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

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Robert, I now notice that your ‘campaign’ regarding Spartacus, isn’t getting that much traction anymore on HTF, despite the fact that you’ve cross-promoted AVS’s screenshot analysis of that Blu-ray now onto HTF. (As an aside, I must say that you do seem to be rather selective in your endorsement of which particular screenshot analyses you decide to use as illustrations in aid of your point of view, because I don’t see you linking xylon’s Dr. Zhivago screenshot analysis onto HTF ).

Since you don’t have any influential contact at Uni to make the changes you desire and there is indeed money to be found, when the issue is of enough importance, maybe you can recruit Arnold as an advocate for your cause also…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/..._news#37388170

Penton,

Your knowledge of two-wheeled devices seems to far exceed your understanding of what I do, the purpose for doing it, and who I know and choose to communicate with at what studios.

If you worked at one of the studios, you might understand that an abortive release such as Spartacus from Universal may not be within the control of those who might wish to make more quality-based decisions.

I don't believe that anything within the technical systems used to create the Spartacus Blu-ray has gone wrong, and no one has done anything that they have not been asked or told to do. I'm assuming that this extends all the way from the selection of a base digital master to the last person signing off on the release for QC. I fully believe that every individual along the entire production line knows what they're doing. The production and release of the Blu-ray of Spartacus is not an error.

As to why I have not made negative comments about Zhivago, a film that I know very well, the answer is simple. Not having been a part of the decision making or research toward handling of the original extant elements, I'm out of the arena as to what is original, what is not, and how it might have looked. Warner's Ned Price was handling that, and I must believe that he's taken the elements available to him, and created the most cohesive looking and highest quality Blu-ray possible.

The film was shot on Eastman 5251, a wonderful color negative stock, which was not overly grainy.

Might a bit of grain reduction have been used in the process?

Possible. It seems to occur with some WB Blu-rays in a small to moderate fashion.

I have no information that it absolutely has, and the final resultant image on Blu-ray (I have not seen data projected) is certainly within rational boundaries of propriety.

Can it look better? I don't know.

With that preface, you'll understand why I'm not linking to other threads of images which may raise questions about quality to which I do not already have the answer. I'm not here to damage a Blu-ray release, nor to potentially create problems for people on a whim.

I'm not here to make negative remarks about someone else's work on a project that I know little about.

The web has potentially made everyone with access to a computer into a blogger and a critic. Some people are taken more seriously than others, and when placed in that situation, those individuals that might affect sales or reputations are best to make very certain that they know what they writing about before they make a statement.

If and when grain or noise reduction is used offensively -- Patton, Gangs, Longest Day, Spartacus, Out of Africa, etc. -- I have no problem being vocal.

If one spends enough time viewing data or Blu-rays, and knows where they have been produced, certain assumptions can be made.

It becomes readily obvious which post facilities are able or unable to handle certain jobs, either because of technical inabilities and / or overall technical mindset. It also becomes obvious within the corporate structure, that certain decisions, which may appear to be made from a callous or unprofessional perspective, may not be what they appear on the surface.

In a general sense, we're dealing with quality corporate executives with children, mortgages and reasonably comfortable lifestyles that desire to keep their lives on target, and their parking spots where they are. I cannot fault them for this.

This is not an anti-corporate "crusade," and there is nothing personal involved.

Lest you many not have understood it previously, my intent is:

1. To do whatever possible to see that quality masters are used toward distribution via Blu-ray, and that the final product properly represents the work as created on film or data. You and I both know that Blu-ray has a technology can handle this to perfection.

2. Attempt to education the consumer base of a number of different things, ranging from:

The fact that they can use Blu-rays rather than standard definition software and even if they do not yet have an HD monitor, play them back now via an inexpensive BD player.

To create an understanding that those consumers who (even on large screens) may like their films looking like Patton, can have it their way by working within the controls provided on their Blu-ray players and monitors, and that the Blu-ray discs do not have to be image-crippled to provide them with their desires.

One Blu-ray version can fit all desires.

That the projected image of a properly produced Blu-ray disc can look very much like film, even on screens 15 or 20 feet wide, assuming a projector of high enough quality and light output.

And lastly, that those who publish and distribute Blu-ray software should set their sights high, and produce software that cannot be bettered, so that the consumer who may appreciate a quality product, may pre-order without fear of receiving garbage. This returns us to releases such as Spartacus, and the corporate answer is that rather than damaging the consumer and the work to simply not release poor product in the Blu-ray format.

There seems to be an overriding consciousness with many consumers, and one can read the results in various threads, that if a Blu-ray product is either in some way better than the earlier DVD, is "the best on Blu-ray," or "looks great on my (fill in the blank), that all is well.

They could not be more wrong.

I've noted before that it could be a perilous decision for one to step aboard a commercial aircraft with GE engines, if the corporate intent were not what I presume it to be, which is to create the finest product humanly and technologically possible. One would not want the corporate mindset to be that "it looks nifty on the outside, let's put a GE logo on it and see if it keeps running." Or to borrow a phrase from an earlier incarnation of GM, which was substantially "The quality goes in, before our logo goes on."

You seem passionate about Blu-ray, and equally as passionate about those two-wheeled things, but from your comments, it seems that your understanding of the corporate world, the studios and what makes them tick, the relationship (with specificity) between Universal & GE and what monies might (or might not) be available to do things and finally why I do what I do, may be a bit lacking.

I don't know if you work for one of the studios, but if you did, and understood the inner machinations, you might have a slightly different mindset, and your comments might take on a bit more serious tone as opposed to being occasionally "cute."

It's extremely easy to hide behind a moniker and expound about the world without recourse. You might seriously consider joining some of the rest of us, who place our reputations on the line when we post, and post with true identification and a bio.

I can't imagine that doing so would take away from either your message or from the pleasure that many people seem to find within your blog.

RAH

[sharkshark]

woah.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

woah.

To say the least.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

woah.

Woah?

I thought it was a very friendly note, making points in a fully respectful fashion. Or do you refer to more than a few words?

RAH

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Woah?

I thought it was a very friendly note,...RAH

I think I must step forward to defend my honor a bit.
One moment.

[Penton-Man]

Iceman, when I try to search my old posts, I hope you realize that I can’t answer any of those random questions about Bart Simpson!

[mark antony]

To be fair to Mr Harris, Penton does seem to take issue with certain things and perhaps go a little OTT in his remarks....just an observation from an impartial reader.

M

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Penton,
You seem passionate about Blu-ray, and equally as passionate about those two-wheeled things, but from your comments, it seems that your understanding of the corporate world, the studios and what makes them tick, the relationship (with specificity) between Universal & GE and what monies might (or might not) be available to do things...

Hardly, I think you may be surprised about that because if you followed my thread from the early days , you would have known that I was the first to inform people (about a week or so after the decision came down) that one of the premier HD DVD evangelists (who wore two hats at the time, one being, Executive VP of HD Strategic Marketing, Universal Home Entertainment, and the other being Co-President of the North American and European HD DVD Promotion Group) was *moving on to pursue other interests*.

As to current affairs, not lacking in that either….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3259259

P.S.
And in regards to the Uni executive situation, I’ll also have you know that when I gave the heads-up to folks here (prior to Variety posting the official notice), that I implored the Blu-ray fanatics (who were smelling blood and poised to pounce once the news became official), to give the poor guy a break, because he was really just following orders.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I don't know if you work for one of the studios, but if you did, and understood the inner machinations, you might have a slightly different mindset, and your comments might take on a bit more serious tone as opposed to being occasionally "cute."RAH

I can be boringly informative leading to disappointment for some when the issue deems it (rather than prefacing my posts with 'ifs', 'buts' or 'my awareness'…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/1856555-post53.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

It's extremely easy to hide behind a moniker and expound about the world without recourse. You might seriously consider joining some of the rest of us, who place our reputations on the line when we post, and post with true identification and a bio.

I can't imagine that doing so would take away from either your message or from the pleasure that many people seem to find within your blog.

RAH

Paidgeek, Talkstr8t and other anonymous insiders would beg to differ with you so, don't play that tired old card with me. That dog won't hunt.

My “reputation” is due to the accuracy of my posting history, which I reminded you when you first joined us on this forum.
Plus, the honesty and accuracy of that posting history is reflected in the number of views (over one million and counting) to which my thread has garnered on this forum ….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-discussion/

Diesel, is my Insider's Thread still ranked as the #2 most read thread on an internet forum which now boasts greater than 100,000 members?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

If and when grain or noise reduction is used offensively -- Patton, Gangs, Longest Day, Spartacus, Out of Africa, etc. -- I have no problem being vocal.

I don’t have any problem with that if that’s how you care to spend your free time. I don’t think you realize what my point was. Allow me to clarify. I am interested in the BIG picture. What disappoints me in your online behavior, is when you use *screenshot science* and its promoters to illustrate your point, you are indirectly endorsing that nonsense which has been proven time and time again to be either inaccurate in its basic presentation for the totality of a motion picture or grossly inaccurate (bordering on witchcraft) as to the assertions and conclusions which are made by the *scientists* themselves or their lap dogs.

As a group, those people do far, far more harm to newcomers of the Blu-ray home theater experience, than they do as a good illustrative service to ‘call out’ one particular Blu-ray product as being flawed.

Your online critiques of motion pictures presented in the Blu-ray format are, I think, for the most part, widely respected for their informational value and entertainment (when you choose to be "cute", I enjoy them even more). Don’t taint them by invoking the *screenshot link* in the bibliography of your thesis.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I don’t have any problem with that if that’s how you care to spend your free time. I don’t think you realize what my point was. Allow me to clarify. I am interested in the BIG picture. What disappoints me in your online behavior, is when you use *screenshot science* and its promoters to illustrate your point, you are indirectly endorsing that nonsense which has been proven time and time again to be either inaccurate in its basic presentation for the totality of a motion picture or grossly inaccurate (bordering on witchcraft) as to the assertions and conclusions which are made by the *scientists* themselves or their lap dogs.

As a group, those people do far, far more harm to newcomers of the Blu-ray home theater experience, than they do as a good illustrative service to ‘call out’ one particular Blu-ray product as being flawed.

Your online critiques of motion pictures presented in the Blu-ray format are, I think, for the most part, widely respected for their informational value and entertainment (when you choose to be "cute", I enjoy them even more). Don’t taint them by invoking the *screenshot link* in the bibliography of your thesis.

Penton,

I'm truly sorry that you find fault in my online behavior. "it's my manner. it looks insubordinate, but it isn't."

The value of screenshots can vary widely. Some are some of no use whatsoever -- I'm certain that we've both seen them literally photographed from a screen or monitor with some tiny digital camera or phone.

That said, there are certain times, and dependent upon who is doing the image extraction and how they are compressed, that they are not only helpful, but can be very, very accurate, and therefore do not consider the use of Xylon's work in my blog as being something that "taints" it.

Whatever your feeling may be regarding AVS, I would hope that you would be able to view the site in an overall fashion. And when viewed in that way, there are certain parts which work well and are helpful to the consumer. There may be other parts, as you note, which you feel may not.

I find that Xylon's images from Spartacus tell an accurate tale, and that's why I was comfortable using them. My intent is that the consumer be forewarned before spending their hard earned cash.

And thank you for acknowledging what I might be permitted to do that with my "free time." Sometimes reading your words creates the illusion that people, including me, should do things or not based upon solely upon permissions that must granted by you. We might not be allowed to discuss something that falls outside of the purvey of your "BIG picture."

Sometimes with your posturing "I can't make out whether you're bad-mannered or just half-witted."

RAH

[Penton-Man]

^
Now, you’re going from “a very friendly note” to outright insulting.
Whatever makes you happy Bob.
If it makes you feel any better or more justified, consider me both.

A dueling quote from the real thing - "in the distant future, if the distant future deigns to consider my insignificance, I shall be appraised rather as a man of letters than a man of action."

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
Now, you’re going from “a very friendly note” to outright insulting.
Whatever makes you happy Bob.
If it makes you feel any better or more justified, consider me both.

A dueling quote from the real thing - "in the distant future, if the distant future deigns to consider my insignificance, I shall be appraised rather as a man of letters than a man of action."

I find it interesting that while your posts occasionally inch over that borderline toward obnoxious and rude, your ultimate desire appears more towards denigration.

It does not make me "feel better" to consider you "outright insulting." I can only suggest that you occasionally read your own words before you push the send button.

But if a duel is what you desire, then a duel it is!

From the reel thing - "He likes your lemonade."

Or alternatively from the real, and one of my favorites -

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did."

Take that, Penton!

RAH

[garyrc]

Mr. Harris,

Your long letter to Penton-Man may be the best post I have seen yet, especially your statement of intent. I hope the studio decision makers (those in the most authority) read it.

Of course, I'm not referring to the dynamics of your disagreements with Penton-Man, but to your clear articulation of the better quality options available to the studios and the consumers alike. I think your point about the ability of the consumer to obliterate detail when playing a high quality disk, if they so wish, should be on every future disk, something like "We have made every effort to produce a disk that is faithful to the original film; this required highly detailed images. Consumers who prefer a softer, less detailed image may adjust the controls on their Blu-ray players and monitors to achieve this." That reminds me of what people did in the audio domain with the late lamented tone controls on their stereo receivers, preamps, integrated amps, etc.

I'd like to plug Paul Goodman's definition of professionalism into this discussion. With your public posts and reviews, you are hewing to his definition. It would take a lot of courage for the people following orders in a studio setting to do this, particularly in a time of recession, but skilled, sensitive, diplomatic studio workers might be able to pull it off, particularly with support from experts and consumers from outside the corporation. Goodman rejected some of the common definitions of professionalism that incorporate concepts like obedience, conformity, dress-code, going through channels or not going at all, and the like, because, as he said, we already have words for these behaviors. He reserved the word "professional" for those who "Use their special knowledge, training and experience to do the best job they can." He quickly added that this might occasionally include skillfully opposing the front office, and if that failed, in selected cases, going to the press. Naturally the Jeffersonian principle of not doing this for "light and transient causes" would apply, "but when a long train of abuses ....." One of the most extreme examples of the failure of anything short of Goodman's variety of professionalism was the Challenger disaster. When the man who warned about O ring failure could not get his superiors to acknowledge the rudimentary rules of probability he gave up (or time ran out). Had he gone to the New York Times, the Challenger might not have blown up. While our Blu-ray concerns are trivial by comparison, the principle still applies.

Thanks for your efforts.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by garyrc

One of the most extreme examples of the failure of anything short of Goodman's variety of professionalism was the Challenger disaster. When the man who warned about O ring failure could not get his superiors to acknowledge the rudimentary rules of probability he gave up (or time ran out). Had he gone to the New York Times, the Challenger might not have blown up. While our Blu-ray concerns are trivial by comparison, the principle still applies.

How many people died when a subpar Spartacus was released?

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

How many people died when a subpar Spartacus was released?

I said that our concerns were trivial by comparison, but that the principle still applied! Although killing art is nothing like killing people, it is still sad, especially if it is not necessary.

[MerrickG]

So, ummm who is watching the French Open? Id like to see Fed win it again, but the smart money is on the very classy Rafael Nadal.

As for womens....I dont know but my girls Ana Ivanovic and Maria Sharapova are gone so Ive lost interest. Go Serena!

[Jeff Kleist]

No sports in my thread

[Oliver K]

I am making a complimentary post to Penton about RAH praising Sony releases and Grover Crisp and a few pages later we have a full blown dispute between two highly respected forum members - now that isn't nice!

I would rather see a discussion about Universal and why they do what they do with their classics and catalog - has any information been forthcoming as to why some of the latest releases looked so bad and if things are (hopefully) changing for the better?

In the meantime, if money is indeed very tight for Universal I would prefer for them to simply stop releasing classics and catalog until they have the money that is needed to do it right.