The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by Bolty

14 weeks is a long time to wait for this and Aliens.

“Nobody trusts anybody now… and we’re all very tired.”

[rubystone356]

I just got back from the screening myself. I took a friend who had not seen it before.

I have seen both versions over the years. it felt like a brand new movie.. modern and yet the actors were younger 1989. I remember blade runner on hd, and it looked modern yet showed Harrison young age 1982 at the time.. felt the same thing here

I notice some grain and more detail as the same time.
I got the Cameron intro and very few trailers. the Dolby Atmos was awesome.
its the best it ever looked and worth the long wait. cant wait for the 4k/blu ray in march and streaming next week.

[Ambler1980]

Originally Posted by Pocketkid2

Remember friends, it's not about grain, it's about detail. For every shot that looked slightly processed there was another shot that looked so good it could have been filmed yesterday. But I guess all you pixel peepers don't want to hear that.

It's about getting as close to the original negative as possible, which includes grain (especially with the super35 stock Cameron shot the Abyss on). So yes, it's (at least somewhat) about grain. There are some extremely great and faithful film transfers that have plenty of grain structure... the truth is guys like Cameron and Lucas are all about altering their original films to look closer in nature to the digital cinematography they now prefer. This isn't film preservation, it's film interpretation and I really detest it.

Also, the problem with one shot looks processed and the next looks amazing, is that it can actually detract from the experience, since you are constantly being thrown off by the varying quality of the image... at least I was. Seeing the film tonight at AMC Barton Springs was a damn near religious experience (saw it in theaters when I was 9 back during the original theatrical run), but I'd be lying if I said that it wasn't a bit distracting watching the quality of the image get yanked back and forth from scrubbed and waxy to looking more filmic. That said, it did little to damper my enthusiasm about seeing this on a giant screen with amazing dolby atmos sound.

The good news is that people's screen's are so small (in relation to theaters) that the image will probably fare better when the UHD comes out. Theatrical tends to magnify image issues.

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by Pocketkid2

Can confirm, rat is still real, there is no visible grain in the image, but it doesn't matter at all because the restoration work is so good. Remember friends, it's not about grain, it's about detail. For every shot that looked slightly processed there was another shot that looked so good it could have been filmed yesterday. But I guess all you pixel peepers don't want to hear that.

The problem with removing grain is that you’re essentially removing fine detail of whatever was captured. Grain is inherently part of film, so for movies shot on film, whenever grain is removed, you’re also removing detail on faces, objects, clothing, etc. That’s why us “pixel peepers” do not like to see the grain removed as it’s next to impossible to preserve the native fine detail while at the same time removing the grain. Hence also why those ProRes caps of the trailers show most face close ups looking smooth. Sometimes grain is removed, then the image is artificially sharpened to try to create the illusion of more detail. That’s even worse, as you not only removed fine detail by removing the grain, but then you also added digital artifacts by sharpening an image that lacked fine detail due to the grain removal.

It’s not like natural film grain was purposely added just because, and at least for me, I don’t like to see it just because i like the grain itself. I like to see it because if it’s naturally there then it means the natural, native fine detail was also preserved.

Sometimes grain is added intentionally in post for movies shot digitally, but that’s done on a case by case basis if the filmmakers decided to do so. But this was shot well before digital became a thing, so the grain should be there if they had preserved the natural fine detail that was originally captured.

https://richardphotolab.com/blogs/po...20film%20image.

And this is a 4K restoration. I.e. the whole point is to get the best image possible given the detail on 35mm basically caps around 4K. But it’s almost an oxymoron when you remove the original film grain but still present it in 4K. You’re removing detail but still essentially claiming more detail.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Just got back from the screening.

The ProRes trailer that was released is representative of what I saw. The grain management seams are visible throughout. Thankfully not as intrusive in applications as seen with other films but still evident.

The inconsistency with grain seen such as near Bud's head in this shot was visible in the screening for example.


The Hippy character face really exhibited problems with the grain management in that his facial features became super smooth in various shots.

Various shots exhibited very prominently the sharpening while the majority of the film the sharpening was mostly subtle.

Our screening seemed to be just a wee bit dim. A friend who is a calibrator felt that it was perhaps set to the incorrect gamma.

In spite of that, it was a great experience.

I really enjoyed the color grading. Yes, it is more cyan than old school Cameron steel blue, with some hints of 'teal' but overall I am pleased with the result.

Park Road NZ was involved in this restoration as with Titanic and likely Aliens and True Lies.

Looking forward to rewatching The Abyss on my own system.

My showing was in Atmos and it sounded great to me. A front heavy mix with some subtle atmospheric fill and the bass was clean and effective. Our theater had a subwoofer above our heads. My friend says that is to address bass dips.

No changes to the rat and liquid oxygen scene.

A few SE shots towards the end looked poor, standard definition quality, and one overhead wide shot of the NTI vessel with the human ships and rig looked terrible. Very low res with huge coarse grain and sharpening.

[Nick Michalak]

In the very least, this did NOT show any signs of the splotchy T2 3D scrubbed to wax sculpture levels. I was definitely looking for details in faces, which was apparent repeatedly. However, there was an overhead shot near the end showing the fully surfaced alien craft that looked kind of low-fi. It just jumped out as looking odd, and the shot was held on long enough to examine it a bit. Not sure if it was just because it was a wide shot with miniatures and maybe optical elements composited in, but it's the only shot that caught my eye strangely. If anyone gets this on digital next week, I'd like to see some caps.

[TazerMonkey]

Hadn't seen the Special Edition for 20 years, first time seeing the movie in a theater. Saw this from the second row at Burbank AMC 16. Other than the occasional effect shot looking a bit rough (especially the wave and the rising ship, which I assume is mostly due to how they were processed with late 1980s-early 1990s tech), I thought this looked fairly spectacular.

[GenPion]

I noticed the grain management too. At the same time, it was subtle and not so bad compared to some other presentations. There is still some fine grain in the transfer. Ironically, I noticed significantly worse DNR and enhancement to the 4K IMAX release of the original Avatar, it was as though everything was smoothed over with DNR - a total disaster for Avatar during its theatrical re-release. This was particularly disturbing given the film is so recent compared to most films getting this kind of digital retool. (I still haven't seen the 4K disc released for Avatar to compare and I know many versions were created by the team). The Abyss is beautiful.

Compared to earlier disasters, it's miles better, even if not as good as say a scan consisting entirely of unaltered grain structure (such as something one might hope to see/expect from most Sony 4Ks or Kino Lorber 4Ks). Even with some grain management, the 4K transfer looks stunning and it is the best the film has ever looked. As someone who aims to be a perfectionist when it comes to film presentations, could it look better? Technically, The Abyss could look a little bit better. Yet putting aside some nitpicks, audiences will be thrilled with the presentation overall. It's a gorgeous 4K restoration and the colors and HDR implementation are stunning.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by trevorlj

- I know it's not news but yep...definitely grain managed and de-noised. For the record I usually hate both and would surely rather own a grainy un-molested transfer. BUT...
- This has to be a more advanced/refined version of both technologies than I have ever seen on any prior presentation. The image is squeaky clean from start to finish but there's surprisingly quite a bit of detail still present. It's not just wiped out and smeared to high heaven across the board. I've never seen anything like it. A bit of waxy cheeks on face closeups here and there...sure...but for the most part I'm not particularly broken up about the way it turned out.

DNR has come a long way, in its way. Detail loss wasn't really an issue in T2 either. Compared to the older BD transfers it had a ton of added detail. It just didn't look like film, that was the issue.

[Captain Keen]

Saw this in Dolby Cinema. Agree with what a lot of people are saying. I saw a 70mm blow-up print of the theatrical version in 2017, and this has definitely been heavily degrained (kinda reminiscent of the 4K LOTR trilogy) *but* for about 90 percent of it there’s still a ton of detail. In fact I’d say you really lose almost no detail.

This is a far cry from that old blu of Predator, and honestly I’m just happy to get the film in 4K in a real release. The opening 5 minutes or so looked especially rough, but for the most part it’s still a visually appealing film and a lot of the wide underwater shots especially look spectacular. I actually think I picked up some more details of the sets and model work here than I did on the film print.

However, if you want that lovely filmic look you are going to be disappointed. Also, that overhead shot of the alien ship looked horrible on the 70mm print too so I think that’s a source issue. You could also tell the CGI on the water tentacle was lower resolution. That looked better on the film print, probably because it wasn’t as bright.

I used to be a real hater of DNR but I’ll admit I’ve softened a bit in the past few years, partly because the technology has significantly improved and partly because I can tell filmmakers like Cameron wanted it to look this way from the start. In the end this is what we are getting and it could be a whole lot worse. It was a great experience at the theater. I think most people will be satisfied (outside of these forums, of course) since on a basic level the majority of the film looks GOOD. Unlike say Predator or that 4K of Goodfellas which just looked bad even if you knew nothing about post production or mastering.

[videopat]

It is mind-boggling to me that a filmmaker - especially one of Cameron’s stature and perceived technical prowess - would look at organic 35mm film grain in an image and treat it like some nuisance that has to be removed. I’m sorry, but that is nuts

[GenPion]

I don't think anyone will be that disappointed by the digital tinkering with The Abyss. It could technically be a little better but I was blown away by the 4K restoration even if I noticed some slight issues.

After I watched The Sixth Sense on Blu-ray for the first time, scrubbed entirely of grain, I felt like crying and went back to my DVD. (Now I watch the DNR free German Blu-ray edition - at least until a 4K UHD is released).

This isn't going to upset anyone that much. Possibly similar to the Titanic 4K (I haven't seen it yet but it seems like most are satisfied with it.)

[cheez avenger]

It was a great presentation in Dolby Cinema. The only shot that sucked, and it IS a source issue, was that overhead shot of the ships on the giant saucer. Outside of that, I cannot wait until March.

[traths]

With this, True Lies, and Aliens coming to 4K, I hope this will influence Disney to release more of the Fox catalog on 4K because I believe these are going to sell well.

[GasmaskAvenger]

I knew that a non-3D master of a James Cameron movie shot on film would retain SOME film grain.

Those caps for The Abyss look like an evolution of the methods utilized on the Cameron approved restoration of Aliens for the Anthology blu-ray set.

[GenPion]

I 100% would prefer a scan that retains all film grain and looks like something Sony would put out on 4K but even with some slight grain management, The Abyss looks incredible. Going from the outdated DVD edition - this is leaps and bounds better and fans will be happy to see the HDR presentation. The colors are especially spectacular now - this is something significantly improved from previous presentations. The special effects also hold up well, IMO. (Other than a few source-related spots).

[Trekkie313]

Can anyone confirm shots of the Bethnic Explorer intentionally being graded with a fake overcast? The introduction on the bridge looked washed out.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Curiously there is a shot or two of Lindsay at the end in the which the color grading imbues her with a super pale complexion and whitish/blue lips. Similar to after her revival from drowning. It was odd.

But as she approached Bud then she looked healthy again.

[Nick Michalak]

Originally Posted by Danespina

Got a free poster walking out. The back advertised all of James Cameron's upcoming 4Ks.

No posters handed out at my theatre. I've contacted Cinemark about this oversight. I hope they had them sitting in a box somewhere and forgot to hand them out. Most of these select theatres got them, even a friend of mine.

[Cliff]

Just got back from the Dolby Cinema and I'm happy to report that the missing frames that were unavoidable when they reconstructed the Special Edition in 1993 have been (what I can only assume to be) digitally repaired/recreated. The film no longer has those occasional jumps when new footage was introduced. But, yes, the ending overhead shot is astonishingly bad and I don't remember it looking that way prior. Not sure what happened.