Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Michael.Schinke]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

A Ridley directed new Alien film, as is being hinted at in the rumor mill right now would almost certainly give it a bump

Not for nothing, but I'm just not on board with this. THe Alien thing has been overdone and it just isn't scary anymore. And I personally don't want to see a prequel that explains all the mysteries behind the Aliens. At best they'll just be an aggressive species and, at worst, they'll end up being some kind of bio engineered weapon gone wrong from a long time ago. Either way it'll neither be interesting or fun and all the Ridley Scotts in the world won't be able to make it interesting again. I would rather give Scott the money to develop an all new sci-fi project then to rehash this stale cheese.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Michael.Schinke

Not for nothing, but I'm just not on board with this. THe Alien thing has been overdone and it just isn't scary anymore. And I personally don't want to see a prequel that explains all the mysteries behind the Aliens. At best they'll just be an aggressive species and, at worst, they'll end up being some kind of bio engineered weapon gone wrong from a long time ago. Either way it'll neither be interesting or fun and all the Ridley Scotts in the world won't be able to make it interesting again. I would rather give Scott the money to develop an all new sci-fi project then to rehash this stale cheese.

Sir, your words are my words.

Had I a few dozen million to chuck carelessly at Ridley Scott, I would do it with the words, "Go, and bear fruit! Please, though... anything but that."

[Jeff Kleist]

Not for nothing, but I'm just not on board with this. THe Alien thing has been overdone and it just isn't scary anymore. And I personally don't want to see a prequel that explains all the mysteries behind the Aliens. At best they'll just be an aggressive species and, at worst, they'll end up being some kind of bio engineered weapon gone wrong from a long time ago. Either way it'll neither be interesting or fun and all the Ridley Scotts in the world won't be able to make it interesting again. I would rather give Scott the money to develop an all new sci-fi project then to rehash this stale cheese.

I never found any movies scary anyway.

Better to trust him with the franchsie than some hack anyway. At least he's proven he knows what he's doing

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Better to trust him with the franchsie than some hack anyway.

Yes, but better still to just put it to bed. Use the resources to begin the next great *shudder* "franchise".

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by Michael.Schinke

Not for nothing, but I'm just not on board with this. THe Alien thing has been overdone and it just isn't scary anymore. And I personally don't want to see a prequel that explains all the mysteries behind the Aliens. At best they'll just be an aggressive species and, at worst, they'll end up being some kind of bio engineered weapon gone wrong from a long time ago. Either way it'll neither be interesting or fun and all the Ridley Scotts in the world won't be able to make it interesting again. I would rather give Scott the money to develop an all new sci-fi project then to rehash this stale cheese.

Agreed. I think, frankly, that's what he'd RATHER do. But finding a good script on the level of Alien and Blade Runner isn't easy.

[cjamescook]

Bill/Jeff-

The Digital Bits noted that actor Karl-Michael Vogler passed away this week, listing some of his films. Since the question got lost a few pages back, but your notice also mentioned Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, I'd like to ask again: has this film been sighted on anyone's slate? Or does it fall in the "really far out there/don't bother asking" category?

I'm curious, partly because I discovered this week that it was shot in Todd-AO 65mm and partly because I was impressed by the write-up on Wikipedia. Call it a guilty pleasure.

Thanks,
-Jim

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Bill/Jeff-

The Digital Bits noted that actor Karl-Michael Vogler passed away this week, listing some of his films. Since the question got lost a few pages back, but your notice also mentioned Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, I'd like to ask again: has this film been sighted on anyone's slate? Or does it fall in the "really far out there/don't bother asking" category?

I'm curious, partly because I discovered this week that it was shot in Todd-AO 65mm and partly because I was impressed by the write-up on Wikipedia. Call it a guilty pleasure.

Thanks,
-Jim

I'm guessing the latter. But didn't they do a new DVD recently? It COULD be that there's a new HD transfer available. Though I'm sure there are bigger catalog classics MGM/Fox have on their slate higher on the list.

I'll try to check in later this weekend guys. Gotta go celebrate my wife's birthday. Cheers!

[SMGOFF]

Originally Posted by Stacey Spears

It is not meant for you to compare codec A vs. codec B. I

Stacey,

I don't want to try to draw you into the codec debate, but I have a question about a quote from you about the filters used in AVC and VC-1 and Bill Hunt's rewording of it in lay terms.

First, he quotes you:

"The loop filter is designed to try and smooth the edge between two blocks. AVC uses 4x4 (or 8x8) blocks. Their loop filter can touch up to 3 pixels. This means the middle pixels can be touched twice. The VC-1 loop filter works on an 8x8 block and it only touches one pixel. The idea is to try and reduce the hard edge between the two blocks by blending them a little closer together."

Then, he gives his interpretation:

"In laymen's terms, this means that AVC loop filter can work on 3 times more pixels twice as hard in half the space as the VC-1 loop filter, which can result in a more accurate rendering of fine details in a challenging film to encode like T2."

My question: Doesn't this lay explanation get it backwards? If the AVC filter can touch (smooth) more pixels and can touch the middle pixel twice, doesn't this mean that it pulls more pixels towards the average or mean and leaves less detail intact?

I'm not trying to pin you down on the design choices involved in the two codecs or trying to get you to say that one is better than the other.

[NL197]

Picked up CSI season 1 on BD tonight.

The image is exactly as I remember seeing it a few years ago - GRAIN. Lots of grain, probably added to image in addition to what was already there as a means of giving the show its signature look, and man do I ever love that grain.

I love grain. Light grain, heavy grain, I love it. It gives the image a kind of character and sense watching real film, and I've never understood why just about every single DVD/BD review there is seems to say "But" there is a lot of grain, or "However" there is quite a bit of grain, or some other negative connotation thrown in about it.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by NL197

... I love grain. Light grain, heavy grain, I love it. It gives the image a kind of character and sense watching real film, and ...

NL, have you been channelling Wilford Brimley and the Quaker Oats folks again?

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

I'm guessing the latter. But didn't they do a new DVD recently? It COULD be that there's a new HD transfer available. Though I'm sure there are bigger catalog classics MGM/Fox have on their slate higher on the list.

I'll try to check in later this weekend guys. Gotta go celebrate my wife's birthday. Cheers!

Thanks, Bill, that's all I'll wanted by way of an answer - something off the top of your head - no need to make an extra effort. Unfortunately, the most recent DVD for sale on Amazon lists a release date of 2004, so I doubt they made a high def transfer. Anyway, go have a nice night out -- you've already put in enough overtime this week.

One other aside: My other thought is that given the age of the film, its popularity (number of times used to make prints), and experiences with other films of the era, I'm not sure whether it will require major restoration, thus further pushing it out due to cost.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Agreed. I think, frankly, that's what he'd RATHER do. But finding a good script on the level of Alien and Blade Runner isn't easy.

Doesn't he have a couple of science fiction projects on the go: The Forever War and Brave New World.

[bluskies]

LOL, I'm beginning to feel like the customer standing patiently waiting for service in a department store but the sales clerks walk right past like you're invisible. I asked a question of Bill by email at digitalbits and then Jeff here (or Bill) several pages back but haven't received an answer, so I will try again:

On some sites, they list the documentary "MGM: When the Lion Roars" as being exclusive to the Blu-ray set of the upcoming The Wizard of Oz. But it doesn't seem likely it would be the full doc, since that runs 6 hours. WB once before said the doc would be on a particular film's DVD or Blu release but all it was was a few minutes excerpt about that particular title. You guys have contacts at WB, can you check on this and let us know?

Thanks.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by NL197

Picked up CSI season 1 on BD tonight.

The image is exactly as I remember seeing it a few years ago - GRAIN. Lots of grain, probably added to image in addition to what was already there as a means of giving the show its signature look, and man do I ever love that grain.

I love grain. Light grain, heavy grain, I love it. It gives the image a kind of character and sense watching real film, and I've never understood why just about every single DVD/BD review there is seems to say "But" there is a lot of grain, or "However" there is quite a bit of grain, or some other negative connotation thrown in about it.

I would guess because a lot of them are younger kids who grew up with DVD, see no problem watching some of their movies on a 3-inch iPod screen and don't have any appreciation for how film is supposed to look, or why a director would want to take a clean piece of HD video and add grain as a stylistic choice. To them, grain = noise = bad and that's it. Or they're caving into pressure from readers who hate grain.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by blu2

Doesn't he have a couple of science fiction projects on the go: The Forever War and Brave New World.

He might, but finding exactly the right one that strikes him in the same vein as the other films is still tough.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by bluskies

LOL, I'm beginning to feel like the customer standing patiently waiting for service in a department store but the sales clerks walk right past like you're invisible. I asked a question of Bill by email at digitalbits and then Jeff here (or Bill) several pages back but haven't received an answer, so I will try again:

On some sites, they list the documentary "MGM: When the Lion Roars" as being exclusive to the Blu-ray set of the upcoming The Wizard of Oz. But it doesn't seem likely it would be the full doc, since that runs 6 hours. WB once before said the doc would be on a particular film's DVD or Blu release but all it was was a few minutes excerpt about that particular title. You guys have contacts at WB, can you check on this and let us know?

Thanks.

I'll see what I can find out. The original release was a 2-disc DVD, or 3?

[Jeff Kleist]

I read the Forever War when i heard he was working on it. If you want something on Blu-ray now that deals with those concepts then try the first Gunbuster movie. It doesn't have the starship troopers power armor, but a lot of the same things are there

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

The European T2 disc is not part of the discussion because I haven't seen it, and frankly I'm starting to get sick to death of the whole issue.

This was the main point of my post. I just wanted to point out that the original UK T2 release does not seem to support your conclusions regarding AVC/VC-1 and their effects on T2, and I think the discussion is incomplete without taking that disc into account.

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

It's possible that the mastering house, out of habit and/or on their own initiative, applied some DNR on their own prior to encoding. We've been unable to confirm whether that happened or not, so we're focusing on what we CAN confirm, and we've consulted Stacey and other film encoding and mastering experts for their thoughts on the matter.

I see that you added an editor's note mentioning this on the site. Thank you.

That's all I was getting at. I was not saying I disbelieved your report of Lionsgate's claim. I am glad that you agree that, despite Lionsgate and Van Ling's best intentions, there could still have been some DNR or filtering snuck in at some point in the chain.

[equivalent]

I read The Forever War a few years ago, and would strongly recommend it - it's a real classic. I hope the film does justice to the intelligence and cynicism of the book.

Thanks for the Spears and Munsil encodes btw - very interesting!

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by SMGOFF

My question: Doesn't this lay explanation get it backwards? If the AVC filter can touch (smooth) more pixels and can touch the middle pixel twice, doesn't this mean that it pulls more pixels towards the average or mean and leaves less detail intact?

Remember that if every block were an exact representation of the original image, there would be no need for smoothing of this kind. The smoothing is only necessary because blocks are reused within the image, to use fewer bytes and give an approximate representation of the image. Thus, the hard boundaries between blocks are an artifact, not genuine image detail, so we aren't losing image detail by smoothing them out. Also remember that at the time of encoding, the software knows what the original image looks like. What I would hope that the software is doing is modifying the blocks to try to avoid it looking blocky, and to produce as close a representation as possible of the original image. Because AVC can modify more pixels during this process, it should be able to achieve a closer representation of the original image.