommend either of them enough. Both do incredible jobs!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I'm good. I started a new full time real job. As many already know I used to be full time Navy (Submarine Sonarman) working in ocean engineering but I got out last year and now I work for the Navy as a civilian in Acoustic Engineering. My work requires lots of travel and most of the time I'm riding a sub so no link to the outside world. Makes for lots of catch up when I'm around!

Couldn't agree more about the ISF calibrator thing. Everyone should do research on potential calibrators as the class itself is pretty generic and doesn't guarantee that your calibrator has any idea what he is doing, especially since every display is different.

I find it almost comical how much people complain and nitpick some of the small issues with BD picture quality when in most cases their setup is probably adding more issues than the authoring. Especially with all of the bogus display "enhancements" on the market today. I imagine the percentage of viewers using a display that is actually accurate is less than 5%, even on this kind of board.

^
I'm bolding for 'effect'.
Yet another reason as to the ludicrously of using *screenshot science* for critical analysis of a Blu-ray movie.

Anyway, if you ever come down around the Navy Seal training center (Coronado, CA) or anywhere thereabouts, as in the past I’ve seen a fast attack sub? sometimes sitting at the mouth of the bay along the submarine pier at Ballast point, shoot me a heads-up PM and maybe we can connect and share a hearty seafood dinner at The Brigantine on Coronado.

And try to be kind with that sonar stuff on dem whales!
They’ve got sensitive hearing and big brains.

P.S.
Regarding Ballast Point, people can go to this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Loma) and click on the Point Loma pic, our summer place is just up yonder and to the right from there.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Absolutely! Some that I would recommend right off the bat are the folks at LionAV and Avical. I've had calibrations done by both David Abrahms and Michael Chen and can't recommend either of them enough. Both do incredible jobs!!

Another name to add to the list for those in the market is………

Jeff Meier
www.accucal.org < hope that link still works

These guys are all very busy and often you'll have to make an appt. months in advance in order to get on one of their "calibration tours".

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

As far as IMAX goes, I can't emphasize enough that you write SNAIL MAIL letters to AMC corporate, or whereever else you see IMAX Lite going in, and tell them on no uncertain terms that you refuse to pay extra for IMAX without getting the full experience, and that with more movies like Dark Knight and Transformers 2 (and Iron Man 2 supposedly last I checked) shooting true IMAX, that that giant majesty and incredible resolution is what you pay for, and what makes the moviegoing experience special instead of sitting in your home theater,and not visual trickery.

Happily, I think casual movie goers are getting wise to the marketing shenanigans IMAX is pulling with IMAX Digital, particularly with charging an extra $5 on top of the movie ticket price for what is really only a slightly bigger 2K digital cinema experience.

Here's some links to other articles or well followed 'blogs teeing off negatively on the IMAX Digital subject:

Aziz is Bored - F*** IMAX

Destroy Fake IMAX

The Consumerist - Does your local cinema have IMAX or just IMAX lite?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Definately if you're serious about an ISF calibration, ask around and don't call Best Buy. There's a bunch of guys out there like Greg Loewan (sp?) and more that do tours. They're very good and very serious about getting it right.

Very good point. The guys who travel that have good reputations are the ones to get. I have Chad Billheimer calibrate my set once a year.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Not a bad idea (the sticker thing) but, do you really think that it would do any good in cases like this, even when the Director personally elaborates more than a machine made sticker -
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Da...reen.php?u=115
...

Here's a (better?) idea. Many of my audio CDs contain the note:

"The music on this compact disc was originally recorded on analogue equipment. We have attempted to preserve as closely as possible the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape".

Can't we just add a screen prior to the movie that reads:

"The images on this disc were originally recorded on analogue equipment. We have attempted to preserve as closely as possible the detail in concert with the director's intent of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Blu-ray disc can reveal limitations and grain of the original source film.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

charging an extra $5 on top of the movie ticket price for what is really only a slightly bigger 2K digital cinema experience.

Often too big, if you ask me, considering 2K.

Thanks for the blog links! Nice to see some ripples cresting out there.