There's a very interesting discussion going on over on Hollywood Elsewhere today about whether studios re-releasing older movies on Blu-ray are going too far in tweaking the originals to make them look "better." At the center of the discussion is the Dirty Harry Blu-ray DVD. Glenn Erickson, writing for film.com, points out that the Patton Blu-ray DVD was "enhanced to minimize the natural grain," but that in that case, the altering makes it look more like the theatrical 70mm presentation, so he doesn't take issue with that one. The Dirty Harry Blu-ray, however, Erickson considers "more complicated." He notes:

"The Blu-ray disc shows heavy tweaking to minimize grain, sharpen contrast and brighten colors. Sunny exteriors haven't changed much but heavy processing has given most night shots an almost unnatural look -- detail and bright color in what were once dimly lit areas, with everything else falling into inky blackness. "

Jeff Wells doesn't have a problem with this -- if it makes Dirty Harry look better, who cares? But in the discussion thread on the post, folks are getting down into the nitty-gritty of the issue: studios doing digital remastering for Blu-ray transfers, sometimes without consulting the cinematographer as to why scenes where shot as they were. HE commenter TheVicuna links to an excellent interview at cameraguild.com, the website for the International Cinematographer's Guild, with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond; in part of the interview, he talks about the DVD transfer of Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye, for which he was not called in to supervise the transfer; the resulting transfer, Zsigmond says in the interview, was "terrible."

A couple of weeks ago, I ordered a Netflix Player by Roku -- a little box that lets Netflix subscribers watch the company's video-on-demand selections on a TV set. We already had a media computer hooked up to our TV, but it runs on a Linux platform so we couldn't use it to Watch Instantly on Netflix, which is Windows-only. The Roku player was priced at $99, which is a little steep for a gamble on whether the quality would be acceptable and whether we could make it work with our increasingly bulky TV/media setup, but we decided to give it a shot.

The box, which is about the size of a large paperback, arrived last weekend while I was at the farmers' market, and by the time I returned with tomatoes and peaches, my husband had hooked the box into our TV setup and activated it through our Netflix account. He tells me this was a very easy thing to do, although we're talking about someone who spent time the night before creating a fancy diagram of our devices and cabling input/output so he'd know exactly where and how to hook up the Roku box. (We also have a digital TV tuner, two DVD players, a VCR, and the media computer.) Here are the ups and downs we've discovered so far about the newest addition to our home's TV/media setup.

As usual, I'm not going to pretend to understand the technologies behind modern home entertainment. And so, before I begin, I'd like to prematurely thank any commenters who choose to weigh in on things such as "selectable output control," "the analog hole" or any other terms I might misuse or incorrectly explain. The only thing I comprehend about those electronic doohickeys in my living room is that they each somehow connect to my antiquated analog television and through the magic of, well, I don't know, I'm able to watch the occasional classic movie and mindless cake design program.

Those familiar with this column should know that I'm not here to necessarily explain how threats to movie theaters work. I'm just here to yell, "the sky is falling!" from within the lobby of the local cinema and hope that you Henny Pennys and Goosey Looseys are listening to my rants and ramblings and at least try to go to the movies more often (and hopefully buy at least one thing at the concession stand). This time, however, I feel even less knowledgeable about the latest threat, and I feel even more fearful that this is the beginning of the end. The cinemapocalypse, if you will.

Who of us hasn't been annoyed by young teens texting during the movie? Even if the kids have the sound turned off on their phones, the light from the displays are enough of a distraction to take our eyes off the bigger screen in front of us. Hollywood has made it clear, too, that text messaging is a problem for the movies. But for studio execs, the issue is with people texting their friends about how the new movie they're watching is not worth seeing. Bad buzz travels fast these days, and part of it's thanks to cell phones.

But cinemas will soon embrace texting as an interactive part of the moviegoing experience. Of course, it's just the latest way in which the exhibition industry is actually ruining the experience by bombarding patrons with obnoxious advertisements. This time it's part of a Verizon Wireless V Cast campaign in which audience members are asked to participate in polls appearing throughout the pre-show "entertainment." The ads ask a question, maybe about your favorite music, then you text the answer, and the results show up on the screen. Apparently, it's thought to actually be something that will lure customers, not keep them away.

The technology and ads, courtesy of Verizon and Screenvision, will be appearing in cinemas later this month, but only in the 10 major U.S. cities (New York, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.). Reportedly, one of the ads was directed by Spike Lee and features Chris Cornell and Timbaland, but it's probably still not worth the nuisance of knowing the spots encourage texting during the movie.




[via CinemaTech]

I love seeing old film. I'm glad that I first saw Touch of Evil in an old theater with a gritty and grainy copy. I wouldn't be too thrilled to see a current film that way, but there's just something about the mixture of squiggles and grains on a piece of old film that makes the oldies pop and become a whole different experience.

However, the more time that passes, the more damaged film becomes, and restorative measures have to be taken. And of course, not everyone wants those squiggles. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Warner Bros. Technical Operations is restoring George Cukor's A Star is Born in 6K resolution as a test run. Right now, most restoration is at 2K, and an increasing amount are done at 4K, but of course, that still loses a lot of information. So, this is the first jump into even more.

The project is scheduled to take four-six months, and at some point, this restored version will then get released on Blue-ray and normal DVD. This is a test run, but who knows what's next? What old WB films would you like to see get the 6K treatment?

I'm beginning to believe that no one really wants to watch movies anymore. Or, at least, they don't want to actively watch them. Big movie theaters are hurting with the advent of saucy home theater systems, and it seems like most people would rather curl up on their couch then head out for the big community experience. We've already heard arguments about the mass distractions that are attached to home viewing, but I never thought that it would become part of the movie experience.

The Hollywood Reporter posts that Walt Disney is itching to use Blu-ray's Live technology to make a more interactive movie experience. But they're not talking about the Choose Your Own Adventure sort of fare. They're adding a whole lot of bells and whistles to their classics. First up, my favorite Disney film ever -- Sleeping Beauty.

Luckily, it doesn't seem to be presenting anything that will make me want to go out and get a new player. It's all movie distractions. It might be cool that the menu will have a customized version of Sleeping Beauty's castle that will reflect your weather conditions, but that's just fluff. Besides that, there's just things to distract you from the film -- integrated chats on the movie screen, customized video messages to insert into the movie, the option to mail clips to friends, trivia games, and the option for a constant stream of web trailers.

If you're anything like me, you have completely given up on the next installment of Transformers having even a whiff of plot, and instead you are just going to sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Speaking of, it looks like it's going to be quite the show, too. The keen eyes over Comic2Film noticed that in the Dolby News release for ShoWest 2008, Transformers 2 was listed as a 3D film slated for 2009.

There have been plenty of updates for the film lately, but unfortunately most of them turned out to be smoke and mirrors -- just ask Teresa Palmer. But, a 3D release could be the real deal, even though we haven't heard a peep from Michael Bay on the matter. Kind of surprising, too, considering he is not the kind of guy who likes to keep quiet about these sorts of things.

Transformers 2 is scheduled to start filming on location in Pennsylvania this June, but everything is going to hinge on whether or not the SAG strike can be averted. A 3D release does make sense if you think about it, especially since the only way to top the FX of the first film is to have them flying off the screen at the audience this time around. (Yay! A monster truck is flying toward me at 150mph! Ain't this fun!)

Weigh in below and let us know if you think 3D is the way to go for our robotic friends, or will it just be an excuse for Bay to spend even more time on the FX and even less time on the script?

[via Comic2Film]

With every passing story I read about border control or security insanity, I'm beginning to think that once you have any responsibility for your country's safety, you go insane. Everyday objects become suspect (like a friend harassed in the US for having a couple pictures of an ex amongst the pics he was traveling with), and sometimes, objects are given extraordinary value. I was once charged a couple hundred dollars in Canadian tariffs for a Buffy DVD that was sent to me as a gift, and had to prove that the box set wasn't worth their astronomical estimated cost. But I guess I can consider myself lucky that "Buffy" didn't make the border powers that be think the discs were porn.

Canoe reports that a new Canadian film from John N. Smith (Dangerous Minds) was held at the border because of its name: Love and Savagery. The romantic drama headed to Ireland last month to shoot some scenes, and then the footage was shipped to Montreal for processing, where it was stopped by the border patrol. Smith says: "There was a big kerfuffle and they suspected us of being involved in the pornography trade. They were insisting they were going to send it off to the RCMP lab to develop it to see if we were engaged in pornography." This created a bit of a panic as they worried about the potential damage RCMP processing would have on the footage.

Well, okay: maybe that's hyperbole about the death of DVD. On the other hand, maybe it's not. In what has to be seen as a major vote of confidence in online content delivery, almost all of the major studios (including Fox, Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Universal, Lionsgate, and what's left of New Line) have signed with Apple to offer many of their movies on the iTunes Store's download-to-own service -- simultaneously with the release of the DVDs. This seems to show that they're not squeamish about losing DVD sales -- or at least not squeamish enough to turn down the attractive deal Apple no doubt offered.

Most new movies currently offered for sale on iTunes cost 10 to 15 bucks and about 1 GB in hard drive space (depending on the length). AppleTV, the device that Apple hoped would make the iTunes Store even more prevalent by making content purchased there watchable on users' television sets, has been beset by problems, and free advertising-supported content providers like Hulu.com also present a challenge. But whether or not iTunes wins, we're getting inexorably closer to the day of physical media obsolescence. The studios have now shown they're willing to go there (this announcement comes on the heels of Time Warner's decision to offer all of its movies via On-Demand cable day-and-date with DVD releases).

Of course, videophiles will still want their Blu-Ray, and it's hard to blame them. But it's only a matter of hard drive space. Tick-tock.

Once in awhile I come across little stories that are relevant to this column that don't necessarily call for so many words of commentary. But it's a shame to skip over them, so occasionally, I'd like to break The Exhibitionist up a bit and write about a few of them at once.


The first thing that caught my attention this week was a report of a study focused on ambient lighting, such as the kind used in cinemas. According to research conducted by academics at the University of Cumbria in England, and at University College Dublin in Ireland, movies should be viewed in rooms that are as well lit as the movies themselves. So, yes, that means your local multiplex has the lights dimmed way too low.

But, you wonder, isn't it dark in theaters because we can see the movie much better that way? And when we're at home don't we turn out the lights, or, when it's daytime, close the shades for the same reason? Well, yes, but incorrectly so, say Cumbria's Professor David Manning and UCD's Professor Patrick Brennan. Their findings indicate that such darkness actually hinders the eye's ability to see at optimum capability. "Ideally, ambient light should be adapted to the brightness of the screen for the eye to pick up as much detail as it can," Manning said. "However, most people prefer to watch films in a darkened room, but as the eye adapts to the surrounding light these conditions may not be conducive to picking up maximum visual detail."