The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The green is pushed too far overall on the Blu-ray although on prints there are some scenes that are greener, and the contrast is way too much.

If the issues with the Blu-ray are fixed then we'd basically end up with the original color timing. The best option for me would be if Warner color-matched the film with an answer print like they have been doing with their latest remasters whenever possible.

Seems about right, that shot of Trinity is pretty damn close to the Blu-ray:



On the other hand this scene is tinted too green on the BD:



Perhaps they tried to fix inconsistencies in the theatrical version, but it's a bit much. The first shot looks fine since it's dark with artificial lights, but the street scene looks nicer on the 35mm scan, I'd rather have that than an overpowering visual cue.

[Fendergopher]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Seems about right, that shot of Trinity is pretty damn close to the Blu-ray:



On the other hand this scene is tinted too green on the BD:



Perhaps they tried to fix inconsistencies in the theatrical version, but it's a bit much. The first shot looks fine since it's dark with artificial lights, but the street scene looks nicer on the 35mm scan, I'd rather have that than an overpowering visual cue.

The green tint on the street scene there is very apparent, it doesn't really look good compared to the print. The original looks pretty nice and natural, whereas the revised one looks kinda sickly in comparison. Crossing my fingers that they use original prints as a color reference, if not outright scanning whatever earliest generation print they have available.

[OutOfBoose]

Morpheus looks almost like a ninja turtle.

[Pieter V]

Possible Dutch cover / temp art:

[Vangeli]

Those character shots are from reloaded so I would say it's either a trilogy, fake, or temp art.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

Those character shots are from reloaded so I would say it's either a trilogy, fake, or temp art.

Most important thing is, we are getting a 4K release.

[Brahmzy]

Amen brother! Let’s hope it doesn’t get botched!

[jamesdevil]

There's no 'The' in the logo either which I'm pretty sure has always been present.

[Vangeli]

This is the most recent artwork that iTunes uses for the Trilogy, and in some markets the title goes "Matrix Trilogy," like in the Netherlands where that mock cover is from. Can see that "Trilogy" is blocked out in that artwork above.

Netherlands (Dutch) iTunes artwork:

[imsounoriginal]

Please let it be a sign we're getting all three

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Most important thing is, we are getting a 4K release.

Important, yes but BS that its not all 3 films. I know, I know - the first one is the best of the three. But still. C'mon....

[ROSS.T.G.]

That's some plain Jane artwork, hope they don't use that. Yuck

[imsounoriginal]

Give us a lenticular slipcover with cascading Matrix code, please and thank you.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Seems about right, that shot of Trinity is pretty damn close to the Blu-ray:

[Show spoiler]

On the other hand this scene is tinted too green on the BD:

[Show spoiler]

Perhaps they tried to fix inconsistencies in the theatrical version, but it's a bit much. The first shot looks fine since it's dark with artificial lights, but the street scene looks nicer on the 35mm scan, I'd rather have that than an overpowering visual cue.

Those scans are to be taken with a grain of salt though as they clearly haven't been optimized and look off. There's a lot of shadow information that simply isn't there and the image looks very low contrast.

If you want a slightly better representation then here's the scans adjusted via a template used for unprocessed positive scans:





As I said before, in the 35mm prints there are scenes that look a lot greener than in the Blu-ray. Just like there are scenes on the Blu-ray that are greener than the prints so you'd have an overpowering visual cue regardless whether you're watching a print or the Blu-ray since that's what the DP wanted.

[Geoff D]

Shadow detail on most prints is ****ed anyway, they've got super-high gamma in order to create the kind of contrast that properly plays on a theatrical 14fL projection.

[ahossein79]

No point in releasing just the first film and not releasing a box set with the other movies

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Shadow detail on most prints is ****ed anyway, they've got super-high gamma in order to create the kind of contrast that properly plays on a theatrical 14fL projection.

I was taking that into consideration. There's too much detail not visible in darker areas, not because of black crush on the element, but because it likely wasn't picked up by the scanner due to the settings used or limitations of the scanner.

The scans were provided for a listing of a 35mm print of The Matrix and not some sort of preservation so getting a 100% perfect representation of the print clearly wasn't a priority.

[Geoff D]

Yeah but even so, there really is only so much latitude you're gonna pull from a print even with the best scanner and/or post-processing LUT because their gamma is simply not designed to be viewed in the video environment. Transfers for video have long been done from IPs and latterly negatives because they're low contrast elements by their very nature, allowing the colourist to dial in the requisite range for the target format rather than having the blacks be wiped out on the source element.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah but even so, there really is only so much latitude you're gonna pull from a print even with the best scanner and/or post-processing LUT because their gamma is simply not designed to be viewed in the video environment. Transfers for video have long been done from IPs and latterly negatives because they're low contrast elements by their very nature, allowing the colourist to dial in the requisite range for the target format rather than having the blacks be wiped out on the source element.

Hmm. That's a new one to me.

With a good scanner, even positive reversal film like Velvia or Kodachrome can yield excellent images in the digital domain even though they were always meant to be optically projected for viewing. The same is true of the intermediate duplicating stock when one wanted to make copies of slides. Perhaps I don't have this issue because a photographer won't make a third generation copy of their work unlike a 35mm theatrical print and by the time you've made that many copies the contrast is too high for a proper scan?

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Hmm. That's a new one to me.

With a good scanner, even positive reversal film like Velvia or Kodachrome can yield excellent images in the digital domain even though they were always meant to be optically projected for viewing. The same is true of the intermediate duplicating stock when one wanted to make copies of slides. Perhaps I don't have this issue because a photographer won't make a third generation copy of their work unlike a 35mm theatrical print and by the time you've made that many copies the contrast is too high for a proper scan?

Contrast is increased with every step from OCN > print so in the end you'll have a high contrast element with less shadow and highlight detail than you'd see on a negative or IP.

Many scanners will have issues accurately replicating the range seen on the actual print because of its density. It usually requires a lot of optimization and fiddling with highlights and shadows. Even then, the print will still have black crush and some blown highlights, hence why they are not ideal for home video masters (see SF's Dog Soldiers and Hell Night and Arrow's Rabid and Shivers). It's much easier to scan an IP which is low-con with an orange color base which preserves the color information and range of the image.