Inception - Page 14

They've gone AVC with The Town...

... But they've apparently encoded the theatrical and extended versions separately.

Warner - seemingly getting better, still not quite getting it right.

Average Bitrate: 13.95 Mbps / 13.97 Mbps

At first, I was like, "Why on earth would they do that?"

But, I've seen the Extended Cut... Almost every scene has something added (and in some parts, taken away) in the extended cut. So, I guess it made more sense to them to just put two different cuts rather than do a nonsensical amount of seamless branching.

Also, I'm not worried about the bitrate. I've seen a 4gb 720p rip, and that looked really great. So, I guess I'll be happy with the full size 1080p rip.

I think you missing the key difference between a codec and encoder. The codecs cant be improved after the format specification is finalized, or else it would be impossible for older players to decode the movie. You can however improve the encoder, but that has little to do with the codec.


Apples and oranges since every movie is unique. But what scene do you think need 20 mbs?

They didnt as an example use a DI for the entire movie of Inception (just some scenes), this moves down the master a couple of generation from the negative, compared to alot of other movies that uses DI for the entire movie.


Why does they need to use High frequensy filtering? It you want to encode with lower bitrate, you just encode with lower bitrate.

Are these grotesquely uninformed generalizatons, or do you have data or information to back this up?

And I don't understand the encoder comment at all, as just pointed out above.

It was... okay. Carry on.

We saw it at the Uptown in DC (non-IMAX). I had trouble w/ Ken's lines as well. Although I studied Japanese in the past, and generally can focus past people's accents, I thought his heavy accent gave me trouble. Maybe his voice is just softer, or maybe he was recorded poorly, or a combination of all these things.

Doug

This movie has the most ridiculous score I've ever heard. It's hilarious. Good flick.

The score for the Dark Knight (especially during scenes with the Joker) was similar; I suppose you could classify it as "ridiculous" - I think it works great with the story, and helps to ramp up the intensity...

And they TOTALLY ripped off the 'Funny or Die' spoof in the process. I read that they thought the Funny or Die spoof was using the actual lines from the movie, which is why they ripped it off so hard. I don't think that's a fair excuse since it was almost a line for line rip-off.

Oh it's ridiculous. Every piece is a bombastic seemingly endless crescendo.

Thanks for the South Park tip. I loved the special dream operative they brought in at the end.

I couldn't understand half of what he said but it didn't make any difference so I assumed it was intentional.

Agreed. I saw it twice in the theater. The first time, upon being asked how was the movie, without even thinking about it, I replied, "It's a masterpiece."

I still feel that way.

I agree. I put the soundtrack on my mp3 player months ago and it makes ordinary moments seem much more interesting during my runs on the street. An old lady walking down the avenue or a car approaching as "Half Remembered Dream" or "Mombassa" are reaching crescendos makes everyday moments transcend the ordinary and move into sublime territory. Hey, at least it takes my mind off my aching feet!

Any more PQ comments/observations?

Yes. Worst soft shot on this movie:



I always blamed the projectionist in the theaters for not getting Arthur's head in focus at all, but it was all for naught.

On that same token, here are the most beautiful shots:

During that shot of Arthur I kept waiting for one of my guests to ask what happened to the picture.

I found Inception to be both excellent AND overrated.

Wally Pfister and Chris Nolan HATE the DI process. They love photochemical timing. They are always a ton of soft shots in their movies because they don't go the digital route. The exceptions are the VistaVision shots (because they'll still retain a lot of resolution) and any shots that have to go the DI route for visual effects.

There were a number of shots with horribly clipped black levels because that's simply how they were filmed. They're movies certainly look more "filmic," so it's a trade off. In general, I like the look of Nolan films (minus the lack of sharpness) simply because they don't look like The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3. A lot of Hollywood movies go silly overboard in color correction.

EDIT: IMDb indicates that 65mm was used in a few places.

This disc looks and sounds quite good. One question:



Thoughts?

Nolan has done that in 3 or 4 of his other films (start with a scene near the end or at the end, and then go to the beginning, and then show how we got to that scene). It's a technique called 'in media res.' At first, I analyzed it and thought about it like you are, and then I remembered that Nolan likes doing that and I stopped thinking about it.

I really don't think it was done for any other reason other than to confuse us and start the next scene 'in media res,' too - just like all dreams seem to start.

It just seems like neither scene has the 'entire' scene in it, and that bits were left out of both scenes so it wouldn't be as repetitive. That's why the second time we see it, we don't hear the dialog from the guards, etc.

Thanks, DeadMike.



But I'll try to take your advice and not think about it.

Haha! By all means, analyze it if you wish (this is, after all, a fun film to analyze), but I just don't see what Nolan would be trying to accomplish if the scene was not simple 'in media res.' I just remember my feeling when the scene switched from old to young. I was like, "Uhhh... What!?" And then when the scene happened again at the end, I was like, "Ohhhhhhhh! I see what they did there."

Again, that's what I thought as well, but there are differences.


And yet, no one will really ever know why. It's strange how that works.

Yeah. Reminds me of the famous line from 'Pulp Fiction' (which I can't repeat due to all of the curse words) being one way in the opening scene, and very different once we actually get to that scene at the end of the movie. I don't know why this stuff happens...

Nolan did it for a reason, but I'm trying my best to connect the dots. Whatever the case, it probably has everything to do with the answer to the question people might as at the very end of the movie as well.

In a way, we were nearly given a double feature solely based on how that question is answered. That answer will change how you would view the entire movie as we know it, including the scene(s) we're mentioning.

BTW I got those lines reversed in the beginning and ending part, my bad.