The Matrix Trilogy 4K UHD (1999-2003)

[robgmun]

Originally Posted by Memon

"Executive decision" is golden.

Still the best mid movie twist ever. Didn't see a certain death coming

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Was that in auction or BiN? I'd never get that much for it with the latter.

1 day auction. I don't do BiN.

[Larsiboy]

Originally Posted by rwc

Not that we should be further discussing The Hobbit here, but for the record, such people do exist, I’m one of them. I still remember the feeling of visual awe when I saw the first one in IMAX 3D High Frame Rate, I went back to experience it twice more, and have been missing it ever since as it really did add something. No one can vouch for the effect of HFR on a 2D version as this was never released, but it would seem kind of pointless. Peter Jackson opted for HFR and brightly coloured sets mainly to avoid the flickering and dullness issues he feared with 3D.

SO I don’t think anyone knows how the HFR would affect The Hobbit’s eventual UHD presentation until they’ve experienced it... Ang Lee’s Billy Lynn (filmed at 60fps and 120fps rather than 48fps and which proved to be an over-the-top impractical production) was presented on UHD at 60fps. The effect there is that it allows you to regularly notice the great detail (4K digital intermediate, unlike The Hobbit 2K DI). They may well present The Hobbit on UHD with its HFR as it is indeed possible (perhaps this decision will involve Peter Jackson).

The point remains that for both The Hobbit and Billy Lynn, the HFR was designed primarily to improve the 3D playback. And ironically neither 3D Blu-ray release included the HFR. (Also, The Hobbit’s IMAX 3D HFR was stupidly cropped for the 3D Blu-ray, from 2.00:1 to 2.40:1). They’re extremely unlikely to ever re-release either one on 3D 1080p with HFR.
So unless and until a 3D 2K+ format emerges one day (Avatar 2?) with the renewed chance to add the original HFR (which should not be kept “dead and buried” in principle), no one can expect the HFR to work its magic for either The Hobbit or Billy Lynn as was intended.

Apologies for the side-show! Consider me triggered...
Without wanting to provoke an onslaught here with what I know is a controversial view: I love to imagine The Matrix in IMAX 3D HFR But “bullet time” in UHD is good enough

Thanks for letting me know, now i really wish i seen it in theaters

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yep, that’s the only reason I own the Dark Tower.

I'm the lone gunmen on this, but I absolutely loved The Dark Tower and thought it was one of the best of last year. In my top 5 for last year even. I don't own it for financial reasons, but do plan on getting it again someday soon.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I'm the lone gunmen on this, but I absolutely loved The Dark Tower and thought it was one of the best of last year. In my top 5 for last year even. I don't own it for financial reasons, but do plan on getting it again someday soon.

Well it looks great so you’ll be pleased when you do pick it up.

[JSK23]

Looks like my copy will be here tomorrow, pretty excited to check out the whole series finally in 4k.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by rwc

Not that we should be further discussing The Hobbit here, but for the record, such people do exist, I’m one of them. I still remember the feeling of visual awe when I saw the first one in IMAX 3D High Frame Rate, I went back to experience it twice more, and have been missing it ever since as it really did add something. No one can vouch for the effect of HFR on a 2D version as this was never released, but it would seem kind of pointless. Peter Jackson opted for HFR and brightly coloured sets mainly to avoid the flickering and dullness issues he feared with 3D.

SO I don’t think anyone knows how the HFR would affect The Hobbit’s eventual UHD presentation until they’ve experienced it... Ang Lee’s Billy Lynn (filmed at 60fps and 120fps rather than 48fps and which proved to be an over-the-top impractical production) was presented on UHD at 60fps. The effect there is that it allows you to regularly notice the great detail (4K digital intermediate, unlike The Hobbit 2K DI). They may well present The Hobbit on UHD with its HFR as it is indeed possible (perhaps this decision will involve Peter Jackson).

The point remains that for both The Hobbit and Billy Lynn, the HFR was designed primarily to improve the 3D playback. And ironically neither 3D Blu-ray release included the HFR. (Also, The Hobbit’s IMAX 3D HFR was stupidly cropped for the 3D Blu-ray, from 2.00:1 to 2.40:1). They’re extremely unlikely to ever re-release either one on 3D 1080p with HFR.
So unless and until a 3D 2K+ format emerges one day (Avatar 2?) with the renewed chance to add the original HFR (which should not be kept “dead and buried” in principle), no one can expect the HFR to work its magic for either The Hobbit or Billy Lynn as was intended.

Apologies for the side-show! Consider me triggered...
Without wanting to provoke an onslaught here with what I know is a controversial view: I love to imagine The Matrix in IMAX 3D HFR But “bullet time” in UHD is good enough

Pretty sure The Hobbit was not cropped, but rather used expanded image for IMAX (and the also had non IMAX HFR 3D screenings in scope, I saw all three in HFR, with the first and third being IMAX and the second regular 3D). IMAX basically stopped cropping films a decade ago (except for certain theater's, for instance I will see scope IMAX theater's sometimes crop flat titles, but that must be a location decision and not part of the DMR process), plus they were shot with Red cameras that have a native 2.0 ratio.

I think the HFR was significantly improved in the Hobbit sequels as they clearly worked on the color grading to get a more traditionally cinematic look for them. But I still found with the med evil style fantasy setting and the clear use of sets and make up, it didn't fit HFR as well as Billy Lynn with a more contemporary setting and realistic look, as artificial elements tend to really stand out in HFR.

[y2jman]

well I just decided to go ahead preorder both matrix revolutions and reloaded best buy today saying get it on Friday in mail not sure get them early before Friday that is

[Agent Kay]

Ugh, why no singles in the UK

[Locutus494]

Originally Posted by tyrok

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

Seriously?! Why do they have to go and put a different UHD logo on the Matrix spine vs the other two?! Is that picture of the new release or the original Matrix UHD already out? It's like they're trying to trigger to OCD people...

[HAL9K]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Those SDR conversions will likely not be an accurate depiction of the HDR.

I'm sure they are accurate enough. Tired of people claiming "SDR conversion" for screenshots that look hugely different between 4k & Blu. The conversion people always claim is NOT going to cause that drastic of a complete difference in color timings. Not to mention people always use that entire conversion explanation for EVERY inconsistency in screenshots. One topic will say a conversion caused blown out highlights, but other will say it's the reason for black crush. Lmfao. C'mon. The conversion would have the same effect on every movie, not different effects on different movies.

If it's due to a conversion, why does every converted screenshot of every single movie not have that drastic of a change? I can guarantee the screenshots are completely accurate enough for people to get a good idea of the differences.

[Vangeli]

Originally Posted by Locutus494

Seriously?! Why do they have to go and put a different UHD logo on the Matrix spine vs the other two?! Is that picture of the new release or the original Matrix UHD already out? It's like they're trying to trigger to OCD people...

They updated to the alternate logo after the first movie came out and there's absolutely no reason for them to spend money and redo the first.

These sequels and 2001: A Space Odyssey have this logo so far. Don't really like how it looks on a Steelbook compared to the other logo but eh, whatever. It is what it is.

[rwc]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Pretty sure The Hobbit was not cropped, but rather used expanded image for IMAX [...] IMAX basically stopped cropping films a decade ago [...] plus they were shot with Red cameras that have a native 2.0 ratio.

Err yeah unless I misunderstand you I’m pretty sure that’s what I said:
“Also, The Hobbit’s IMAX 3D HFR was stupidly cropped for the 3D Blu-ray, from 2.00:1 to 2.40:1.”
In other words The Hobbit WAS cropped, FROM its original IMAX 3D 2.00:1 ratio, FOR the 3D Blu-ray (2.40:1), when it could + should have been left as is (not to mention the HFR). Anyway it was a side-point within a side-point...

[LordoftheRings]

One of our favorite master BR 4K movie reviewers:
• http://www.thedigitalbits.com/item/m...trilogy-uhd-bd

[Locutus494]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

They updated to the alternate logo after the first movie came out and there's absolutely no reason for them to spend money and redo the first.

These sequels and 2001: A Space Odyssey have this logo so far. Don't really like how it looks on a Steelbook compared to the other logo but eh, whatever. It is what it is.

But they DID redo it. This new release is different form the original one, right?

[koberulz]

No?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rwc

Err yeah unless I misunderstand you I’m pretty sure that’s what I said:
“Also, The Hobbit’s IMAX 3D HFR was stupidly cropped for the 3D Blu-ray, from 2.00:1 to 2.40:1.”
In other words The Hobbit WAS cropped, FROM its original IMAX 3D 2.00:1 ratio, FOR the 3D Blu-ray (2.40:1), when it could + should have been left as is (not to mention the HFR). Anyway it was a side-point within a side-point...

Eh, one person's "cropped" is another person's "properly framed", just as one person's "IMAX" is another person's "open matte".

Just as I wouldn't want the open matte, sorry, "IMAX" version of, say, Skyfall I wouldn't want it for this either.

[Geoff D]

Anyhoo, the Matrix trilogy is in the hizzouse!! I see the UK cases have the same variance to the Ultra HD logo on the spine, I guess that's what Warners are adopting from here on out: '4K Ultra HD' rather than 'Ultra HD Blu-ray'.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Anyhoo, the Matrix trilogy is in the hizzouse!! I see the UK cases have the same variance to the Ultra HD logo on the spine, I guess that's what Warners are adopting from here on out: '4K Ultra HD' rather than 'Ultra HD Blu-ray'.

Is that Revolutions disc BD-66 or BD-100? It just hits 67 GB. But then again, in the world of computers; bits, bytes etc could vary a bit.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by rwc

Err yeah unless I misunderstand you I’m pretty sure that’s what I said:
“Also, The Hobbit’s IMAX 3D HFR was stupidly cropped for the 3D Blu-ray, from 2.00:1 to 2.40:1.”
In other words The Hobbit WAS cropped, FROM its original IMAX 3D 2.00:1 ratio, FOR the 3D Blu-ray (2.40:1), when it could + should have been left as is (not to mention the HFR). Anyway it was a side-point within a side-point...

Well, it's really not stupid since the film would have been composed for 2.40 (or thereabouts) anyway. In other words the 2.40 should theoretically have better composition while the 2:1 gains information that wasn't part of the original compositions.

Cropped implies image information that is part of the intended image is being removed. That's not the case at all, image information is being added to the frame to create an open matte 2:1 presentation rather than the 2.40 presentation being "cropped" from 2:1.

However if Jackson did decide to go with 2:1 for the 3D Blu-rays, I wouldn't have been upset. It is still a valid ratio (it would have likely been protected for that ratio during filming) although it's not the original ratio it was composed for.