|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best 4K Blu-ray Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $22.49 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $49.99 | ![]() $36.69 | ![]() $29.99 | ![]() $29.96 | ![]() $31.99 | ![]() $29.96 | ![]() $96.99 | ![]() $39.99 | ![]() $26.59 19 hrs ago
| ![]() $86.13 | ![]() $22.49 1 day ago
|
![]() |
#2421 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that modern restorations use the same photochemical process of creating a theatrical print (they OBVIOUSLY don't lol - nobody does this), I'm saying they don't use a theatrical print as a REFERENCE because it's too many steps removed from the OCN so it isn't accurate at all. They were never accurate. THAT. IS. PRECISELY. THE. POINT. It doesn't matter what people saw back in the day, what they saw was a shitty inaccurate theatrical print that was several steps removed from the OCN because at the time that was the only way to mass produce prints for theatrical exhibition without destroying the negative. And "the only authentic source to determine the look of the film is always a theatrical print" isn't even remotely true. You think they're gonna use a theatrical print to restore a movie from the '50s? You can't be serious. And people aren't out here creating answer prints to do restorations - that's also not what I said at all - those would've been created back when the film was made (during post-production). That answer print (if it exists) or even a well preserved IP would be a much better representation of how said film was supposed to look, not a bloody theatrical print. Using a theatrical print for a restoration is a last resort kind of deal. Like what Shout Factory had to do with their BDs of Hell Night and The Final Terror because sadly those are the only elements that exist. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2422 |
Member
Apr 2022
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2423 | |
Blu-ray Knight
Feb 2012
NJ
|
![]() Quote:
I'm really trying to understand your logic here because if the scan is flawed, EVERYTHING about it should be inaccurate. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2424 | |
Member
Feb 2023
|
![]() Quote:
It's not so much the star on the cap in the frame you highlight for me, but the whole face. Again it's not too far removed from the aggressive sharpening visible in Avatar that reduces a lot of background actors faces to pure mush. The software is just too eager to define any kind of edges that it can recognise be it a line in the skin, or a cheekbone...etc, and yet I'm not seeing that whole weird blanket of sharpening that plagues entire frames in Avatar. |
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: |
![]() |
#2425 | |
Active Member
Jan 2022
|
![]() Quote:
That is why now I take it with a grain of salt. I'm never swayed by overreaction and never, ever by screenshots. |
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | crutzulee (11-29-2023), darkanek (11-28-2023), gates70 (11-27-2023), iawl (03-15-2025), jvonl (11-28-2023), matbezlima (11-27-2023), NoFro (11-27-2023), ryantoyota (11-27-2023), VMeran (11-30-2023) |
![]() |
#2426 |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]()
You guys do realize movies are meant to be watched in movement and not through ultra augmented stills, right?
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | awp69 (11-27-2023), cemetaryrider89 (11-28-2023), crutzulee (11-29-2023), Dark_Vader (11-27-2023), Dr. T (11-27-2023), iawl (03-15-2025), ilenewoodsfan99 (11-27-2023), ImBlu_DaBaDee (11-27-2023), j128v897 (11-27-2023), Jay H. (11-27-2023), jvonl (11-28-2023), Locked1089 (11-29-2023), matbezlima (11-27-2023), mosespa (11-28-2023), moviebuffed (11-28-2023), pitchman (11-27-2023), ponderingtheuniverse (11-27-2023), RYJAPE21 (11-27-2023), somebulls (11-27-2023), srolle (11-27-2023), starmike (11-27-2023), VMeran (11-30-2023), Wes_k089 (11-27-2023) |
![]() |
#2427 | |
Special Member
|
![]() Quote:
Also, looking at some of the later comparisons in the same gallery, I'm noticing instances where the angle looks different, which normally I'd assume was because the uploaded didn't get the exact same frames, but nothing in the shot seems to actually move between the two images. Is the UHD based on the 3D conversion and pulling certain shots from the wrong eye? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2428 | |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]() Quote:
Also, an IP is very low contrast and has poor density. It can never be a reference for how the final look is supposed to be because the viewer is not supposed to look at an IP. It is an unprocessed positive image. An IP does not dictate the final look. In case of Nolan's films, he scans the IPs because he doesn't want to touch the O-Neg. However, the IP is then further colour graded to match the photochemically timed prints that represent how people are supposed to watch the movie, more or less. Last edited by Riddhi2011; 11-27-2023 at 08:19 PM. |
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | mar3o (11-27-2023) |
![]() |
#2429 | |
Member
Feb 2023
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | omgitsgodzilla (11-27-2023) |
![]() |
#2430 |
Blu-ray Knight
Feb 2012
NJ
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2431 |
Special Member
|
![]()
I didn't realize the 3D Blu-ray was open matte; that would explain it!
I'd heard the T2 UHD was based on the 3D conversion and that was part of why the image was so scrubbed; I thought they might've done the same thing here given the general weirdness of the image. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2432 | |
Blu-ray Ninja
|
![]() Quote:
![]() As for the motion argument, after recently watching great portions of it on D+, I have come to terms with how Avatar looks in 4K. Yes, it's oversharpened. Yes, the live-action stuff is mostly trash. But damn, I just love how colorful and contrasty all the Pandora stuff is. |
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | PonyoBellanote (11-27-2023), VMeran (11-30-2023) |
![]() |
#2433 |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]()
I wanted to write "miscommunication" but due to confusion of posting both here and on another private chat platform where I was conversing about cognitive dissonance, I put it here. Thanks for pointing out my error. I'll edit it. Multitasking is problematic.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2435 |
Member
Jul 2023
Yorkshire, England, UK
|
![]()
Some screen caps being posted seem to be coming from lower quality sources.
Compare this shot from the HighDefWatch images probably taken from the projected disc with a similar shot from Slow.Pics from an unknown source. Slightly different angles but there's clearly a difference in quality. It's best to wait for the discs, we don't know what we're seeing online. HighDefWatch (probably projected disc, not directly captured) ![]() Slow.Pics (unknown source) ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | paco77 (11-27-2023) |
![]() |
#2436 | |
Blu-ray Emperor
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: |
![]() |
#2437 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
No there's no miscommunication, you're just wrong lol.
You're saying that when a film gets restored, the best representation of a film's look comes from a theatrical print and thus should be used as a reference. You could not be more wrong. Period end of story. https://www.johndaro.com/blog/2021/5/5/restoring-classics-a7t2e Specifically the section on "Grading": "Grading restoration titles is a total sub-discipline from grading as a whole. New theatrical grading starts with references and look development to achieve a certain tone for the film. There is a ton of work that goes into this process. Restoration grading differs since the goal is staying true to that original intent. Not reimagining it. Much like new theatrical grading, a good reference will set you up for success. My preferred reference is a filmmaker-approved answer print. These were the master prints that best represented the filmmakers’ creative intent." Again, proper restorations are not using a theatrical print for reference simply because they are NOT a good reference. Jesus Christ. |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | fkid (11-27-2023), KMFDMvsEnya (11-28-2023), matbezlima (11-27-2023), Mierzwiak (11-27-2023), SpacemanDoug (11-27-2023), starmike (11-27-2023), thunder2020 (11-27-2023), wright96d (11-28-2023) |
![]() |
#2438 | |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2439 | |
Banned
|
![]() Quote:
A perfect example of this is day-for-night photography, which was used in lots of older TV shows and lower-budget films, especially horror. They would shoot footage during the day that's intended to be night shots, then during color timing later they would adjust those shots so they would be much darker, with the shadows from the sun passing as moonlit shadows. That's what would go out to theatres, not what was exactly on the negatives - which was the full-brightness daylight scenes as shot on the negatives. Some DVD and blu-ray releases actually screw that up, because they scan the original negative, but don't realize there were day-for-night shots that were meant to be timed for night. So on DVD or blu-ray the production looks incompetent as it appears scenes change from night to day and back again depending on the shot, when really it was the label that didn't properly time it as it was originally intended. Usually that's due to them not being as familiar with the films as the fans, who know these things, and not having access to original notes that would instruct whoever was doing the timing to adjust those shots. Gerry' Anderson's UFO series has had this issue with a couple episodes on blu-ray from various regions, where the label didn't properly time the day-for-night shots so they appear to be in broad daylight despite it supposedly being nighttime. I saw this happen in a horror film too where they didn't time it right for the blu-ray, so at one point the daylight was pouring into a room but it was supposed to be night, so the actors were pretending to fumble around not seeing anything in the room, when we could clearly see the bright room with the light coming it. The whole scene looked ridiculous because the label didn't time the scene properly. A print would have been a good guide there. The DVD didn't have that issue because whoever timed the DVD knew about those shots. Same with the DVDs of UFO, which had the correct night timing. This is just one example of how yes, prints can be used as a guide to some degree as to how the intended look of the film was. Obviously not a degraded, beat-up, faded print. |
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: | Riddhi2011 (11-27-2023), ryantoyota (11-27-2023) |
![]() |
#2440 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Thanks given by: |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|