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

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Wait- WHA?! WHA?! WHA?!

Are you being extremely loose with your examples here, or did I *somehow* miss something monumental?

I just quickly put together a few, if you are talking about Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz, yes they should have been in my examples.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’re welcome.
And to all others that have expressed their gratitude on the last page……..shucks, you’re making me blush now.

Thank you, Penton. I would have said that earlier, but you didn't post the news in the subtitles thread.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by wallendo

If the average is 3.6 PH then about half of the people are sitting farther away than that. If your goal is for blu-ray to always remain a premium product (and DVD to serve the mainstream), the preserving subtitles at theatrical size may be reasonable. On the other hand, if blu-ray is to replace DVD, then appropriate adjustments may need to be made for the typical (non-home theater) user.

Universal and Paramount put all subtitles inside the movie picture now. Sony should use the same size text they do. Nobody has ever complained about not being able to read subtitles from those studios, so it stands to reason that the text size is appropriate.

[Batman1980]

I want to know when the last time was that Penton Man went to a movie in theatres and was completely blown away by what he saw.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Stay Puft was 6ft, it was a guy in a suit The proportions are off for a little person so that's what I'm going for

Correcto- mundo.
You win How to Make a Summer Blockbuster Star Trek movie on a budget by Jay Leno (who by the way, was an early Blu-ray adopter [Sony Player] ).

Jeff, see the segment after the Wolverine look-a-like guy………..
http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_...udget/1108324/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Option 2?

Sorry Denon, Jeff is correct.

A full grown adult wore the Stay Puft Man suit……namely Bill Bryan, so the 6 ft. answer is closer to being correct. In fact, Bryan didn’t just act in it during the movie but also built the suit. Apparently, one of the most difficult things to do was the walk, since the scene was filmed with 65 mm. cameras at 72 f.p.s., Bill had to adjust his acting into 1/3 speed movements.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Here's a good/bad(news) piece on classics in general on video that kinda nutshells what we've been talking about

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/06/s...reen-classics/

One of the things WB COULD do is to rent the TVs in Best Buy during Christmas (thought they're probably already sold, maybe something can be done) and other places with GWTW and Oz.

Gone With the Wind, needless to say, is storytelling at its best.

From a purely scientific and technological standpoint, the cinematography is awe-inspiring given the excessive light level that Ernie Haller and Ray Rennahan were forced to work with, the slowness of the film during those olden times and the cumbersome Technicolor 3-strip cameras which they employed to create the modeling and the grand look of the film by using matte paintings and second unit location work.

The film is so great on so many levels.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Red Digital Cinema's "Mysterium Monstro 617" sensor (currently in development and expected to ship in 2010) is the only one I know of that features a native aspect ratio much closer to 2.40:1. The sensor is a whopping 168mm X 56mm, which yields an overall ratio of 2.58:1. The "brain" for that system alone will cost over $50,000. It can support resolutions up to 28K at 1-30fps.

Given the sad fact 2K is still the de facto standard for CGI and digital intermediate, I think there is a better chance of pigs learning to fly than any Hollywood production actually making an entirely 28K-based movie any time soon. Same thing goes for the 5K, 6K and 9K resolutions boasted by certain other Red camera sensors.

Well, I think that some folks like to ‘market pixels’ just like some folks like to market ‘designer sunglasses’ but, people that work out in the sun for 8 hrs./day like lifeguards, etc. really only care about whether dem sunglasses block 100 percent of UV rays, not 200 or 300 percent of UV rays, and how sharp and natural their vision is when looking through those shades at sunrise and sunset when 100 percent of those UV rays are blocked.

Cinematographers working on feature films, generally are not asking manufacturers for more or higher resolution and I can tell you for a fact that the talent isn’t, as sometimes even dailies (which aren’t even seen by the public) are defocused by the colorist as per Director’s orders because of talent sensitivity to the issue. Cinematographers desire and continuously ask for more shadow and highlight detail from camera manufacturers. They like/need more dynamic range for real world working conditions, not much higher resolution per se.

True 4k digital cameras will be quite future-proof given even optimistic predications in resolution upgraded post production facilities’ workflows and theatrical exhibition of feature film content. A 4k scanner gives you a 36 mega-pixel image. At this time, Panavision is working on an essentially true 4k digital motion picture camera having a 37.5 megapixel sensor which, more importantly, should output a film-like S curve over 16 stops…………
http://www.panavisionimaging.com/imagers_DMAX.htm

P.S.
If one were to do the new-age math, the above ^ sensor and camera would be marketed as a ‘17k’ camera by some camera manufacturers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mntwister

I don't agree that classics have no future on home video as the above linked story states.....

Well, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement in the article which says ”Blu-Ray… actually is making things worse for classics.”

I’m hoping that the author of this article pessimistically extrapolated George Feltenstein’s comments to him. These interviewers do get it wrong from time to time and mess up by misquoting industry executives, which I know for a fact the writer for HDD did several months ago when he interviewed George about classic films.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

......These films should be preserved, and Hollywood should probably put together some kind of nonprofit whose job it is to maintain all this stuff that the studios don't want any more, but is part of history.

Studios know that their libraries have value, and thusly are an asset.

One of the primary job responsibilities of the V.P. of Asset Management of any studio is to preserve everything at greatest quality for any unsuspected future exhibiton and at the same time to restore some movies and TV shows for upcoming planned video and theatrical screenings given current available public viewing technology.

Studio marketing folk may be geared toward short term cycles of what is presently ‘hot’ and ‘what’s not’ given current distribution systems set-up for the public at large but, studio film archivists must also consider how to save a movie for decades…..not just hitting some home media street date. So, astute major studios are constantly in the act of restoring many more titles than warrant upcoming Blu-ray, cable, satellite or online release.

The balancing act by the Asset Manager/Archivist comes in attributing his resources to accomplish museum quality standards in preservation and restoration with strategic release considerations.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Thank you, Penton. I would have said that earlier, but you didn't post the news in the subtitles thread.

The things I go through to drag your arse onto this forum (from 6 months ago)…………
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...sh#post1567416

Please don’t disappoint me.

[Penton-Man]

Later folks, gotta run.

[Jeff Kleist]

Oh not to denegrate them at ALL. I'm just saying that perhaps some kind of foundation can step in, if studios decide to let these films go to seed should that happen.

I see value in some pessimism as a motivator anyway

It is true though, that the venues for these films are closing. Suncoast is all but gone, Best Buy has a few shelves for this stuff, only TMC shows stuff with reliablility (with American Movie Classics no longer being classical, despite the awesomeness of Breaking Bad)

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sorry Denon, Jeff is correct.

A full grown adult wore the Stay Puft Man suit……namely Bill Bryan, so the 6 ft. answer is closer to being correct. In fact, Bryan didn’t just act in it during the movie but also built the suit. Apparently, one of the most difficult things to do was the walk, since the scene was filmed with 65 mm. cameras at 72 f.p.s., Bill had to adjust his acting into 1/3 speed movements.

I had no idea...it was a shot in the dark and I obviously missed

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m thinking that you, Eternal Sunshine, etc. should be singing this song right about now ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQaHBvZ3r8w

as we’re planning on moving forward with Option #1 pending positive feedback from industry associates in all regions…..

Very late to the party, but who's awesome? You're. Frikkin. Awesome.

Thanks for your input and efforts on this issue! I will look forward to the fruits of your labor in the future.

Sorry this reply is so tardy, but I've been indulging a couple of my other passions with this new toy:



A couple of shots:



One for the gentlemen:


And a couple for the ladies:



Not too shabby for an amateur, I hope?

Thanks again Penton! I can hear the sound of how awesome you are from here.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton Man

Well, I think that some folks like to ‘market pixels’ just like some folks like to market ‘designer sunglasses’ but, people that work out in the sun for 8 hrs./day like lifeguards, etc. really only care about whether dem sunglasses block 100 percent of UV rays, not 200 or 300 percent of UV rays, and how sharp and natural their vision is when looking through those shades at sunrise and sunset when 100 percent of those UV rays are blocked.

That's true, but I don't think the Red company is trying to sell junk either.

I think one of the biggest challenges facing that Mysterium Monstro 617 sensor is pairing it up with high quality glass. What kind of lenses are they going to use with a sensor that size? It's more than twice the width of 70mm film. At least with a FF35 sensor there's a lot of existing high quality optics that can be used.

Originally Posted by Penton Man

Cinematographers working on feature films, generally are not asking manufacturers for more or higher resolution and I can tell you for a fact that the talent isn’t, as sometimes even dailies (which aren’t even seen by the public) are defocused by the colorist as per Director’s orders because of talent sensitivity to the issue.

That's pretty unfortunate because it dumbs down the potential image quality of an entire movie production just for the sake of some actor trying to hide some "crow's feet" around the eyes. Heck, that sort of appeal to vanity can be taken care of in post. Or let certain studios' home video units fuzz out those crow's feet along with every facial pore with some excessive DNR once the show moves on to Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Penton Man

A 4k scanner gives you a 36 mega-pixel image.

A 4096 X 2160 image is 8.8 million pixels. I don't agree with the claims some make by multiplying the pixel count times however many color channels are included in the image, be it RGB, CMYK, L*a*b, etc. In the end the resulting image is going to have only so many full color pixels in the finished image.

Panavision's new sensor seems pretty interesting, despite the odd 37 megapixel claim. The Genesis model with its HDTV resolution limit needs a serious upgrade.

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Sorry this reply is so tardy, but I've been indulging a couple of my other passions with this new toy:

Alright. I'm officially jealous. I wish I had several grand just laying around for a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens (along with a very serious tripod to hold that 12 pound beast).

I'm not entirely sad. A couple days ago my new gadget arrived: a Canon EOS 5D Mark II body. Yippie.



I'm already very spoiled by the Mark II. Thankfully, one of my coworkers has offered to buy my Digital Rebel XTi. The old XTi seems almost like a little toy next to the 5D Mark II.



Oh, another nice thing about this EOS 5D Mark II body, it must have come from a very recent production run. The unit already had the 1.1.0 firmware installed. That means it can shoot 1080p/30 HD video in full manual mode.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m thinking that you, Eternal Sunshine, etc. should be singing this song right about now ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQaHBvZ3r8w

Pathetic link. Epic fail.

THIS is what you meant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm7-cysfE2c



Note that even the Verve's "original" songs sound ripped off. Bittersweet, indeed.

[sharkshark]

oh, and you bastages with your L-lenses... sigh. My 30D keeps a rockin', but the 5D continues to call.....

God bless Canon digital.

[Mr_Bester]

Brain Sturgeon,
Since we're both in the lou(as if anyone calls it that) could I borrow that bad boy when i head to Clarksville for the eagles. I don't think my 400/5.6 will cut it anymore....

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Alright. I'm officially jealous. I wish I had several grand just laying around for a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens (along with a very serious tripod to hold that 12 pound beast.

It is a sweet piece of glass. Autofocuses like a dream and sharp as a tack. I've heard the 300mm f/2.8 L IS and 200mm f/2.0 L IS are sharper, but the extra focal length is a godsend for field sports like Football. I've got it on a Gitzo carbon-fiber monopod for sports, and it actually handles very well for such a heavy lens. The 400 is worth every penny, IMHO.

I'm not entirely sad. A couple days ago my new gadget arrived: a Canon EOS 5D Mark II body. Yippie.

Awesome camera! I've been thinking about getting one of the Canon full frame digitals, but I just don't know if I'd shoot it enough as I mainly shoot kids and sports which the 1D MkIIN/III work great for.

I'm already very spoiled by the Mark II. Thankfully, one of my coworkers has offered to buy my Digital Rebel XTi. The old XTi seems almost like a little toy next to the 5D Mark II.

I'm sure you'll love it. That's a huge step up.

Oh, another nice thing about this EOS 5D Mark II body, it must have come from a very recent production run. The unit already had the 1.1.0 firmware installed. That means it can shoot 1080p/30 HD video in full manual mode.

That is one of the features on the 5D MkII that I've been meaning to investigate. Have you had a chance to try it out yet? What codec does it record in?

Nice lenses by the way. The 70-200mm f/2.8 L is one of my faves (I have the IS version), and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L is one of the best all-arounders. I'd say the 70-200 is on my camera 75% of the time. The B+W circular polarizer is in my bag as well-- great stuff...

Originally Posted by sharkshark

oh, and you bastages with your L-lenses... sigh. My 30D keeps a rockin', but the 5D continues to call.....

God bless Canon digital.

L glass is totally addictive. It's hard to use anything else once you get used to it. My only non-L lens at this point is a 100mm f/2.8 Macro, which is about as close as you can get to L glass without actually being it. I wish they would come out with a Macro with IS. It is very difficult to get sharp macro images handheld with your average light out there, even wide open at f/2.8.

Originally Posted by Mr_Bester

Brain Sturgeon,
Since we're both in the lou(as if anyone calls it that) could I borrow that bad boy when i head to Clarksville for the eagles. I don't think my 400/5.6 will cut it anymore....

I would think that you would want 600mm or 800mm focal lengths if you're going birding. That's some serious firepower... I haven't tried a 2x extender on the 400 yet-- it does work very well with a 1.4x. 800mm f/5.6 IS sounds very cool...