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

[Jeff Kleist]

Don't give it legs yet. There's a major artificial bump with 25% of the country snowbound last weekend, combined with the holiday If it's stilll pulling 50+ next week, then we're talking

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by merrick97

True Lies and The Abyss need to come to bluray with Cameron approved transfers.

Believe it or not the version of The Abyss on DVD was Cameron approved. They made an anamorphic one that was rejected.

At that time there was still controversy about offering anamorphic 16x9 versions due to the overwhelming amount of 4x3 sets in use at the time. True Lies and the first version of Titanic and are an example of that.

True Lies on D-VHS was outstanding. I'd have no qualms about a 1080p version of that same transfer for Blu-ray.

[Jeff Kleist]

Cameron approved all masters used for dvd and blu

[plee]

Originally Posted by merrick97

It looks like Avatar could be a film with long legs. Im frankly quite shocked that it beat out Sherlock Holmes.

From the trailers, Sherlock Holmes, looked like more of an action flick with no story (maybe mis-marketed). Holmes is about the story and detective work so it really didn't make me want to go out and see it.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Well it looks like Avatar could end up being the huge hit that 20th Century Fox has been needing for quite some time.

In its 2nd weekend it is estimated to have taken in $75 million, which means it has an excellent chance to beat the Dark Knight's 2nd weekend record.

It looks like Avatar could be a film with long legs. Im frankly quite shocked that it beat out Sherlock Holmes.

I really hope this means that they will put Camerons on other films on bluray quicker.

True Lies and The Abyss need to come to bluray with Cameron approved transfers.

Are there any new 3-D movies coming out soon? Since most theatres only have one 3-D auditorium, the length of Avatar's mainstream run may be affected by theatre commitments to other 3-D fare.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by plee

From the trailers, Sherlock Holmes, looked like more of an action flick with no story (maybe mis-marketed). Holmes is about the story and detective work so it really didn't make me want to go out and see it.

Oh it definitely has story thats for sure. And he uses his innate skills to find the most effective/vulnerable spots to attack on a persons body. Love it.

[Jeff Kleist]

The casting was great Anything in Baker st was great. the rest was an abomination. There is more fisticuffs in this movie than all of Doyle s books put together. The whole whole thing seemed like one of the three writers wanted to make a real Holmes flick, and was constantly battling the other two who had Guy Ritchie s veto on their side

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Believe it or not the version of The Abyss on DVD was Cameron approved. They made an anamorphic one that was rejected.

At that time there was still controversy about offering anamorphic 16x9 versions due to the overwhelming amount of 4x3 sets in use at the time. True Lies and the first version of Titanic and are an example of that.

True Lies on D-VHS was outstanding. I'd have no qualms about a 1080p version of that same transfer for Blu-ray.

That's surprising. You'd think Cameron of all people would approve anamorphic ones and be "thinking ahead".

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Cameron approved all masters used for dvd and blu

Is True Lies in that bunch?

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Are there any new 3-D movies coming out soon? Since most theatres only have one 3-D auditorium, the length of Avatar's mainstream run may be affected by theatre commitments to other 3-D fare.

January and early February tend to be a dump zone for films the studios don't want to bother with. I can't imagine that anything is going to make a grab for those 3D theaters.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Is True Lies in that bunch?

I think what he means is that any Cameron picture that has already arrived on DVD or Blu has been approved by Cameron - not that he has approved further blu-ray transfers.

[Mr. Cinema]

I read that the upcoming Clash of the Titans remake in March may be presented in 3D.

[Jeff Kleist]

Clash wasn't filmed or rendered in 3D, and there's no 3D in the advertising. So even if they do, there's no point.

Cameron was worried about downconversion artifacts. The same reason why Criterion didn't do anamorphic for a long time

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

That's surprising. You'd think Cameron of all people would approve anamorphic ones and be "thinking ahead".

THX dragged their heels kicking and screaming into the world of 16x9 encoding. I had several heated arguments with THX tech-folks on the phone back in 1999/2000 as they defended their adherance to 4x3 in the same backwards-thinking way that Criterion did (more 4x3 sets out there... fear of downconversion artifacts blah blah blah). It was bizarre.

Of course, keep in mind that most of the calibrated montitors being used by THX and others to gauge transfer quality etc. were only 4x3... so most of these "experts" didn't even have a 16x9 set to view on, so much of the talk about added resolution was only an intelectual discussion to their mind. We then had the same problem over again when they all added edge-ringing because they only had small diret-view 16x9 monitors in their studios while the rest of the enthusiast world was watching on bigger and bigger screens. It's so ironic that many of the hands entrusted with optimizing quality and preserving image fidelity don't know and/or don't care and/or don't have the understanding to do it right. That seems to be changing over the last few years... hopefully with Blu-ray the tide will begin to turn as the studios now seem to be "getting" that their 1080p images need to look good on a big screen.

[plee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The casting was great Anything in Baker st was great. the rest was an abomination. There is more fisticuffs in this movie than all of Doyle s books put together. The whole whole thing seemed like one of the three writers wanted to make a real Holmes flick, and was constantly battling the other two who had Guy Ritchie s veto on their side

That's what I get from the trailers, again maybe the trailers don't do it justice but sometimes it speaks volumes.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

THX dragged their heels kicking and screaming into the world of 16x9 encoding. I had several heated arguments with THX tech-folks on the phone back in 1999/2000 as they defended their adherance to 4x3 in the same backwards-thinking way that Criterion did (more 4x3 sets out there... fear of downconversion artifacts blah blah blah). It was bizarre.

Yet it was multiple studios policy. Fox, Paramount, Disney, Criterion...all of them had non-anamorphic discs. You can't blame THX for industry policy.

You'd also be surprised how many people didn't bother setting the screen type properly so you had all these people watching their DVDs with people stretched tall.

Of course, keep in mind that most of the calibrated montitors being used by THX and others to gauge transfer quality etc. were only 4x3... so most of these "experts" didn't even have a 16x9 set to view on, so much of the talk about added resolution was only an intelectual discussion to their mind. We then had the same problem over again when they all added edge-ringing because they only had small diret-view 16x9 monitors in their studios while the rest of the enthusiast world was watching on bigger and bigger screens. It's so ironic that many of the hands entrusted with optimizing quality and preserving image fidelity don't know and/or don't care and/or don't have the understanding to do it right. That seems to be changing over the last few years... hopefully with Blu-ray the tide will begin to turn as the studios now seem to be "getting" that their 1080p images need to look good on a big screen.

Keep in mind most professional monitors were 4x3, some are even used to this day. Back in '99/'00? Pretty much zilch.

They care about quality (read Penton's thread): changing the production chain is difficult, costly, and prone to error. They understand fully.

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

It's so ironic that many of the hands entrusted with optimizing quality and preserving image fidelity don't know and/or don't care and/or don't have the understanding to do it right. That seems to be changing over the last few years... hopefully with Blu-ray the tide will begin to turn as the studios now seem to be "getting" that their 1080p images need to look good on a big screen.

With releases like Gladiator, there seems to still be plenty of idiots in the industry.

[Jeff Kleist]

Keep in mind most professional monitors were 4x3, even to this day. Back in '99/'00? Pretty much zilch.

Most people are running 1080p flat panels now. In post houses it's near universal. While they may have a 4:3 for reference for foreign releases and legacy, even on set you'll find mot people running large plasmas

Change takes time. Habits appropriate for VHS took a long time to undo on DVD, habits for DVD likewise taking time to break for Blu

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Most people are running 1080p flat panels now. In post houses it's near universal. While they may have a 4:3 for reference for foreign releases and legacy, even on set you'll find mot people running large plasmas

Change takes time. Habits appropriate for VHS took a long time to undo on DVD, habits for DVD likewise taking time to break for Blu

Sorry, I meant some 4x3 pro monitors are being used now.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

THX dragged their heels kicking and screaming into the world of 16x9 encoding. I had several heated arguments with THX tech-folks on the phone back in 1999/2000 as they defended their adherance to 4x3 in the same backwards-thinking way that Criterion did (more 4x3 sets out there... fear of downconversion artifacts blah blah blah). It was bizarre.

Of course, keep in mind that most of the calibrated montitors being used by THX and others to gauge transfer quality etc. were only 4x3... so most of these "experts" didn't even have a 16x9 set to view on, so much of the talk about added resolution was only an intelectual discussion to their mind. We then had the same problem over again when they all added edge-ringing because they only had small diret-view 16x9 monitors in their studios while the rest of the enthusiast world was watching on bigger and bigger screens. It's so ironic that many of the hands entrusted with optimizing quality and preserving image fidelity don't know and/or don't care and/or don't have the understanding to do it right. That seems to be changing over the last few years... hopefully with Blu-ray the tide will begin to turn as the studios now seem to be "getting" that their 1080p images need to look good on a big screen.

Amazing, David.

I really never understood the fear of downconversion artifacts. I mean were they that bad when the first DVD players were released in 1997? I got into DVD in 1999 and my first player was a Sony (DVP-S330 model if I recall) and downconversion was not an issue even on my (non HD) 61" CRT RPTV. (What was a problem were those TERRIBLE scanlines, but that was an issue with the display. My god I hated those! Only by reducing my overscan was I able to make a little improvement with them, but they were by far the worse part of the viewing experience for me in those times.)