The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

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.

I see. That makes sense. Thank you for the information and for the specific examples of BDs from print scans.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

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.

Fair enough, but does the print ever look as severe as this or this? I'm fine with the idea of the effect, but those scenes on the BD are just too much in my opinion.

[Vangeli]

Those scenes can totally be made more palatable with the wide color gamut.

If you pay attention to a lot of BD vs UHD comparisons, a common theme is that the BD can't handle as much nuanced color so it's all pushed one way or another. I wouldn't worry.

[Geoff D]

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?

With a theatrical 35mm print you're usually looking at a copy of a copy of a copy, one not designed to be thrown onto a wall at home but onto a giant projection screen in the theatrical environment at 14 foot lamberts (fL). To maintain contrast with that level of brightness the print must be of a very high gamma, knocking out shadow detail something chronic. JCF got it spot on.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

With a theatrical 35mm print you're usually looking at a copy of a copy of a copy, one not designed to be thrown onto a wall at home but onto a giant projection screen in the theatrical environment at 14 foot lamberts (fL). To maintain contrast with that level of brightness the print must be of a very high gamma, knocking out shadow detail something chronic. JCF got it spot on.

Are you saying prints were specifically designed to have a very high gamma, and that it wasn't just a side effect of being so many generations from the OCN?

It's not like modern DI films, also projected at 14 fL, have that kind of gamma and black crush.

[Geoff D]

Little from column A, little from column B. Modern digital projection is what it is, it doesn't have to blast light through a tiny little strip of film so it doesn't have to worry about how said film is holding the image.

[edit]

Here's an actual pro cinematographer saying the same thing after a quick internet seach, I've never read those specific comments before but note that his description is almost identical to mine above!

Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC

The resulting DR from various presentation systems is less relevant -- you always want more range in the origination medium, otherwise you have no ability to slide the image brightness up or down, you're stuck more or less to how you exposed it. Print stock HAS to have a high gamma or else you wouldn't get a decent black after all that projector light blasted through a print and onto a white surface.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...l=1#post632327

[Geoff D]

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.

And Mr Mullen's comments affirm what I said here too, you get more usable range the further back you go towards the capture medium (film negative), but the nearer you get to the display medium (release print) the more that the dynamic range is going to be curtailed.

[rschiks]

I don’t know if it was mentioned earlier, Dutch bol.com has all three UHDs for only €35. Sounds very cheap.

link

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by rschiks

I don’t know if it was mentioned earlier, Dutch bol.com has all three UHDs for only €35. Sounds very cheap.

link

Oh, hell yeah!

Gonna pre-order right away before they change the price.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by rschiks

I don’t know if it was mentioned earlier, Dutch bol.com has all three UHDs for only €35. Sounds very cheap.

link

Yesterday that link was just for The Matrix (1999).

Hopefully it's the trilogy.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Yesterday that link was just for The Matrix (1999) alone.

Hopefully it's the trilogy.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing just now. I guess it's probably a mistake but we'll see.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by DJR662

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing just now. I guess it's probably a mistake but we'll see.

Yes. One thing is for sure, empty your pockets, big releases in May.

OP updated.

[OutOfBoose]

If it's the whole trilogy, then awesome. The original in UHD is already more than awesome, but having them all is perfect. And there's no need to retire the ultimate set, that has all bonuses and Animatrix.

[rschiks]

Originally Posted by DJR662

Oh, hell yeah!

Gonna pre-order right away before they change the price.

I have done the same. It’s not the first time

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by rschiks

I don’t know if it was mentioned earlier, Dutch bol.com has all three UHDs for only €35. Sounds very cheap.

link

Pre-ordered.

We'll find out in due time if it's the trilogy or not.

[flyry]

Damn I really hope its not a trilogy only release.

[Vangeli]

They're using the most recent Trilogy artwork as a temp cover anything's possible.

[Opips3]

Good! I'm ready to wait drop price $23 dollars!

23 centuries....


I have own DVD edition. Never buy bluray...

Oh forget. One more. Please bring Atmos Dolby.. Hell Yes!

[captainsolo]

The first one is a must but please to all involved DON'T USE THE BS 2004 master as a reference!!

I've hated that awful timing since they mussed up the film for the 2004 release. And upon much further inspection while the 1999 DVD, Laserdisc and letterboxed VHS (same master is shared with some format differentiations.) aren't perfect they are a far better representation of the original theatrical run than the awful thing they did to it.
I've owned the BD set for a few years and occasionally spin the sequels for curiosity's sake but always wind up going back to the '99 DVD for the original.

A proper 4K scan could be stunning though admittedly it might make some of the effects look a bit dated which is to be expected. The best I've ever seen the film was a few years ago at the local arthouse where it turned out WB had sent a dye transfer Technicolor print which was news to me that the short lived revival included Matrix prints.

I'd love to see the theatrical audio presented untouched as well since it's a fun ride but WB may only do an Atmos upmix sadly.

[DJJez]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

The first one is a must but please to all involved DON'T USE THE BS 2004 master as a reference!!

I've hated that awful timing since they mussed up the film for the 2004 release. And upon much further inspection while the 1999 DVD, Laserdisc and letterboxed VHS (same master is shared with some format differentiations.) aren't perfect they are a far better representation of the original theatrical run than the awful thing they did to it.
I've owned the BD set for a few years and occasionally spin the sequels for curiosity's sake but always wind up going back to the '99 DVD for the original.

A proper 4K scan could be stunning though admittedly it might make some of the effects look a bit dated which is to be expected. The best I've ever seen the film was a few years ago at the local arthouse where it turned out WB had sent a dye transfer Technicolor print which was news to me that the short lived revival included Matrix prints.

I'd love to see the theatrical audio presented untouched as well since it's a fun ride but WB may only do an Atmos upmix sadly.

#atmos or nothing