The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[levcore]

Watched this last night, finally. Overall very pleased. Not crazy about the teal colour grading though, i found that more distracting that any grain management.

The movie is still a 5 star masterpiece, although i must confess, I've not watched the theatrical cut for many years and i only watched the extended cut yesterday. They don't make them like this anymore, not even Cameron can make them like this anymore (and i loved Way of the Water).

The set they built in that big tank is just so amazing. The extras on WOTW are so dull because it's all just in a studio with minimal sets. You can't beat these huge sets that Hollywood used to go all in for. This and Waterworld, just amazing from a production standpoint.

[suspiciouscoffee]

I love the Avatar movies too, especially TWOW, but I agree this is Cameron's best. Plus I have fond memories of playing the theme in my high school marching band years ago. I'd not seen the movie when I first got the music but I quickly found the VHS and fell in love with it. Never got the DVD so this release was an even more massive upgrade. I didn't even see the SE until last winter when this transfer was put in theaters, it felt like seeing it for the first time.

I guess it's at least a little hypocritical to love this release warts and all and hate the Aliens one so much, but whatever.

[Chumpster99]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

To me the Spanish BD is just as problematic for different reasons, neither is all that great in all honesty but where the 4K master wins very slightly is the color timing, the original blue blanket pallette being restored

In my mind the 4k is wrong for its own reasons. The pale teal in a lot of scenes just don't look right to me and is wrong in a different way. Plus the horrific DNR/AI usage just makes it lethal/irredeemable to me. At least the old D-Theatre master can be fan-regraded, you can't take out the AI garbage of the new master.

If we were talking the pre-AI lowry master, I'd probably say it would be overall better, esp. if the potential of fan regrades were factored in, but that's not what ended up on the disc sadly.

[anephric]

Originally Posted by cochon

I kind of remember quite a lot of complains and that is the reason I've never bought it so far. But 4K UHD is about getting closer to the original film than what BD could ever achieve so I think the rise in complains about inferior quality are not surprising. Also, now physical media is being relegated more and more to purist that want the best, the vast majority of the mass consumer are being put off by the hassle and expense of having players and discs when they can stream at a lower cost.

There was certainly a TONNE of complaints about Terminator's remixed 5.1 and all the new foley.

[bigrob]

Originally Posted by anephric

There was certainly a TONNE of complaints about Terminator's remixed 5.1 and all the new foley.

don't forget the first MGM DVD release where all the opening prologue was relegated to player generated subtitles at the bottom of the screen.

[Okiephile]

Originally Posted by maverick22

Ouch! Haha

I think we can get past the Clippers. It may end after that series though. Let’s see!

Spanked you pretty well in the first game!

[Ben_UK]

I've caved and ordered the Spanish release to the UK.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by bigrob

don't forget the first MGM DVD release where all the opening prologue was relegated to player generated subtitles at the bottom of the screen.

Image released the first DVD, MGM didn't release it on DVD till the 2001 SE DVD

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Image released the first DVD, MGM didn't release it on DVD till the 2001 SE DVD

He said 'first MGM DVD', not DVD in general. And he's right, the UK special edition actually changed out the opening prologue text for player-generated subs! Ridiculous.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by suspiciouscoffee

[Show spoiler]I love the Avatar movies too, especially TWOW, but I agree this is Cameron's best. Plus I have fond memories of playing the theme in my high school marching band years ago. I'd not seen the movie when I first got the music but I quickly found the VHS and fell in love with it. Never got the DVD so this release was an even more massive upgrade. I didn't even see the SE until last winter when this transfer was put in theaters, it felt like seeing it for the first time.

I guess it's at least a little hypocritical to love this release warts and all and hate the Aliens one so much, but whatever.

Nope. They are very different and you are not a hypocrite. While speculation abounds as to why The Abuse (and Titanic tbh) look so much less futzed with than Aliens and TL, whether it's a newer transfer at full 4k that was sent through the mAIgic machine or not, it's clear that this one is very much enjoyable. It has niggling issues, like the occasional googley eyes, but those moments are fleeting enough that you can sink into the movie proper and just enjoy. AIliens, on the other hand, is much more problematic. One can find enjoyment still, I suppose, but it's an effort beyond what I can pull off personally.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]He said 'first MGM DVD', not DVD in general. And he's right,

the UK special edition actually changed out the opening prologue text for player-generated subs! Ridiculous.

That sounds... awful.

[Krynoid-Man]

It's a pretty common practise over here sadly (the 4K of Scarface is similarly affected for example). Since the UK was the same region code as the rest of Europe, distributors realised the could use the same disc in multiple territories by using a textless master of the film and include player generated subs in various languages, thus saving money.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

He said 'first MGM DVD', not DVD in general. And he's right, the UK special edition actually changed out the opening prologue text for player-generated subs! Ridiculous.

Oh ok, had no idea, I'm only familiar with the US releases

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember this much of an uproar (there were some complaints, mind you) when the first TERMINATOR was released on BD with a remastering equally annoying and intrusive that completely falsified the look of the movie for a modernized, "enhanced & improved" (as well as teal-tinted) appearance. Are we getting more discriminating & demanding in the 4K-UHD era? I certainly hope so.

No. Not equally. At all.

The Lowry masters for The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies may not have been a "film purist's dream," but they were much better than what James Cameron and Peter Jackson's AI gang have whipped together on this go round.

[MattmanAlpha]

Originally Posted by cochon

But 4K UHD is about getting closer to the original film than what BD could ever achieve so I think the rise in complains about inferior quality are not surprising.

I guess that depends on if you view 4K as a step closer to or a step further from film. One thing that was ingrained on me when the "no 4K, no sale" argument first started was an explanation given by Kino about one of their 2K scans (I forget which one).

They said the natural resolution of 35mm film is roughly 2K, making 4K just a blow-up. And the colorimetry of the Blu-ray format is more accurate to 35mm than expanded HDR.

I'm sure someone will go on blast against me for sharing this opinion that BD is the best suited format for catalogue films.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by MattmanAlpha

I guess that depends on if you view 4K as a step closer to or a step further from film. One thing that was ingrained on me when the "no 4K, no sale" argument first started was an explanation given by Kino about one of their 2K scans (I forget which one).

They said the natural resolution of 35mm film is roughly 2K, making 4K just a blow-up. And the colorimetry of the Blu-ray format is more accurate to 35mm than expanded HDR.

I'm sure someone will go on blast against me for sharing this opinion that BD is the best suited format for catalogue films.

Not really.

[suspiciouscoffee]

A lot of that depends on stock, but unless you’re using remarkably slow film, or coming from a late generation source like a release print, you should have some level of benefit to 4k over 2k. The HDR debate I can’t speak to because I know next to nothing about color.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MattmanAlpha

I guess that depends on if you view 4K as a step closer to or a step further from film. One thing that was ingrained on me when the "no 4K, no sale" argument first started was an explanation given by Kino about one of their 2K scans (I forget which one).

They said the natural resolution of 35mm film is roughly 2K, making 4K just a blow-up. And the colorimetry of the Blu-ray format is more accurate to 35mm than expanded HDR.

I'm sure someone will go on blast against me for sharing this opinion that BD is the best suited format for catalogue films.

Claims of 8K or 6K are poppycock, but fillum (35mm neg) will generally get you nearer 4K than not, especially anamorphic which uses the majority of the 4-perf frame, tho the older it gets the more the resolving power drops off as the emulsions just weren't as sharp.

And speaking purely about colour then 35mm can also capture a wider gamut than SDR can convey.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by suspiciouscoffee

A lot of that depends on stock, but unless you’re using remarkably slow film, or coming from a late generation source like a release print, you should have some level of benefit to 4k over 2k. The HDR debate I can’t speak to because I know next to nothing about color.

Why is slow film worse off for resolution? That's finer grained than its faster stablemates and is easily equal if not betterer for resolving power. But then a lot of it comes down to exposure and development as well.

[suspiciouscoffee]

Because I’m awake later than I should be and I’m the one being slow getting terms backward.