The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[Abdrewes]

So instead of buying this 4K do I need to have Backwards Jim come recalibrate my tv and hook up a laser disk or something? Do I need to visit my public library and ask for those copies of my middle school Matrix set back?

[needlebreesh]

Tealanu Reeves and Carrie-Cyanne Moss

[captainsolo]

I still have great fondness for the old original master and thus the original "revolutionized the format and home theater" 1999 snapper case DVD is my favorite version. Is it theatrically accurate? Not exactly but it never went crazy with the green and other issues that infuriated me on the 2004 DVD and subsequent BD.

It is the best that could be done at the time and is very good for that era. Also note that it was used on Laserdisc, DVD and the letterbox VHS editions. I've never gotten to own the LD due to the absurd prices but I have been able to verify with others (and my own experiences with late release WB titles) that it is relatively the same. I picked up the letterbox VHS out of curiosity since that was how I first saw the film renting it way back when.

The current 4K master could have been perfect. (The new BD is ruined by the blown out image.) But the grading instead of green pushes cold blues far too much. Otherwise it could be spot on. It also must be stressed the 35mm screen captures that pop up occasionally are not always going to be representative of the actual color timing and can vary wildly. This film already has many different looks and approaches to representing it on disc. The print I saw years ago for an arthouse midnight movie was my first and only print experience and was long before the 4K was done. Getting the chance to take a peek at the cans blew my mind when I discovered it was IB dye transfer.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Tru-way

In the words of Neo, "Woah!"

Wouldn't mind rewatching my 4k copy of The Matrix with this color timing, the color palette just screams 90's cinema! Then we entered the early 2000's where it became trendy to dip movies in depressing hues of green and blue.

Just so long as it’s clear that it did not in any way look like that on 35mm. It’s just an example of how quickly taking out the green can look like. That scene takes place in an office with a ton of fluorescent lighting. On film, it looked very much cast in greenish cyan. However, the UHD makes it all teal to ridiculous levels and is completely wrong as well.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

"DVD and LCD/LED/miniLed are the worst home video technologies of all time." - Noremac Mij

Yeah. For sure.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

I still have great fondness for the old original master and thus the original "revolutionized the format and home theater" 1999 snapper case DVD is my favorite version. Is it theatrically accurate? Not exactly but it never went crazy with the green and other issues that infuriated me on the 2004 DVD and subsequent BD.

It is the best that could be done at the time and is very good for that era. Also note that it was used on Laserdisc, DVD and the letterbox VHS editions. I've never gotten to own the LD due to the absurd prices but I have been able to verify with others (and my own experiences with late release WB titles) that it is relatively the same. I picked up the letterbox VHS out of curiosity since that was how I first saw the film renting it way back when.

The current 4K master could have been perfect. (The new BD is ruined by the blown out image.) But the grading instead of green pushes cold blues far too much. Otherwise it could be spot on. It also must be stressed the 35mm screen captures that pop up occasionally are not always going to be representative of the actual color timing and can vary wildly. This film already has many different looks and approaches to representing it on disc. The print I saw years ago for an arthouse midnight movie was my first and only print experience and was long before the 4K was done. Getting the chance to take a peek at the cans blew my mind when I discovered it was IB dye transfer.

LD looks better than the DVD, IMO. It’s a little less green in some scenes. Next to owning an actual 35mm print, it’s the closest to the real deal that’s available on home video.

[bludarkknight]

This thread has a glitch.


I prefer colour truth to what the films originl state of colour was including the aspect ratio framing and unaltered theatrical soundtrack, none of this, this colour manipulation it does my head in and this, whole thing becomes one giant cash cow milking.

It's unrealistic for us to all own 35mm since there wouldn't be enough of them and cost to producing them would cost billions if not trillions or zillions depending on the demand vs how many are needed for cinemas where auditoriums seats hundreds or often thousands people at a time. For the home demand. Guess we have to put up with these dud home release versions. Or have someone make telecine transfers of the original , with scratches and dirt with Dolby Digital theatrical mix, that I would buy.

May as well call the home version releases.

THE MOOTRIX

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

"Original 35mm colors" is a loaded and strawman metric to want applied to this format. And it doesn't even make sense when using the color space of SDR blu-ray to claim it is accurate to a print within rec 709. What are you even saying, quite honestly Lol It makes little sense across the board, and keeps being invoked for some reason...

You don't need rec 709 to do the original cinematography and color grade justice. Just like in case of TGTBTU, when people ask to remove piss from the image, they don't ask for pure rec 709 experience like in a real theater.

And yes, if you remove green tint from the original blu, it will look comparably close to what was in theaters:

35mm scan with slightly reduced blue tint to imrove balance of white.


Old blu with removed green tint by raising magenta and raised contrast to match the contrast look of the print scan.


Godawful 4K


So what are YOU even saying?

[koberulz]

Wachowskis: "We deliberately made the scenes inside the matrix look green."

Blu-ray.com: "I fixed it by removing all the green. Now it's purple!"

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Godawful 4K

4K or remastered BD which looks like an awful downconversion from HDR and adds tons of new problems?

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

4K or remastered BD which looks like an awful downconversion from HDR and adds tons of new problems?

You're gonna pretend HDR version looks close to theatrical colors?

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

You're gonna pretend HDR version looks close to theatrical colors?

It does. I saw the film theatrically four times and it left an indelible impression. No version has come close to approximating the prints I saw until the 4K disc. The prints were not awash in puke green of the old DVD nor the vibrant green of the 2003 transfer. It had far more blue and teal than any of those editions. Also, prints can vary. No two are exactly alike, but there are commonalities among them. A scan of a print on YouTube 20 years later isn't the same thing as seeing the print on a screen.

[sanjuro_61]

It has been posted already, and it will be again...

Collection of film cells. Jpgs are kind of low quality, but they seem to be pretty well balanced (there's a bit of red in the pictures, though) and they are not faded.
-> https://postimg.cc/gallery/XJ7809V

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

I still have great fondness for the old original master and thus the original "revolutionized the format and home theater" 1999 snapper case DVD is my favorite version. Is it theatrically accurate? Not exactly but it never went crazy with the green and other issues that infuriated me on the 2004 DVD and subsequent BD.

It is the best that could be done at the time and is very good for that era. Also note that it was used on Laserdisc, DVD and the letterbox VHS editions. I've never gotten to own the LD due to the absurd prices but I have been able to verify with others (and my own experiences with late release WB titles) that it is relatively the same. I picked up the letterbox VHS out of curiosity since that was how I first saw the film renting it way back when.

The current 4K master could have been perfect. (The new BD is ruined by the blown out image.) But the grading instead of green pushes cold blues far too much. Otherwise it could be spot on. It also must be stressed the 35mm screen captures that pop up occasionally are not always going to be representative of the actual color timing and can vary wildly. This film already has many different looks and approaches to representing it on disc. The print I saw years ago for an arthouse midnight movie was my first and only print experience and was long before the 4K was done. Getting the chance to take a peek at the cans blew my mind when I discovered it was IB dye transfer.

They had some IB Tech prints made for this, yep…which then muddies the water further about what the “original prints” were supposed to look like. Moving targets…

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

It does. I saw the film theatrically four times and it left an indelible impression. No version has come close to approximating the prints I saw until the 4K disc. The prints were not awash in puke green of the old DVD nor the vibrant green of the 2003 transfer. It had far more blue and teal than any of those editions. Also, prints can vary. No two are exactly alike, but there are commonalities among them. A scan of a print on YouTube 20 years later isn't the same thing as seeing the print on a screen.

Oddly enough, I had a strong impression of blue from seeing it back in the day as well. Not slathered on the whole movie - I couldn’t tell people what every single shot looked like - but the ‘real world’ stuff had a definite blue tinge. The brown-assed DVD looked nothing like it.

[OutOfBoose]

So 35mm print scan, degreened old blu and 35mm strips looking fairly close colors-wise during the lobby scene, but 4K master looks like cyaned ass. And people still parrot the same old "no print is the same"?

[Geoff D]

Ah, but I’m not saying that the 4K is anything like the theatrical print(s) either. I can however enjoy it immensely vs the sewer-water grading of the DVD and the astonishingly awful green tint on the old Blu.

Well done on taking the blue tint out of the print scan though for that example you showed

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

You don't need rec 709 to do the original cinematography and color grade justice. Just like in case of TGTBTU, when people ask to remove piss from the image, they don't ask for pure rec 709 experience like in a real theater.

And yes, if you remove green tint from the original blu, it will look comparably close to what was in theaters:

35mm scan with slightly reduced blue tint to imrove balance of white.


Old blu with removed green tint by raising magenta and raised contrast to match the contrast look of the print scan.


Godawful 4K


So what are YOU even saying?

What's even the point of this when you have to reduce the blue tint of the 35mm copy in order to try and make a point?

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

What's even the point of this when you have to reduce the blue tint of the 35mm copy in order to make a point?

Because...reasons...

[sanjuro_61]

That print you seem to worship it's faded. It's blueish. You have to be blind (and not only your eyes...) not to see it.
It should look like this, FFS:

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

You're gonna pretend HDR version looks close to theatrical colors?

I'm just saying the remastered BD looks ridiculous and much worse than the UHD.

And no, I'm not pretending it looks like it looked back in 1999 although my butt doesn't hurt because of it