The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

"Park Road" out of NZ is who fumbled the Peter Jackson's The Beatles "Get Back" upscaling that killed all the fine detail and had the DNR cranked up to 100.





I'm fairly certain they also worked on the LOTR UHD's, also killing detail.






Odds are, Cameron has been in NZ alot (he's physically moving there permanently), he's hired out Weta for the Avatar sequels and probably had them work on True Lies and maybe the others. Jamie Lee's hair strands in the UHD version there are AI-drawn (upscaled). And I'm fairly certain those lines on her sweater were never even captured on the original 35mm negative (but not certain).

LMAO the weave just randomly changes midway through the sweeter because the AI knows of some sweaters with lines. Sweater = 50% lines b/c 50% of images of sweaters have lines. AI is so smart.

The pattern on her shirt is also unrealistically sharp for a print fabric.

[Atomic Salad]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

I'm fairly certain those lines on her sweater were never even captured on the original 35mm negative (but not certain).

They're literally in both images.

[bilbofett]

BTW, here's the monitor size Jackson was using to preview the work being done on the LOTR UHDs:

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

[Show spoiler]

I love the cartoon teeth.

[bilbofett]

Originally Posted by Atomic Salad

They're literally in both images.

they're literally not. And look at the strands of her hair again.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

it is

[Show spoiler]

Amazon says "UHD" but no mention of HDR or Atmos. This entire release strategy has been botched across the platforms.

[PeterTHX]

Folks, PLEASE spoiler or delete repeat images!

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

BTW, here's the monitor size Jackson was using to preview the work being done on the LOTR UHDs:

[Show spoiler]

This is from the color grading session.

Keep in mind that the remastered Blu-rays of both The Hobbit & LOTR Trilogy have the new color grading but are free of the AI crap, except some of the additional DNR in LOTR and weird stuff like the infamous floating ear of Gandalf's horse.

[Spiritual_Chaos]

[QUOTE=bilbofett;21713291]"Park Road" out of NZ is who fumbled the Peter Jackson's The Beatles "Get Back" upscaling that killed all the fine detail and had the DNR cranked up to 100.





That people embraced this look and didn't laugh Peter Jackson out of the business, is the most baffling thing ever. Or shows that we live in some Black Mirror post snapchat-filter world that has forever twisted peoples view of reality and taste.

And that James Cameron, didn't take a huge step back but instead leaned in is crazy.

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

"Park Road" out of NZ is who fumbled the Peter Jackson's The Beatles "Get Back" upscaling that killed all the fine detail and had the DNR cranked up to 100.





I'm fairly certain they also worked on the LOTR UHD's, also killing detail.






Odds are, Cameron has been in NZ alot (he's physically moving there permanently), he's hired out Weta for the Avatar sequels and probably had them work on True Lies and maybe the others. Jamie Lee's hair strands in the UHD version there are AI-drawn (upscaled). And I'm fairly certain those lines on her sweater were never even captured on the original 35mm negative (but not certain).

Man, those first two examples are laughably bad. I almost thought you were just trolling us and that there's no way those are real "enhancements".

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pbz06

Man, those first two examples are laughably bad. I almost thought you were just trolling us and that there's no way those are real "enhancements".

Those REPEAT IMAGES are even worse.

[Scott in UK]

First it's Tom Arnold's collar, now it's Round 2 with JLC's sweater.

So if you've got an image with no sharpness, and so because of that it can make the image not as defined, which results in some things not being able to be seen as clearly,....... that instead of thinking that all the added sharpness has done is just brought that detail out, that what you think instead is that any sharpness added has created something that wasn't there in the first place.

Really?

I'd say it's not because it wasn't there in the first place, I'd say it's just a case of that it couldn't be seen.

[yetanotherone]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

"Park Road" out of NZ is who fumbled the Peter Jackson's The Beatles "Get Back" upscaling that killed all the fine detail and had the DNR cranked up to 100.

To be accurate, they executed Jackson's vision. This is how he wanted to look. He might not have absolutely no clue whatsoever how they do it, but he tells them what he wants, and they give it to him.

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/15/18141...decode-podcast

Right. And so you get this film, you tried this out with the film that you brought back to your studio, and explain where you are. You’re in New Zealand. You have these very high-level, high-tech studios there in New Zealand that you’ve built.

Well, what we have in New Zealand is ... I mean, I’ve got a company called Park Road Post Production, who does the post-production of our films, but they also have a department of computer effects guys. So I knew that I had the best people in the world, really, to actually pull this off. And so when I asked myself that question, which was how well can we restore this, I knew I had people that could actually devote themselves to try to do that. And it involves that you take this film, and you figure out what’s wrong with it, and it’s largely, as I say, damaged from 100 years of use and neglect and just general wear and tear, and to try and correct it then.

But it also involves ... You can’t actually just do it with off-the-shelf software, so one of the things we do have there is we have a department of code writers who write computer code in software. So largely what we do in the films we make, and this is, I’m discussing modern films like “The Hobbit” movies and things now, is we would take off-the-shelf software that’s available, and you often write sort of a plugin.

If there’s a particular thing that you want to do that the software isn’t capable of doing, then you have your own department of software writers to actually author little kind of plugins that you can plug into the commercial software. And so these guys set about looking at this old film and figuring out ways to correct it, to fix it, and obviously the results that we see are in the film.

Do you consider yourself technical in that way? Because this is really a technical challenge, what you were trying to do with this film in terms of restoring it and making it real, because you’re right, the herky-jerky, the idea that it’s a Charlie Chaplin movie and things like ... That kind of look is ... What was your goal artistically and technologically from your perspective?

Well, the first part of your question, I’m a completely hopeless computer guy. I mean, if I can send an email, I feel like I’ve had a fantastic day. I am the last person in the world to look at for any computer expertise. I mean, all I can do is I can say to this team of much, much cleverer people than me, “We need this film, which was shot at 13 frames a second, to look like it was shot at 24. Can you please have a go at that and let me know when there’s something to see?” That’s as far as my expertise extends.

So I don’t claim any knowledge of computers, any knowledge of the technical side of it. All I can say is that you hire very, very clever people, and you ask them to do what you’d like them to do, and they go away, do it. And I can’t begin to describe to you what they actually do because I have no idea. I’m completely dense in that regard.

He could have asked for a less smooth look, but that's what he wanted. Again, without a clue of how it's actually achieved beyond that it involves "computers".

[Atomic Salad]

Originally Posted by bilbofett

they're literally not.

And look at the strands of her hair again.

OK.

I download both images and opened them both in separate windows at full resolution and spent 2 minutes alt+tabbing between them looking at her hair.

Conclusion: Yup. It's hair alright.

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Those REPEAT IMAGES are even worse.

You'll survive. I didn't realize this forum doesn't automatically hide them like the others do.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Those REPEAT IMAGES are even worse.

Have you ever thought about talking with someone about your feelings on repeat images?

[Croweyes1121]

[Atomic Salad]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Have you ever thought about talking with someone about your feelings on repeat images?

[jeff BD]

Whats going on with the SE availability in 4k? Thats the version they showed off in theaters so you would think that version would be the priority

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Atomic Salad

OK.

I download both images and opened them both in separate windows at full resolution and spent 2 minutes alt+tabbing between them looking at her hair.

Conclusion: Yup. It's hair alright.

Could you do the same with the new uhd sweather image?