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

[Bobby Henderson]

I forgot all about Solaris. Yeah, that movie did look very nice. It's too bad the show wasn't more successful.

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro is a very fun lens-- I think it's worth its reasonable price. The 180mm f/3.5 L, not so much. The extra focal length is nice, but not essential-- it also focuses very slowly and pretty much requires a tripod for use. I've not tried the 135 f/2.0 L-- will have to take a peek at that one. The 200mm f/2.0 L is phenomenal, but very expensive.

There's a gigantic difference in price between the 200mm f/2.8L and the 200mm f/2.0L IS. $750 or so versus $5300. The size difference is pretty huge too.

The 135mm f/2.0L isn't all that bad in terms of L-series pricing (just under $1000). Reviewers say its auto focus performance is quite fast and accurate even in low light.

I really want a good macro lens, but then I'll probably have to get a macro speed light to go with it. Canon's Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX costs more than the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I was continuing on with the YouTube Girl Next Door theme!

Yeah, I know. But the teasing stands.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

And half the people are sitting closer than that. I believe the average screen size slowly gets bigger every year too.

yes, but by very little. On the other hand the average screen size here is most likely much bigger then general and the PH much smaller. Plus is it real PH or fake PH (i.e. was it CIH or not, if there are black bars and they are counted then the theatrical portion of the image is smaller then screen height) ?

[4K2K]

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. 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.

If a close-up for a production was shot in sharp focus eg. on 35mm film or ful HD video, with the best quality lens, and it was released twice, on the first release (A) they used no defocus windows, and on the second (B), they used defocus windows with the settings they normally use, which would have the highest resolvable resolution?

A) A PAL DVD of that shot, where no defocus windows had been used
B) A Blu-ray disc of that shot, where they had used defocus windows with their normal settings.

And how much more resolvable resolution would the one with higher resolution have over the other? By how much do defocusing windows reduce the resolvable resolution of scenes on Blu-ray where they take up most of the frame? And is this the reason why reviews of titles sometimes say that people's faces look like plastic or waxy or is that usually because of DNR? And why not just film from further away instead?

[sharkshark]

More camera nerding out/HD video for y'all to debate:

http://vimeo.com/5981422

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If a close-up for a production was shot in sharp focus eg. on 35mm film or ful HD video, with the best quality lens, and it was released twice, on the first release (A) they used no defocus windows, and on the second (B), they used defocus windows with the settings they normally use, which would have the highest resolvable resolution?

A) A PAL DVD of that shot, where no defocus windows had been used
B) A Blu-ray disc of that shot, where they had used defocus windows with their normal settings.

And how much more resolvable resolution would the one with higher resolution have over the other? By how much do defocusing windows reduce the resolvable resolution of scenes on Blu-ray where they take up most of the frame? And is this the reason why reviews of titles sometimes say that people's faces look like plastic or waxy or is that usually because of DNR?

Well, I barely read even a tiny handful of reviews and unless some reviewer has a past history of being an ardent pro-HD DVD supporter or Blu-ray basher during the format war (which automatically makes me skeptical of their objectivity in reviewing Blu-rays when they say something negative), I don’t like to criticize reviewers because I think, by and large, they do a very commendable job given the fact that none of them have access to the film elements, digital files and/or HD master tapes.

My feeling is that they put a lot of time and effort into providing a good service in a timely manner, which in many cases at best goes unappreciated, at worse, provides a target for….shall we say, Monday Morning armchair quarterbacks to nit-pick their words and numerical scores if they don’t agree with the review.

In regards to the implied ‘is it defocus or is it DNR’ question………I would say that given the fact that this product became very popular in the industry (scroll down to PowerTiers, Defocus Plus™, Toolbox2™) -http://216.79.18.60/2kplus.htm

if one is so inclined to hunt for the presence or absence of dnr while watching a motion picture at home, as a rough general guideline I would say that viewers should not be staring at actors’ faces on any feature films that incorporated a DI in the post production process during 2005 or later…… in order to evaluate for the presence or absence of dnr.

P.S.
Actually, you may want to back that up to around 2002 or later, because Toolbox™ was the precursor to Toolbox2™ and it boasted four Power Vectors, each having its own matte Defocus, Power Windows, In/Out Master Secondaries, Textures and Filter Effects. The filters included the equivalent of a Defocus Plus board.
Toolbox2™ is just faster and easier to use.

[Penton-Man]

Jeff Kleist and/or other membership -
Are you watching “Defying Gravity” on Sunday evenings?
Now that’s my type of Space series.

And the imagery I think looks purty darn good, given the inherent compression of broadcast delivery.
I wonder what cameras they used to shoot dem lady astronauts?

[Penton-Man]

Sharkshark, this defies gravity (watch the whole clip) –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhJKSseiPXE

[Penton-Man]

Esox (with one ‘s’),
Keep an eye out for an upcoming YouTube clip devoted to the Braveheart Blu-ray.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sharkshark, this defies gravity (watch the whole clip) –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhJKSseiPXE

Ya, three artists that I should like, given their references that they draw upon, but all three kinda leave me cold... Mind you, given Mayer's lineage, I'm not a huge Clapton fan either. That said, I really, really appreicated Mayer's take on "Human Nature" during the MJ funeral thingy, really beautiful and touching to do it as a straight ahead instrumental.

I saw this trio during the broadcast, but nice to see it again.

When it comes to guitar sillyness, I certainly lean more towards the deleriously melodic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTY-MMlBP5E, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j34gG2xR3I), or I turn towards the guy I own more music from than anybody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UavcwTd-B8A, or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJN_uWaVRfo&feature=fvw if you want something a bit more straight ahead).... Or, naturally, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE0ODrmaiFE, or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBkbPEoeAI&feature=fvst, or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ne-CaUfiEQ (!!!)

But I'm then again, I'm a piano guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrkTh...ature=related)...

Me, I've got an 1896 Steinway that I'm so not worthy of playing, frankly.

And, yeah, you have to listen to the entirety of those clips... Take your time, I'll wait here...

[Jeff Kleist]

I haven't actually watched it yet due to dismal reviews

If you like your stuff a little saucier, check out Sony's own Odyssey 5, kinda x-filesy starring Peter Weller. It got killed in the great showtime purge, and will likely never make it to Blu-ray due to low DVD sales (which in turn were probably due to the fact that the show never got its broadcast syndication run, and therefore never penetrated into the greater mainstream like Stargate did)

Much of the cast and crew have since worked and guested on 24, where series creator Manny Coto is currently berthed

[JonBidinger]

Odyssey 5 was brilliant. I was very upset to watch the last episode. Too bad it was never continued in any other forms.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Jeff Kleist and/or other membership -
Are you watching “Defying Gravity” on Sunday evenings?
Now that’s my type of Space series.

And the imagery I think looks purty darn good, given the inherent compression of broadcast delivery.
I wonder what cameras they used to shoot dem lady astronauts?

I watched the episode where the girl's suit is decompressing while she's being pulled in.

How long it is till Season boxes come out after the last episode?


Moon Moon 0 2 2001

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

And, yeah, you have to listen to the entirety of those clips... Take your time, I'll wait here...

Slowing working my way through.
Your second link materializes into a trailer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I haven't actually watched it yet due to dismal reviews

Well, I guess that’s just another indication of how few reviews I read.
I like the cast………….
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319690/

and the premise.
Many people seem to love Grey’s Anatomy but, I think that Brain Sturgeon would tell us that there is so much medical inaccuracy and nonsensical dramatization of interns, residents and Attendings’ day-to-day lives in that show that it borders on the ridiculous.

Still, I enjoy that show too.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

I watched the episode where the girl's suit is decompressing while she's being pulled in.
How long it is till Season boxes come out after the last episode?

Moon Moon 0 2 2001

In the following episode, the German astronaut proves that the correct visual stimulus can overcome any pharmacological intervention when it comes to…..girl greets boy.

P.S.
b.t.w., where the heck is Oliver K.?
Eternal Sunshine – do the German folks have summer holidays like the French, or what?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Slowing working my way through.
Your second link materializes into a trailer.

Ah, the bracket got parsed into the URL link by accident... click it now (worthwhile performance by him, if you've never seen it... the title's a bit hyperbolic, but it's a stunning, stunning rendition)

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I do think people have to face that outside of the top 2-300 films maybe, that in another 20 years there will be no market for the vast majority of pre-1960/70 films, because the people who grew up with them will be gone. The same thing will happen to the 80s in another 20 years. How much of a market is there going to be for Monster Squad, or even god forbid Goonies? A movie like Real Genius might survive, because it has the timeless nerd id going for it, but will the kids of 2025 really connect with the cold war mentality and antiquated tech of War Games?

The day "Ernest Scared Stupid" is no longer popular is the day I give up on humanity. ;0

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

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.

I have the original MGM DVD release, and I'm in no hurry for the Blu-ray release. The film is GREAT, so the eventual stand-alone Blu-ray release is indeed something I want to have in my collection, but the film is "exhausting", and therefore, will be something I only watch once in a blue (or is that Blu?) moon.

The same can be said for "Saving Private Ryan" (among others). A GREAT film, but one that can be so "exhausting" that it's (unlike GWTW) actually hard for me to watch.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

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.

A relative of mine was interviewed last week over the phone, and was misquoted. What the reporter put in the story was so incorrect that people reading the article (unaware of the misquote) probably assumed my relative had been smoking something.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Jeff Kleist and/or other membership -
Are you watching “Defying Gravity” on Sunday evenings?
Now that’s my type of Space series.

I have all the episodes thus broadcast on my DVR, though I have yet to get around to them (I've found it difficult to get much TV viewing and or Blu-ray viewing lately). I like the cast though.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If you like your stuff a little saucier, check out Sony's own Odyssey 5, kinda x-filesy starring Peter Weller. It got killed in the great showtime purge, and will likely never make it to Blu-ray due to low DVD sales (which in turn were probably due to the fact that the show never got its broadcast syndication run, and therefore never penetrated into the greater mainstream like Stargate did)

HDNet aired reruns of the show for a while.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Many people seem to love Grey’s Anatomy but, I think that Brain Sturgeon would tell us that there is so much medical inaccuracy and nonsensical dramatization of interns, residents and Attendings’ day-to-day lives in that show that it borders on the ridiculous.

I enjoyed the first season (and what I saw of the second season), but the show does cross the absurdity border... both medical and character wise.

Still, when Disney releases S1 and S2 on Blu-ray, they will be mine (not sure I'll bother with later releases).

~Alan

[Jeff Kleist]

Defying gravity is on hulu, I'm going to give it a whirl, just other things have been occupying me. I just had 2 events dropped in my lap on top of the other projects I'm working on

Oh and on the George F interview. I try to bounce the final piece to interviewees via email before publication to avoid such misunderstandings

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Jeff Kleist and/or other membership -
Are you watching “Defying Gravity” on Sunday evenings?
Now that’s my type of Space series.

And the imagery I think looks purty darn good, given the inherent compression of broadcast delivery.
I wonder what cameras they used to shoot dem lady astronauts?

I enjoyed the premiere (two episodes) but the follow-up was lame. It is obvious that the writers are laying the groundwork for the rest of the series, but last Sunday's episode seemed to lack a plot. On the other hand, it is hard not to watch a television show that has naked blondes floating in space.

The CGI is very good for television (unlike Warehouse 13, where the CGI appears to have been rendered at SD or lower resolution).

I'm hoping that "Defying Gravity" will pick up the pace again and help me get over the grief of losing "Sarah Connor Chronicles".