The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[Kylo_Ren]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

[Show spoiler]

What IS "real"?

[Batman1980]

[MuffinMcFluffin]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5w-MZI...rt=190&end=194

[CreasyBear]

I love y'all.

[Batman1980]

[Kylo_Ren]

One of my favorite lines from Matrix: Reloaded!

Makes me chuckle every time Merovingian uses it to describe swearing in French. haha

[Batman1980]

[teddyballgame]

Originally Posted by MuffinMcFluffin

This isn't cute, this isn't funny, this isn't original, this isn't productive, and this isn't welcomed. ****ing stop. Continue posting substantial responses, or just don't post at all. It takes nothing to post a gif to somebody else who is actually contributing to something, regardless as to whether their opinion differs from you or whether they seem off base.

[Warm Gun]

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by MuffinMcFluffin

This isn't cute, this isn't funny, this isn't original, this isn't productive, and this isn't welcomed. ****ing stop. Continue posting substantial responses, or just don't post at all. It takes nothing to post a gif to somebody else who is actually contributing to something, regardless as to whether their opinion differs from you or whether they seem off base.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

[Show spoiler]

[DR Herbert West]

[K9 Mark V]

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

They're still available on Amazon.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Matrix-Blu-ray/52/

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-M...ed-Blu-ray/53/

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-M...Blu-ray/24953/

I couldn't find an in print standalone for Revolutions in America.

Those all appear to be sold only by third-party sellers, I think it's likely that they're all OOP and those sellers just have a bit of leftover or secondhand stock.

[James Luckard]

Loads of people have been posting scans of 35mm film prints, or videos drawn from 35mm film prints. In my experience, how a 35mm film print is scanned can have an impact on how the resulting image file or video file looks. A digital image/video may be drawn directly from a 35mm film print, but it doesn't necessarily mean it looks exactly like that print. This is especially true if the scanning is done with store-bought consumer products, as most of these seem to be.

I'm not saying any of them or all of them are necessarily wrong, just that they can't be taken as gospel for exactly how the film looked theatrically. I ran into this with the color timing of Batman Returns on UHD when I looked for scanned 35mm film print images online.

[KubrickKurasawa]

No matter which way you cut it one thing is for sure , and that this is the most poseur movie ever made. Starts out GiTS 95' then it's Vertigo then it's the Ralph Machio karate kid kick then stupid alien c.r.@p for a hour plus, and it ends with keaNu superman flying. Literally a mashed potato kind a movie. For potatoes. yahmout

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Loads of people have been posting scans of 35mm film prints, or videos drawn from 35mm film prints. In my experience, how a 35mm film print is scanned can have an impact on how the resulting image file or video file looks. A digital image/video may be drawn directly from a 35mm film print, but it doesn't necessarily mean it looks exactly like that print. This is especially true if the scanning is done with store-bought consumer products, as most of these seem to be.

I'm not saying any of them or all of them are necessarily wrong, just that they can't be taken as gospel for exactly how the film looked theatrically. I ran into this with the color timing of Batman Returns on UHD when I looked for scanned 35mm film print images online.

And then there’s the mercurial nature of the prints themselves. I laughed my ass off when someone posted links to scans of three IB Tech prints of Suspiria in that thread, all of them quite different from each other (one was a fetching shade of green, lol).

Are these scans better than nothing? Of coursh! But film is photochemically fickle and most filmmakers were under no illusions that what they signed off at the answer print stage rarely ended up in the release prints. This is why Kubrick was so fanatical about not only his theatrical prints (spot checking each and every reel to make sure they were consistent) but the quality of presentation at cinemas as well, as a dim bulb or a yellowed screen or improper masking could affect the image in whatever ways.

Basically I don’t much care for all this “what it looked like in theatres” willy-waving any more.

[OutOfBoose]

It's easy to not care how it looked like in theaters if you're happy with the result. And theatrical colors is just a reference, not be-all and end-all. When they soak TGTBTU in piss, people go back to theatrical colors because it's not how it's supposed to look or simply looks better.

I love the original cinematography of the movie. It's really frustrating and disappointing to see what they did to it.

[James Luckard]

I definitely didn't mean to say that what a film originally looked like isn't important. I only meant it's sometimes difficult to establish.

If the difference is minimal, I'm not that bothered, it's when BDs or UHDs looks radically different from what many of us remember that I start to worry.

This seems like it's also becoming a bigger issue as the extraordinarily high resolution of modern digital video means films are being scanned from their original negatives, which lack the color timing of theatrical prints. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation as the people creating the new masters either try to mimic the original look or, as in the case of Michael Mann and Heat, decide to create a new look entirely.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

It's easy to not care how it looked like in theaters if you're happy with the result. And theatrical colors is just a reference, not be-all and end-all. When they soak TGTBTU in piss, people go back to theatrical colors because it's not how it's supposed to look or simply looks better.

I love the original cinematography of the movie. It's really frustrating and disappointing to see what they did to it.

It’s not that the original intent doesn’t matter, I wouldn’t treat American Cinematographer like the Bible if that were the case. My point is that claiming there was one set “look” for any given movie in the actual cinema is a fool’s game because we all saw something different, be it the variation in the prints or the cinema presentation itself (the latter-day version of which is the homebrew scanning of these prints).

It’s such a nebulous concept that I won’t get my knickers in a twist about it any more, not that I just accept everything that’s flung our way as I still have my own personal taste but that’s where the criticism will come from: it’s more “I don’t like it” rather than “this isn’t what it looked like in theatres”.