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

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I've only seen it on DVD, so I can't say either way.

Though I will say that any studio that's thinking that they can just send an old master out for a bit of scrubbing, especially if that master has been seen in HD before is fooling themselves. People will notice, and all it's going to do is blow up in your face. Uni needs to seriously rethink what they're doing with their catalog and stop sending half-assed rehashes out there.

I'm personally glad they pulled Tremors, the HD DVD was terrible, and since there's a new movie coming, it's a much better idea to hold it till then and have time to redo it.

There's another post by Robert Harris in his "Elizabeth" thread, and he implies the HD-DVD was fine. In his original post he says they have DNR-ed the master to death, then they have added EE and boosted the contrast. So they don't have money for new scans, but they do for "improving" the old masters....

I haven't bought that many Uni catalog lately, but I did buy "Army or darkness", and that's exactly how it looks, scrubbed clean and with lots of EE. I think "Tremors" looked like that too.

People on the AV Froum are also saying that the new "Spartacus" BD seems to be the same old master, only DNR-ed.

I shudder thinking how "Psycho" will look next October.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If it was on HD DVD, count on them porting it instead of redoing it for the most part, because it saves money. It's the same reason why all their discs are templated.

I wouldn't be surprised if some loyalists to Kornblau are still running the home video department. I would not put format war loss pettiness out of the realm of possibilities at Universal since they were so heavily backing the competition. Remember they were the only exclusive HD DVD studio from beginning of HD DVD and they stayed that way until the very end.

Or Universal like many other companies in the current state of the economy is just being cheap.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I'll be very happy when they run out of HD DVD ports. Blu-ray releases should not be "optimized for an inferior format"

At the rate they shoveled titles to HD DVD, I doubt we will see this practice end any time soon.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

I watch on a 60" Kuro, so it is not exactly a small screen,

but what's your viewing angle? 1.5 screen-widths (a "theater-like" viewing angle) or farther away like 2 screen widths or more (a "TV" viewing distance)? Getting farther away than 1.5 start to mask small details... once you get out to 2 screen widths the types of problems RAH is talking about might not be visible.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Is it the best it can look? No. Is it the best it can look with the budget they are likely being allotted? Yes, because they have no money for new scans, cleanup etc in it

Well, is it the scan or the subsequent processing and compression that is the issue here or for other (HD to BD) releases?

More specifically, I imagine the preparation of a film to be a series of steps:
(1) scan
(2) dust, dirt, alignment, and scratch removal processing
(3) color timing and sharpening
(4) compression

Each of these stages, assuming that they are distinct stages, produces a new file(s) sized in terrabytes.

The question is: Are the files from each stage saved? Can they start a new master for a new BD release simply by going back to the files produced by stage 2, then proceeding anew? This can save money and time while re-executing the stages the produced the compromised results.

Cheers!
-Jim

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

see his review here--
it is quite the condemnation.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...eth-in-blu-ray

There goes someone’s invite to the Christmas party in Dec.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Or Universal like many other companies in the current state of the economy is just being cheap.

That sounds about right...

You would think, since the primary products these studio produce is filmed entertainment, they would want to keep it in the best shape possible. Especially if they eventually want to make digital archive masters...

Then again, once they opened films up to the Walmart commodities market with VHS and Blu-ray, quality generally became a secondary issue. It doesn't help that most of their markets have no background in film, they just crunch numbers.

Of course, if they had been crunching numbers correctly, they would have seen the slow down in DVD sales coming. Considering there were new HD formats on the horizon and the economy was in the tank.

There's only so many times people will buy product... Hell, I'm a hard core collector, and I'm starting to reach my limit. Therefore, if the quality if garbage, I'll skip a poor re-issue, or at least wait until it is dirt cheap, if it is a film I can't live without

fitprod

[DaViD Boulet]

Is it the best it can look? No. Is it the best it can look with the budget they are likely being allotted? Yes, because they have no money for new scans, cleanup etc in it

It sounds like most of the criticism from in-the-know parties like reviews from RAH and at blu.com have to do with bad digital processing things that the studio actively does (DNR, EE, filter) rather than things it didn't do (leave visible grain, scratches untouched).

Agreed that it takes $$ to do a full and proper restoration... whether analog or digital. But "merely leaving the film alone" would be better than the DNR/EE'd pictures coming out in certain cases.

[Jeff Kleist]

Most things like that are done in the mastering stage, and it's Rae for anything other than the final product to be saved

I wouldn't be surprised if some loyalists to Kornblau are still running the home video department. I would not put format war loss pettiness out of the realm of possibilities at Universal since they were so heavily backing the competition. Remember they were the only exclusive HD DVD studio from beginning of HD DVD and they stayed that way until the very end.

Company with a history of not spending a lot on such things and Is about to be sold. I would definately NOT chalk to sabotage

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Company with a history of not spending a lot on such things and Is about to be sold. I would definately NOT chalk to sabotage

Just for some perspective on the matter…
Uni, with only $170 million in operating income on revenue of $3.8 billion in 2009, was not a significant factor in Comcast’s proposed deal to acquire controlling interest of the studio’s parent, namely NBC Universal. By my math, that comes out to a measly 4.4% enterprise value of the parent company (NBC Universal).

Not to mention the fact that it is not a ‘done deal’ and some believe it will have a tough time getting past the DOJ and FCC.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, all things being equal and fair, the DOJ, FTC and FCC would kick this one to the curb

However one can never underestimate the potential power of the proper incentives ending up in the right pockets. Personally I think mergers should be what they used to be, a very rare event, and almost never allowed for companies the size of Comcast and NBC/Uni. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in anymore, and I'm sure whatever restrictions might be placed on them will be lobbied away in short order

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Well, all things being equal and fair, the DOJ, FTC and FCC would kick this one to the curb

However one can never underestimate the potential power of the proper incentives ending up in the right pockets. Personally I think mergers should be what they used to be, a very rare event, and almost never allowed for companies the size of Comcast and NBC/Uni. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in anymore, and I'm sure whatever restrictions might be placed on them will be lobbied away in short order

Socialist!

[Nick Graham]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Socialist!

He's one of them Pinkos! Keep the guvmint out of my mega media conglomerates!

[Nick Graham]

Mr. Harris has now posted his thoughts on Spartacus:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...cus-in-blu-ray

Rut-roh, Raggy.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

but what's your viewing angle? 1.5 screen-widths (a "theater-like" viewing angle) or farther away like 2 screen widths or more (a "TV" viewing distance)? Getting farther away than 1.5 start to mask small details... once you get out to 2 screen widths the types of problems RAH is talking about might not be visible.

In tests we ran when considering a 10 foot wide screen (true width @2.39:1 AR, making a 'scope image about 4.18 feet high and 10 feet wide), we preferred the immersion of 1 to 1.3 screen widths, so if we buy a piece of good fabric that wide, we want our Blu-rays sharp and detailed!

Color slides taken with an old Nikon in c 1970 are also fine at the same height (4.18 feet), and the slides themselves are pretty close to the same heights as a 70 mm movie negative, so I would hope the old 70 mm classics, usually using better lenses than on the Nikon, would look O.K., excluding those that have been FUBAR, like Patton, El Cid, etc.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by garyrc

In tests we ran when considering a 10 foot wide screen (true width @2.39:1 AR, making a 'scope image about 4.18 feet high and 10 feet wide), we preferred the immersion of 1 to 1.3 screen widths, so if we buy a piece of good fabric that wide, we want our Blu-rays sharp and detailed!

Color slides taken with an old Nikon in c 1970 are also fine at the same height (4.18 feet), and the slides themselves are pretty close to the same heights as a 70 mm movie negative, so I would hope the old 70 mm classics, usually using better lenses than on the Nikon, would look O.K., excluding those that have been FUBAR, like Patton, El Cid, etc.

Agreed. 1.5 is sort of the max-distance ratio. Closer can be better... I find that I prefer sitting 1.2-1.3 widths for most well recorded Blu-rays as it's the most cinematic... especially 2.35:1 material.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

Mr. Harris has now posted his thoughts on Spartacus:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...cus-in-blu-ray

Rut-roh, Raggy.

Well, that'll be good reading for the 10 or 20 people who still bother with HTF.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

Mr. Harris has now posted his thoughts on Spartacus:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...cus-in-blu-ray

Rut-roh, Raggy.

And which outside post facility was commissioned by Fox to do the work on “The Agony and the Ectasy” and “Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines”?...as Oliver K. does a slow groan -

Flash back to 7/16/08 (nearly two years ago)…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post1022960

Robert, if you word it like above ^, it’s ‘safer’.
Looks like you won't be invited to any Holiday parties for the next...2 years!

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And which outside post facility was commissioned by Fox to do the work on “The Agony and the Ectasy” and “Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines”?...as Oliver K. does a slow groan -

Flash back to 7/16/08 (nearly two years ago)…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post1022960

Robert, if you word it like above ^, it’s ‘safer’.
Looks like you won't be invited to any Holiday parties for the next...2 years!

How does this sort of thing happen over and over and after such publicity?

Doesn't a mastering house get a bad reputation after screwing up something like Patton? don't the big studios mark their list of who not to call next time when they need to outsource the work? I'm just baffled... why would Universal even involve the work of a group who clearly were (are?) so misguided from within that they thought they were doing the world a favor with their Patton scrubbing?

The saddest part is with such a stellar large-format interpostive element on hand, a stunning, breathtaking new film-to-digital transfer could have not only solved all the problems the digital wizards tried to clean up to the detrement of image detail, but the result of a new full-resolution large format scan could have set this disc up as an all-time reference.

I hope that those with influence in the industry do their part to shame the who's-who at Universal to change course and, can we dare to hope, re-release Spartacus (and other catalog) on blu-ray properly delivered with full transparency to the film source as 1920 x 1080 HD can allow.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And which outside post facility was commissioned by Fox to do the work on “The Agony and the Ectasy” and “Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines”?...

And I am more worried about this, since other releases may be a done deal for awhile.