The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[CreasyBear]

"Now, show me on the doll where Bill Pope touched you?"

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

Playing "your game," there's also a reason why Bill Pope in that very same "white sky interview" mentions how they were going for a greenish look for the scenes inside the Matrix.

Right?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Pope said about making sky white AND THEN adding green filters to the image.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Right?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Pope said about making sky white AND THEN adding green filters to the image.

You're not wrong.

“We didn't necessarily want the Matrix world to resemble our present world,” adds Pope. "We didn't want any cheery blue skies. In Australia, the sky is a brilliant blue virtually all the time, but we wanted bald, white skies. All of our TransLight backings [for the stage work] were altered to have white skies, and on actual exterior shots in which we see a lot of sky, we digitally enhanced the skies to make them white. Additionally, since we wanted the Matrix reality to be unappealing, we asked ourselves, 'What is the most unappealing color?' I think we all agreed on green, so for those scenes, we sometimes used green filters, and I'd add a little bit of green in the color timing."

Also

"They had seen and loved [the 1993 horror-fantasy film] Army of Darkness, which I shot for director Sam Raimi. They called me in, and we had a terrific meeting. I think they hired me because I read comics and knew what they were talking about whenever they mentioned a particular title. In fact, during our meeting, there was a copy of Frank Miller's Sin City on their desk, so I asked, 'Is that what you want the film to look like?' We were all impressed by Miller's use of high-contrast, jet-black areas in the frame to focus the eye, and his extreme stylization of reality. I had long wanted to do something that stylized on film."

It's a pretty interesting article all around: https://ascmag.com/articles/flashback-the-matrix (thanks to whoever posted it originally)

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

Playing "your game," there's also a reason why Bill Pope in that very same "white sky interview" mentions how they were going for a greenish look for the scenes inside the Matrix.

I noticed green was mostly used (and not always) during interior scenes, which was mostly achieved by set design with some help from color grading and gels. Exteriors made to look mostly "blank" with white skies and gray concrete. Green "everything" only appeared in the sequels.

UPD. Regarding using filters. This is what he's talking about, I presume:



We see filtering altering temperature and look of a frame, making it slightly green. But affects not only environments, but skin tones as well. The image looks more lifeless. Which is quite opposite to Disney palette, that was injected here in the most recent remaster.

We see similar approach earlier in the movie:



Again, the whole image is made to look greenish. And this shot is intact on 4K, looks exactly like on 35mm strips.

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You don't see people pulling up whatever version and pulling out the blue or adding loads of fookin magenta to make the point in the T2 thread though. Just seems like a lot of work to say "this is shit!" when we can just say "this is shit!" without having to do all this other crap.

The biggest argument here - 35mm strips. And they tell us a different story from what Bill Pope is selling now. Besides, it was said from the beginning - too much magenta on those pics. So I'm not sure why you're still hanging on that thread. Plus you're comparing two threads too bluntly. When you proclaim you want Mad Max to sound like it did for 40 years, why is it not applicable to cinematography of The Matrix? Some people want it to look like it did originally, because it's the best look out of those they rolled out over the years. You go apeshit when some bird chirp is altered in a new mix, but when 1/3 of the movie's color grading is f-ed, it is fine, why prolong the agony...

[Modren]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

The biggest argument here - 35mm strips. And they tell us a different story from what Bill Pope is selling now. Besides, it was said from the beginning - too much magenta on those pics. So I'm not sure why you're still hanging on that thread. Plus you're comparing two threads too bluntly. When you proclaim you want Mad Max to sound like it did for 40 years, why is it not applicable to cinematography of The Matrix? Some people want it to look like it did originally, because it's the best look out of those they rolled out over the years. You go apeshit when some bird chirp is altered in a new mix, but when 1/3 of the movie's color grading is f-ed, it is fine, why prolong the agony...

The sound mix is the sound mix; it was the same on every print distributed back in the day, and would've sounded essentially the same in every theater. You can copy the sound from a print, or even a vintage home video release, and you'll get the same mix. The only reason it would ever be different is if you're rebuilding it entirely.

Film color, on the other hand, always varied a bit depending on the print. We've even seen in this thread how different print scans look different than others, and sometimes the filmmaker's intent doesn't line up with any of them. Adding to this is the fact that Bill Pope isn't the same person he was 22 years ago. He might make different decisions than he would've back then, or just forgotten what he was going for during the original shoot. I don't think Bill Pope was trying to piss people off with this release; I think he tried to make it look as good as he could, and undo the revisionist extreme green tint added with the Blu-ray master. I don't know why some parts ended up looking teal, you'd have to ask him for that, but I have to assume it wasn't done to intentionally "ruin the movie" or anything.

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by Modren

The sound mix is the sound mix; it was the same on every print distributed back in the day, and would've sounded essentially the same in every theater. You can copy the sound from a print, or even a vintage home video release, and you'll get the same mix. The only reason it would ever be different is if you're rebuilding it entirely.

Film color, on the other hand, always varied a bit depending on the print. We've even seen in this thread how different print scans look different than others, and sometimes the filmmaker's intent doesn't line up with any of them. Adding to this is the fact that Bill Pope isn't the same person he was 22 years ago. He might make different decisions than he would've back then, or just forgotten what he was going for during the original shoot. I don't think Bill Pope was trying to piss people off with this release; I think he tried to make it look as good as he could, and undo the revisionist extreme green tint added with the Blu-ray master. I don't know why some parts ended up looking teal, you'd have to ask him for that, but I have to assume it wasn't done to intentionally "ruin the movie" or anything.

"A bit" is probably the key here. It varied, but not to the point of abandoning artistic intent. Thus if something isn't meant to look teal, it won't look teal on prints unless something wrong with projection system.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

The biggest argument here - 35mm strips. And they tell us a different story from what Bill Pope is selling now. Besides, it was said from the beginning - too much magenta on those pics. So I'm not sure why you're still hanging on that thread. Plus you're comparing two threads too bluntly. When you proclaim you want Mad Max to sound like it did for 40 years, why is it not applicable to cinematography of The Matrix? Some people want it to look like it did originally, because it's the best look out of those they rolled out over the years. You go apeshit when some bird chirp is altered in a new mix, but when 1/3 of the movie's color grading is f-ed, it is fine, why prolong the agony...

Ooh ooh ooh, I was wondering when someone would pull me up on that! Here goes: I see the look of film as being a moving target. Not just from the capricious nature of the photochemical process (hell, RAH had to decide which of three IB Tech prints was the best reference for Spartacus ) but also how home video technology has evolved, films have been revised for about as long as there's been home video. It's not even about the technology in itself, it's more that plenty of filmmakers don't ever consider their work to be finished and all these formats have given the filmmakers a perpetual excuse to continually tinker with their work (paging Mr Cundey, Mr Cundey to the front desk please). And re: the Magentatrix I never regarded the DVD as looking like what I saw in the cinema, the revised green-o-vision transfer certainly did not and the 4K is another revision again (though if you're using the new BD as your personal frame of reference for the 4K then don't, as it too has been graded differently with LOTS more blue and cyan than the HDR).

Doesn't make it 'right' as said but I've learned to live with it, and as long as something isn't utterly murderous to the underlying intent like what Friedkin did to French Connection or Storaro with his exceedingly stupid 2:1 crops of 'scope films then I can accept it for what it is. Same goes for audio remixes, I don't consider the notion of a remix to be automatically 100% destructive to the intent, it's what they do with it that matters.

But yeah, I go harder on audio nonetheless. Why? Because if film's moving target for visuals is the equivalent of trying to shoot the wings off of a fly while blindfolded and riding a horse, for audio it's more like trying to hit Barry the tortoise with a beach ball from 5 yards away i.e. there were different mixes for different prints but once something got settled on as being the de facto mix for home video then it tended to stay that way for years and years and years. It gave goofballs like me the chance to watch these movies so many times that the audio got burnt into my brain, even while the visuals kept a-changin'.

That's why I mentioned 40 years re: Mad Max 2, for while the look never stayed the same the audio bloody well did, at least to the point where I never noticed any differences as the 5.1 (which debuted on DVD I think?) is itself a remix. But four whole decades in, NOW they decide to totally rejig the audio? How did the movie manage to survive without it before? Pffft.

And you know the other reason why I'm much less forgiving with audio? Because it's so flippin' simple to include an OG mix - hell, an older but respectful remix will do in a pinch - on the same disc alongside whatever godless new remix has been created, whereas you can't do that with separate video transfers, not without badly compromising the bitrate anyway (and using more discs will bump up the cost). Still, it can't be that simple when providing OG audio as the studios keep putting downmixes out there, not just on their own discs but what they supply to indies as well.

Am I still a hypocrite after all that? Sure I am. But I never said I wasn't.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ooh ooh ooh, I was wondering when someone would pull me up on that! Here goes: I see the look of film as being a moving target. Not just from the capricious nature of the photochemical process (hell, RAH had to decide which of three IB Tech prints was the best reference for Spartacus ) but also how home video technology has evolved, films have been revised for about as long as there's been home video. It's not even about the technology in itself, it's more that plenty of filmmakers don't ever consider their work to be finished and all these formats have given the filmmakers a perpetual excuse to continually tinker with their work (paging Mr Cundey, Mr Cundey to the front desk please). And re: the Magentatrix I never regarded the DVD as looking like what I saw in the cinema, the revised green-o-vision transfer certainly did not and the 4K is another revision again (though if you're using the new BD as your personal frame of reference for the 4K then don't, as it too has been graded differently with LOTS more blue and cyan than the HDR).

Doesn't make it 'right' as said but I've learned to live with it, and as long as something isn't utterly murderous to the underlying intent like what Friedkin did to French Connection or Storaro with his exceedingly stupid 2:1 crops of 'scope films then I can accept it for what it is. Same goes for audio remixes, I don't consider the notion of a remix to be automatically 100% destructive to the intent, it's what they do with it that matters.

But yeah, I go harder on audio nonetheless. Why? Because if film's moving target for visuals is the equivalent of trying to shoot the wings off of a fly while blindfolded and riding a horse, for audio it's more like trying to hit Barry the tortoise with a beach ball from 5 yards away i.e. there were different mixes for different prints but once something got settled on as being the de facto mix for home video then it tended to stay that way for years and years and years. It gave goofballs like me the chance to watch these movies so many times that the audio got burnt into my brain, even while the visuals kept a-changin'.

That's why I mentioned 40 years re: Mad Max 2, for while the look never stayed the same the audio bloody well did, at least to the point where I never noticed any differences as the 5.1 (which debuted on DVD I think?) is itself a remix. But four whole decades in, NOW they decide to totally rejig the audio? How did the movie manage to survive without it before? Pffft.

And you know the other reason why I'm much less forgiving with audio? Because it's so flippin' simple to include an OG mix - hell, an older but respectful remix will do in a pinch - on the same disc alongside whatever godless new remix has been created, whereas you can't do that with separate video transfers, not without badly compromising the bitrate anyway (and using more discs will bump up the cost). Still, it can't be that simple when providing OG audio as the studios keep putting downmixes out there, not just on their own discs but what they supply to indies as well.

Am I still a hypocrite after all that? Sure I am. But I never said I wasn't.

In fairness to your hypocrisy, we all focus on some things and give others a pass. My wife freaks out when a stray hair escapes the bathroom, but dust can be inches thick on a shelf in the living room. I am adamantly against overcooking meat, yet can eat the worst of overcooked rice just fine.

I think hearing/vision quality and even equipment you listen/watch with comes into this too. I agree in principle with what you're saying. However, I've heard some older mixes that I used to love on my newer 5.1.2 Atmos system and they come off as strident, while some work well. For me, it's hit and miss on both sides of it.

[OutOfBoose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ooh ooh ooh, I was wondering when someone would pull me up on that! Here goes: I see the look of film as being a moving target. Not just from the capricious nature of the photochemical process (hell, RAH had to decide which of three IB Tech prints was the best reference for Spartacus ) but also how home video technology has evolved, films have been revised for about as long as there's been home video. It's not even about the technology in itself, it's more that plenty of filmmakers don't ever consider their work to be finished and all these formats have given the filmmakers a perpetual excuse to continually tinker with their work (paging Mr Cundey, Mr Cundey to the front desk please). And re: the Magentatrix I never regarded the DVD as looking like what I saw in the cinema, the revised green-o-vision transfer certainly did not and the 4K is another revision again (though if you're using the new BD as your personal frame of reference for the 4K then don't, as it too has been graded differently with LOTS more blue and cyan than the HDR).

Doesn't make it 'right' as said but I've learned to live with it, and as long as something isn't utterly murderous to the underlying intent like what Friedkin did to French Connection or Storaro with his exceedingly stupid 2:1 crops of 'scope films then I can accept it for what it is. Same goes for audio remixes, I don't consider the notion of a remix to be automatically 100% destructive to the intent, it's what they do with it that matters.

But yeah, I go harder on audio nonetheless. Why? Because if film's moving target for visuals is the equivalent of trying to shoot the wings off of a fly while blindfolded and riding a horse, for audio it's more like trying to hit Barry the tortoise with a beach ball from 5 yards away i.e. there were different mixes for different prints but once something got settled on as being the de facto mix for home video then it tended to stay that way for years and years and years. It gave goofballs like me the chance to watch these movies so many times that the audio got burnt into my brain, even while the visuals kept a-changin'.

That's why I mentioned 40 years re: Mad Max 2, for while the look never stayed the same the audio bloody well did, at least to the point where I never noticed any differences as the 5.1 (which debuted on DVD I think?) is itself a remix. But four whole decades in, NOW they decide to totally rejig the audio? How did the movie manage to survive without it before? Pffft.

And you know the other reason why I'm much less forgiving with audio? Because it's so flippin' simple to include an OG mix - hell, an older but respectful remix will do in a pinch - on the same disc alongside whatever godless new remix has been created, whereas you can't do that with separate video transfers, not without badly compromising the bitrate anyway (and using more discs will bump up the cost). Still, it can't be that simple when providing OG audio as the studios keep putting downmixes out there, not just on their own discs but what they supply to indies as well.

Am I still a hypocrite after all that? Sure I am. But I never said I wasn't.

And I agree with everything you said, except I still don't get why people are so stubborn about shutting down those poor souls who just want The Matrix to look like it once did. Like I said it before, not only you don't lose you perfect Matrix look, you already have it, you only stand to gain if one day by some miracle there will be some kind of purist trend in home market with a sticker "for the first time ever, like it was in theaters". Instead of helping to spread the word, you (not you specifically, but people who do) basically enable further tinkering with the material by saying "Bill Pope is better than you" or "Bill Pope knows better". Yes, Bill Pope is better than me, I never claimed otherwise, I just don't think what he's offering now is better than what it was 22 years ago.

And in case of The Matrix it's especially painful, because one moment you're enjoying a very organic and faithful presentation and then suddenly there are color changes that make zero freaking sense and feel like they belong to some other movie. To be honest, I don't know any other remaster that annoyed me so much. There are simple shitjobs like Predator UHE, T2 or whatever, and then there's the first Matrix, which is already violated multiple times on home video. So... We were this close, but nope, something had to be done about it. So The Matrix doesn't look like it originally did at least partially.

Anyway, I'll wrap it up. Some people will probably exhale in relief, but whatever. It's what it is and I'll keep hoping one day I'll see something better. Be it quality fanres or another remater from WB, Wachowskis or Keanu himself. They will want to sell The Matrix again, right?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sojrner

In fairness to your hypocrisy, we all focus on some things and give others a pass. My wife freaks out when a stray hair escapes the bathroom, but dust can be inches thick on a shelf in the living room. I am adamantly against overcooking meat, yet can eat the worst of overcooked rice just fine.

I think hearing/vision quality and even equipment you listen/watch with comes into this too. I agree in principle with what you're saying. However, I've heard some older mixes that I used to love on my newer 5.1.2 Atmos system and they come off as strident, while some work well. For me, it's hit and miss on both sides of it.

Yeah. I mean, it'd be easy for people to say "you just have a sound bar, of course you don't care about "better" audio" (don't even have a sound bar, for those keeping score, just TV speakers owing to hearing damage & tinnitus caused by this same hobby) but I had all the audio gubbins for almost 20 years and even then I deferred to OG mixes wherever I could. Why? Because "better" multichannel or immersive audio cannot and will never override my keen memory of what a movie sounded like for years, decades even, before it got completely reworked, along with how anachronistic some remixes seem when they offer crystal clear redone foley and/or music along with dialogue that sounds like it was recorded on a cabbage.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

And I agree with everything you said, except I still don't get why people are so stubborn about shutting down those poor souls who just want The Matrix to look like it once did. Like I said it before, not only you don't lose you perfect Matrix look, you already have it, you only stand to gain if one day by some miracle there will be some kind of purist trend in home market with a sticker "for the first time ever, like it was in theaters". Instead of helping to spread the word, you (not you specifically, but people who do) basically enable further tinkering with the material by saying "Bill Pope is better than you" or "Bill Pope knows better". Yes, Bill Pope is better than me, I never claimed otherwise, I just don't think what he's offering now is better than what it was 22 years ago.

And in case of The Matrix it's especially painful, because one moment you're enjoying a very organic and faithful presentation and then suddenly there are color changes that make zero freaking sense and feel like they belong to some other movie. To be honest, I don't know any other remaster that annoyed me so much. There are simple shitjobs like Predator UHE, T2 or whatever, and then there's the first Matrix, which is already violated multiple times on home video. So... We were this close, but nope, something had to be done about it. So The Matrix doesn't look like it originally did at least partially.

Anyway, I'll wrap it up. Some people will probably exhale in relief, but whatever. It's what it is and I'll keep hoping one day I'll see something better. Be it quality fanres or another remater from WB, Wachowskis or Keanu himself. They will want to sell The Matrix again, right?

All good, all good, I 'member you saying before that some of it was verr faithful while other parts wander way outside the reservation. The strange thing is that I actually liked that about this latest transfer, and I'm not saying that to be a contrary SOB as I've mentioned it before in this thread or another one, that in the modern grading era where digital precision should eradicate this kind of fluctuation from shot to shot it feels kinda quaint to have something that's a bit more random like this.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

All good, all good, I 'member you saying before that some of it was verr faithful while other parts wander way outside the reservation. The strange thing is that I actually liked that about this latest transfer, and I'm not saying that to be a contrary SOB as I've mentioned it before in this thread or another one, that in the modern grading era where digital precision should eradicate this kind of fluctuation from shot to shot it feels kinda quaint to have something that's a bit more random like this.

I don't think that movies necessarily have to have a unified approach to color timing for its entire duration, even in the age of modern color grading. It really depends on what the filmmakers are going for on a scene by scene, shot by shot basis.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah. I mean, it'd be easy for people to say "you just have a sound bar, of course you don't care about "better" audio" (don't even have a sound bar, for those keeping score, just TV speakers owing to hearing damage & tinnitus caused by this same hobby) but I had all the audio gubbins for almost 20 years and even then I deferred to OG mixes wherever I could. Why? Because "better" multichannel or immersive audio cannot and will never override my keen memory of what a movie sounded like for years, decades even, before it got completely reworked, along with how anachronistic some remixes seem when they offer crystal clear redone foley and/or music along with dialogue that sounds like it was recorded on a cabbage.

LOL, yeah... I hear you on the divergent aspects. I think sometimes we have that memory of what the cabbage sounded like when played back on a potato, and no amount of improvement can change what we think is "right." I had a grandfather, an engineer working on dams after a run through the pacific in WW2, and his eardrums I am pretty sure were tatters of loose skin. He loved his reel-to-reel with Chet Atkins plinking away in the background in his hamshack, tinny mono speaker with background hiss and everything. (I remember those days fondly) In his later years, he rejected a remastered CD of Mr. Atkins played on new equipment for (what I imagine to be) similar memory to what you describe. It just didn't sound right to him at all, and he thought the world was broken for messing up his music. But... was that right or wrong?

This is not a dismissal of your position at all mind you, as I know you have stated before you don't listen to multichannel anymore. Nor is this calling you a senile grandpa telling everyone to get off your lawn. Truth is, I think we'd both be happy if every release simply retained the original sound next to the reworked option instead of 27 languages, 15 commentaries, and an interview with the producer's cat. Of course, then we would be having a conversation about something else we don't like about it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sojrner

LOL, yeah... I hear you on the divergent aspects. I think sometimes we have that memory of what the cabbage sounded like when played back on a potato, and no amount of improvement can change what we think is "right." I had a grandfather, an engineer working on dams after a run through the pacific in WW2, and his eardrums I am pretty sure were tatters of loose skin. He loved his reel-to-reel with Chet Atkins plinking away in the background in his hamshack, tinny mono speaker with background hiss and everything. (I remember those days fondly) In his later years, he rejected a remastered CD of Mr. Atkins played on new equipment for (what I imagine to be) similar memory to what you describe. It just didn't sound right to him at all, and he thought the world was broken for messing up his music. But... was that right or wrong?

This is not a dismissal of your position at all mind you, as I know you have stated before you don't listen to multichannel anymore. Nor is this calling you a senile grandpa telling everyone to get off your lawn. Truth is, I think we'd both be happy if every release simply retained the original sound next to the reworked option instead of 27 languages, 15 commentaries, and an interview with the producer's cat. Of course, then we would be having a conversation about something else we don't like about it.

If they could somehow magic up a non-cabbage version of the dialogue tracks then it wouldn’t be so bad, and I mean that. The reason why I love the 2007 mix for Blade Runner Final Cut despite the numerous additions to the foley and effects is that those new effects are perfickly integrated into the soundscape, not intended to be ostentatious crap that’s just there to drive an extra set of speakers (or ten), and that the movie was already mixed for surround helps with that too because the basic ‘layout’ of the mix is already there. I think that’s why I don’t hate the 5.1 remix for Superman the Movie either, it’s also building atop a surround original and although it’s more blatantly revisionist than Blade Runner’s remix it still seems to fit the movie, like that massive CHOOM that accompanies Dick Dinner’s credit. But I am HUGELY thankful that Warners put the legendary split-surround 70mm mix on the STM UHD as well, choice is never a bad thing and we wouldn’t get these silly forums culture wars breaking out if studios actually listened to what their customers want.

It’s when you have to go from mono to multichannel or older multichannel to object based that things can get really choppy as there’s an overwhelming desire to just rebuild the whole thing to sound more modern - sorry, I mean “better” - for a contemporary sound format. The music you can recover from a stereo recording (or more, even the Wizard of Oz’s music was recorded with several pairs of microphones around the stage), the foley and effects you can replace so that they sound like they were recorded yesterday, but that dialogue just doesn’t quite fit and it gets progressively worse as the movies get older. (I forget which UHD it was that I watched recently that had a noticeably ‘hissy’ OG mono track - might’ve been Seventh Seal - but it didn’t hamper my enjoyment one little bit. It’s trying to turn that into a multichannel or object-based mix that fills me with more existential dread than if I were to challenge Death to a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos.)

But yeah, as said, choice keeps everyone happy. And an interview with the producer’s cat would make this kitty verr happy, although if it was Weinstein’s cat then it might end up triggering the #miaowtoo movement.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If they could somehow magic up a non-cabbage version of the dialogue tracks then it wouldn’t be so bad, and I mean that. [...
Loved all of this! lol
...] It’s trying to turn that into a multichannel or object-based mix that fills me with more existential dread than if I were to challenge Death to a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos.)

But yeah, as said, choice keeps everyone happy. And an interview with the producer’s cat would make this kitty verr happy, although if it was Weinstein’s cat then it might end up triggering the #miaowtoo movement.

Agreed. (pulls out copy of Seventh Seal to remember that audio)

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ooh ooh ooh, I was wondering when someone would pull me up on that! Here goes: I see the look of film as being a moving target. Not just from the capricious nature of the photochemical process (hell, RAH had to decide which of three IB Tech prints was the best reference for Spartacus ) but also how home video technology has evolved, films have been revised for about as long as there's been home video. It's not even about the technology in itself, it's more that plenty of filmmakers don't ever consider their work to be finished and all these formats have given the filmmakers a perpetual excuse to continually tinker with their work (paging Mr Cundey, Mr Cundey to the front desk please). And re: the Magentatrix I never regarded the DVD as looking like what I saw in the cinema, the revised green-o-vision transfer certainly did not and the 4K is another revision again (though if you're using the new BD as your personal frame of reference for the 4K then don't, as it too has been graded differently with LOTS more blue and cyan than the HDR).

Doesn't make it 'right' as said but I've learned to live with it, and as long as something isn't utterly murderous to the underlying intent like what Friedkin did to French Connection or Storaro with his exceedingly stupid 2:1 crops of 'scope films then I can accept it for what it is. Same goes for audio remixes, I don't consider the notion of a remix to be automatically 100% destructive to the intent, it's what they do with it that matters.

But yeah, I go harder on audio nonetheless. Why? Because if film's moving target for visuals is the equivalent of trying to shoot the wings off of a fly while blindfolded and riding a horse, for audio it's more like trying to hit Barry the tortoise with a beach ball from 5 yards away i.e. there were different mixes for different prints but once something got settled on as being the de facto mix for home video then it tended to stay that way for years and years and years. It gave goofballs like me the chance to watch these movies so many times that the audio got burnt into my brain, even while the visuals kept a-changin'.

That's why I mentioned 40 years re: Mad Max 2, for while the look never stayed the same the audio bloody well did, at least to the point where I never noticed any differences as the 5.1 (which debuted on DVD I think?) is itself a remix. But four whole decades in, NOW they decide to totally rejig the audio? How did the movie manage to survive without it before? Pffft.

And you know the other reason why I'm much less forgiving with audio? Because it's so flippin' simple to include an OG mix - hell, an older but respectful remix will do in a pinch - on the same disc alongside whatever godless new remix has been created, whereas you can't do that with separate video transfers, not without badly compromising the bitrate anyway (and using more discs will bump up the cost). Still, it can't be that simple when providing OG audio as the studios keep putting downmixes out there, not just on their own discs but what they supply to indies as well.

Am I still a hypocrite after all that? Sure I am. But I never said I wasn't.

What a load of nothing in all of that. No one does it better than you. No one.

[Geoff D]

I thought you were done in this thread and went back to tossing off over the laserdisc?

[Warm Gun]

Just rewatched it. Yeah, bouncing from blue to green and back is disappointing. Reloaded and Revolutions' restorations are better.

By the way, does Morpheus have time to change into a different color shirt in the older versions? Was it always just a goof or is it the 4K?

[Synchg]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

[Show spoiler]

meticulously restored shot by shot and supervised by original DP