The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[Geoff D]

^ Hells yeah.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Matrix was Super 35.

I stand corrected, should (do you hear that WB?) be somewhat grainier then.

[OutOfBoose]

We saw a few UHD titles from WB with Super 35. Harry Potter 1-2. Didn't look that grainy. Maybe grain was managed a bit, but overall it looked filmic enough.

I read somewhere later films were Super 35 too, but they had 2K DI. Who knows if The Matrix has one and or it's a new scan.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

We saw a few UHD titles from WB with Super 35. Harry Potter 1-2. Didn't look that grainy. Maybe grain was managed a bit, but overall it looked filmic enough.

I read somewhere later films were Super 35 too, but they had 2K DI. Who knows if The Matrix has one and or it's a new scan.

They were all shot Super 35. Matrix 1 had a photochemical finish, inclusive of filmed-out VFX. Matrix 2 used a DI on select sequences like the freeway chase (because it was so VFX-heavy and DP Bill Pope wanted to tweak the grading with more precision) with the rest timed photochemically. Matrix 3 was presumably all photochemical as there's no indication in the AC article that it got a select DI pass.

So yeah, me saying that only the first was done photochemically is horse-hooey. All THREE were, so perhaps Warners are taking the 4K remastering one movie at a time.

[imsounoriginal]

Why were certain sequences in Reloaded deemed VFX-heavy enough to warrant a DI, but not sequences in Revolutions? Feels like the latter had WAY more going on in that department, especially towards the end.

[Geoff D]

I think it's more that the lighting was the key to that in Reloaded. They shot the freeway sequence in San Francisco over several weeks and the light kind of fell where it may but Pope wanted a very consistent 'Matrixy' look to the image, something that was "thinly overcast with just a little bit of sun and warmth peeking through".

Dialling that in photochemically while the VFX was coming in (virtually every shot has some sort of enhancement from the cityscape in the background to the digital cars) would've been a nightmare so he opted to do it digitally to have that sort of control and to stay ahead of schedule.

[MEB]

The current version in my collection is the HD DVD Ultimate Collection. Even though I think it still looks fine, I'll be watching for reviews on the 4K release.

Mark

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So yeah, me saying that only the first was done photochemically is horse-hooey. All THREE were, so perhaps Warners are taking the 4K remastering one movie at a time.

Then it's good news for us.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

We saw a few UHD titles from WB with Super 35. Harry Potter 1-2. Didn't look that grainy. Maybe grain was managed a bit, but overall it looked filmic enough.

Technically Super 35 would actually have a greater horizontal resolution, but lacking the vertical supersampling of anamorphic.

Given the large amount of digital VFX shots in the Matrix sequels, I wonder if it would be feasible to piece them together from the archived digital files instead of re-scanning the entire negatives. Probably wouldn't be worth the effort; I'm unsure how much degradation the film-out process would cause.

[OutOfBoose]

The Matrix was finished photochemically, but what about the revised version, that was used for the blu-ray release? Some people say they heard The Matrix didn't have a DI, other sources (4K real or fake) say it did...

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Technically Super 35 would actually have a greater horizontal resolution, but lacking the vertical supersampling of anamorphic.

Given the large amount of digital VFX shots in the Matrix sequels, I wonder if it would be feasible to piece them together from the archived digital files instead of re-scanning the entire negatives. Probably wouldn't be worth the effort; I'm unsure how much degradation the film-out process would cause.

Do they use archived digital files frequently? To me it looks like they use IP for FX shots or something...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

The Matrix was finished photochemically, but what about the revised version, that was used for the blu-ray release? Some people say they heard The Matrix didn't have a DI, other sources (4K real or fake) say it did...

The Matrix was not finished on a DI in 1999. That is a fact. (The movie only had some 200 VFX shots despite its reputation as this massive VFX-heavy movie.) The new transfer that was done for the revised edition was graded digitally but a new transfer doesn't = DI. And seeing as that was almost 15 years ago I'd wager that it wasn't done in 4K either, not that 4K restorations didn't exist at that time but I kinda doubt Warners did it in 4K just for a new home video transfer.

Do they use archived digital files frequently? To me it looks like they use IP for FX shots or something...

Film-outs are what they are. Scanning something into the digital realm at x resolution, working on it at y resolution before filming it back out onto intermediate (not negative) stock at x resolution (so as to oversample the invariably <4K VFX) isn't a lossless process.

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Technically Super 35 would actually have a greater horizontal resolution, but lacking the vertical supersampling of anamorphic.

Given the large amount of digital VFX shots in the Matrix sequels, I wonder if it would be feasible to piece them together from the archived digital files instead of re-scanning the entire negatives. Probably wouldn't be worth the effort; I'm unsure how much degradation the film-out process would cause.

In the case of Phantom Menace they did exactly that. There was barely a frame of the movie that hadn't had some sort of digital effect or process so when they remastered it for the 3D conversion they bypassed the film-out elements completely and used the 2K digital files (all 2000-odd of them) to rebuild the movie.

The second Matrix movie had some 1227 VFX shots according to the AC article but a LOT of those were contained in the freeway sequence which was finished to DI anyway, and the rest mostly resided in the other big CG-heavy sequence which was of course the Burly Brawl.

[OutOfBoose]

I read it had around 400, similar to Fellowship. But sequels had 2 and 3 times more. It's relatively modest FX-wise.

No idea if it's legit or not:
http://www.upcomingvfxmovies.com/svfx-shots-race/

Anyway, I wonder if the Wachowskis participated in grading it for HDR.

[Geoff D]

The AC article said 200 but I'll take that 400+ figure too, either way that's still an extremely modest number of VFX shots, yeah.

[guachi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Matrix was not finished on a DI in 1999. That is a fact. (The movie only had some 200 VFX shots despite its reputation as this massive VFX-heavy movie.)

I think that's what I love so much about the movie. It has the illusion of being some effects-heavy movie, but it isn't. It's just very well-designed to pull you into the world. Kind of ironic considering it's a movie about perceptions of reality.

[Geoff D]

That and it wasn't some mega-budget blockbuster to begin with, just some kooky sci-fi script that Warners took a chance on from the dudes who made Bound, shot in Australia to save a bit of cash against the already meagre $63M budget. Similar story as with so many of these kinds of breakout films really, they might be a bit rough around the edges but they remain the best one in their respective series because they have such narrative drive and such clarity of purpose. (Agent Smith would be proud.) The ones that come later have more bells and whistles and are usually enjoyable to some degree but the storytelling just can't capture that same magic again.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That and it wasn't some mega-budget blockbuster to begin with, just some kooky sci-fi script that Warners took a chance on from the dudes who made Bound, shot in Australia to save a bit of cash against the already meagre $63M budget. Similar story as with so many of these kinds of breakout films really, they might be a bit rough around the edges but they remain the best one in their respective series because they have such narrative drive and such clarity of purpose. (Agent Smith would be proud.)

True. Original Star Wars immediately came to mind when reading this, but there are indeed others.

[OutOfBoose]

Damn, it's gonna be 4 lengthy months, if it won't arrive earlier.

[zakzak]

Originally Posted by tyrok

Lets hope Warners is smart enough to realize that putting the sequels out later is a bad idea. They will sell much better in a box set or if they're readily available to people who only intended to buy the first one.

I feel that the 10th Anniversary BluRay transfer is pretty damn good, looks updated to modern transfer. But the the other 2, especially Reloaded suffers from a lack of contrast, some compression artifacts etc.IMHO

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by zakzak

I feel that the 10th Anniversary BluRay transfer is pretty damn good, looks updated to modern transfer. But the the other 2, especially Reloaded suffers from a lack of contrast, some compression artifacts etc.IMHO

No, the original film suffers from some chunky grain due to the low bitrate, VC-1 codec, and now obsolete master. They really all need new masters. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That and it wasn't some mega-budget blockbuster to begin with, just some kooky sci-fi script that Warners took a chance on from the dudes who made Bound, shot in Australia to save a bit of cash against the already meager $63M budget. Similar story as with so many of these kinds of breakout films really

[Show spoiler], they might be a bit rough around the edges but they remain the best one in their respective series because they have such narrative drive and such clarity of purpose. (Agent Smith would be proud.) The ones that come later have more bells and whistles and are usually enjoyable to some degree but the storytelling just can't capture that same magic again.

I would go even deeper into how left field this project was... Joel Silver stuck his neck out, as well as Silver Pictures monetarily, to pitch Warners. AND insist the Wachowski's direct. I think going to Australia was as much to escape studio interference as money reasons.

Similar to how

[Show spoiler]a single executive at New Line took a chance on Peter Jackson's crazy pitch for LOTR. Adovcated it being shot all at once. And produced using the WETA assets and filming in New Zealand for cost reasons.

Some of our favourite movies have lonesome heroes who fought against the conservative minds of their higher ups. Unfortunately, Silver let the success roam too wild on Reloaded and Revolutions for me