Home Alone (1990) (25th Anniversary Edition) (Remastered)

[Axl Rose]

i like to think they sat around in a conference room thinking of ideas and after 13 straight hours some delirious worker stands up and says "paint can, lets put it in a paint can" after a brief and awkward silence the place burst into cheers

[Movieman66]

More information about the Home Alone 25th anniversary theatrical engagement:

Date: Sunday, November 8 and Wednesday, November 11

Time: 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. (local time) both days.

(Cinemark locations will have a 2:00 p.m. showing instead of 4:30 p.m.)

Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes (approximate)

Fathom Events and Twentieth Century Fox are celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Home Alone by bringing the beloved holiday family film back to select cinemas nationwide for special event screenings on Sunday, November 8, with an encore screening on Wednesday, November 11.

When Home Alone debuted in theaters 25 years ago, audiences flocked to the film making it #1 at the box office for an unprecedented four-month run. This timeless holiday classic is still the highest grossing live action comedy of all time, spawning a highly successful franchise with four sequels and three video games, and now the original film can be seen again on the big screen this November! Relive every pratfall and prank with Catherine O’Hara, John Heard, John Candy, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, and Macaulay Culkin in the role that made him an international household name.

Eight-year-old Kevin McCallister (Culkin) has become the man of the house overnight! Accidentally left behind when his family rushes off on a Christmas vacation, Kevin gets busy decorating the house for the holidays, but he's not decking the halls with tinsel and holly. Two bumbling burglars are trying to break in and Kevin's rigging a bewildering battery of booby traps to welcome them!

Directed by Chris Columbus (Mrs. Doubtfire) and written by John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles), this beloved classic is a must-see holiday film for the whole family.

Special Fathom Features: A special introduction that will be exclusive to cinema audiences.

[travisbickle]

LOL at all of the people in this thread waiting for a 4K remaster of Home Alone 2.

I actually have a soft spot for the movie (grew up watching it along with the first) but it's never going to happen.

[Carlanga]

Originally Posted by SwissHD

I got my new Blu Ray with the 4k remaster yesterday! Its the german disc. The master will of course be the same in the us.
The old Blu Ray was ok but a little to bright and light dnr was applied.
The new 4k remaster looks stellar and beautiful.
Its darker but it seems more faithful to the source.

I did a comparison between old and new Blu Ray:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/143371

Looks more organic...more filmlike.
Love it!

Some colors are now better on the 4K, but has gone too dark for me especially on inside scenes. The darkness+grain is I guess what you prob brings it as you refer to more filmlike, but IDK I still prefer the old BD, because I can see more detail even though color wise is not as true and grain is not that rampant. I think the DNR done was the right amount the first time. Especially since I bought the double pack for $10 a few ago I don't think the 4K remaster is not worth it atm for me. 4k remaster has great outside scenes though, but this movie is mostly inside.

[bowlingbilly10]

Originally Posted by Movieman66

More information about the Home Alone 25th anniversary theatrical engagement:

Date: Sunday, November 8 and Wednesday, November 11

Time: 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. (local time) both days.

(Cinemark locations will have a 2:00 p.m. showing instead of 4:30 p.m.)

Run Time: 1 hour 45 minutes (approximate)

Fathom Events and Twentieth Century Fox are celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Home Alone by bringing the beloved holiday family film back to select cinemas nationwide for special event screenings on Sunday, November 8, with an encore screening on Wednesday, November 11.

When Home Alone debuted in theaters 25 years ago, audiences flocked to the film making it #1 at the box office for an unprecedented four-month run. This timeless holiday classic is still the highest grossing live action comedy of all time, spawning a highly successful franchise with four sequels and three video games, and now the original film can be seen again on the big screen this November! Relive every pratfall and prank with Catherine O’Hara, John Heard, John Candy, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, and Macaulay Culkin in the role that made him an international household name.

Eight-year-old Kevin McCallister (Culkin) has become the man of the house overnight! Accidentally left behind when his family rushes off on a Christmas vacation, Kevin gets busy decorating the house for the holidays, but he's not decking the halls with tinsel and holly. Two bumbling burglars are trying to break in and Kevin's rigging a bewildering battery of booby traps to welcome them!

Directed by Chris Columbus (Mrs. Doubtfire) and written by John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles), this beloved classic is a must-see holiday film for the whole family.

Special Fathom Features: A special introduction that will be exclusive to cinema audiences.

Damn I can't believe it's been 25 years since the first home alone came out. It would've been nice if they showed one and two as a double feature since they are the best ones.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by 42041

Can't imagine why studios even bother... fix the ugly washed out video colors of an ancient transfer and everyone whines about it.

It's f'ing hilarious how many people on this forum prefer the ancient transfers over new improved ones. It happens with every movie - no exceptions. A lot of people just despise a natural, film-like image and prefer blown out whites and pink push. They love the "video" look and I can only imagine how far off their displays are from D6500K.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by SwissHD

I got my new Blu Ray with the 4k remaster yesterday! Its the german disc. The master will of course be the same in the us.
The old Blu Ray was ok but a little to bright and light dnr was applied.
The new 4k remaster looks stellar and beautiful.
Its darker but it seems more faithful to the source.

I did a comparison between old and new Blu Ray:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/143371

Looks more organic...more filmlike.
Love it!

Significant improvement - thanks for the caps!

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It's f'ing hilarious how many people on this forum prefer the ancient transfers over new improved ones. It happens with every movie - no exceptions. A lot of people just despise a natural, film-like image and prefer blown out whites and pink push. They love the "video" look and I can only imagine how far off their displays are from D6500K.

I'm sorry, how it is an improvement to see pitch black where you could see more detail?
And, if the original negative was pitch black on those areas that weren't meant to be seen how the detail appeared with the boosted brightness in the old Bluray? Shouldn't we just see a grey area?
In a way there is an improvement, but in another, not.

[42041]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I'm sorry, how it is an improvement to see pitch black where you could see more detail?
And, if the original negative was pitch black on those areas that weren't meant to be seen how the detail appeared with the boosted brightness in the old Bluray? Shouldn't we just see a grey area?
In some areas there is an improvement, but in others, not.

That's the whole thing with negatives: they can record far more dynamic range than is reproducible in an analog print. Just because it's there doesn't mean it should be seen. For example: in some older movies, when the lights were turned on in a room, the light on set didnt change - it was simply achieved with the printer lights. And overly bright mastering is a plague with older transfers. Ultimately, the new transfer looks like a 90s film print, in terms of color and contrast curve. The old one does not. I'm hardly a Home Alone color timing expert but thats enough for me.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I'm sorry, how it is an improvement to see pitch black where you could see more detail?
And, if the original negative was pitch black on those areas that weren't meant to be seen how the detail appeared with the boosted brightness in the old Bluray? Shouldn't we just see a grey area?
In a way there is an improvement, but in another, not.

Detail, non-overblown whites, better-warmer color timing, real film-grain, no pink push, and natural looking image - yes, improvement in every way. Boosted brightness is not the way a movie is supposed to necessarily look. Not every single darker shadow detail is supposed to be fully illuminated and visible. If you are so concerned about this, boost the brightness control (which more appropriately should be called 'black level') on your display above proper level and you will even more detail. But guess what? You're not supposed to be seeing that 'detail'. Think of it all similar to that.

I'll reserve my final judgement when I get the disc and actually watch it on my professionally calibrated JVC front projector (which just got a "tune up" cal), but I like what I see here A LOT. And really unless your display is calibrated to D6500K and has a nice gamma curve, you're really not going to be seeing shadow detail in the most optimal manner anyway, but calibration is something few want to hear about on this forum.

[filmmusic]

The thing is, i see constantly a pattern here with many people defending always the latest tranfer of a film as being the most accurate.

I'm really looking forward to the Bram Stoker's Dracula debate, where there were a lot of people defending the fist dark Bluray as being accurate, and now as it seems the new BLuray will be entirely different.
So, I'm really curious to see what attitude will have the defenders of the old Bluray.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

no pink push,

Yes, the old DVDs of films have a pink push.
Most new Blurays have either a yellow or a teal push.
What makes you think that this "push" is the right one?

Anyway, just a rhetorical question, no need to answer and go in that debate.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Yes, the old DVDs of films have a pink push.
Most new Blurays have either a yellow or a teal push.
What makes you think that this "push" is the right one?

Anyway, just a rhetorical question, no need to answer and go in that debate.

It's a great point, also a lot of 35mm prints it turns out had black crush going on in the 90s

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Yes, the old DVDs of films have a pink push.
Most new Blurays have either a yellow or a teal push.
What makes you think that this "push" is the right one?

Anyway, just a rhetorical question, no need to answer and go in that debate.

There have been some issues on some newer discs, but current process is typically far more up to speed than what was done for older masters. Standards were very inconsistent, content was mastered often to the flaws on CRT, workflows were not ideal, etc. etc. Robert Harris has gone to great lengths to discuss the issues with older transfers and processes. I would suggest Googling his posts from Home Theater Forum. With more recent mastering and scanners, it's much improved. The other issue is, most people are watching on displays that are not anywhere near rec 709 which is how these discs are mastered. As a result, they are seeing some issues that really don't exist or at least exist anywhere near as bad. They are not seeing proper teals, proper yellows, or proper anything really. I've said it before, but unless your display is within 3 de's of rec 709, you're really not seeing everything on the disc because each disc is calibrated to that video standard.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

There have been some issues on some newer discs, but current process is typically far more up to speed than what was done for older masters. Standards were very inconsistent, content was mastered often to the flaws on CRT, workflows were not ideal, etc. etc. Robert Harris has gone to great lengths to discuss the issues with older transfers and processes. I would suggest Googling his posts from Home Theater Forum. With more recent mastering and scanners, it's much improved. The other issue is, most people are watching on displays that are not anywhere near rec 709 which is how these discs are mastered. As a result, they are seeing some issues that really don't exist or at least exist anywhere near as bad. They are not seeing proper teals, proper yellows, or proper anything really. I've said it before, but unless your display is within 3 de's of rec 709, you're really not seeing everything on the disc because each disc is calibrated to that video standard.

This is true, but this also implies they have not changed the timing on discs deliberately.
And yes, not all have been changed.

[Geoff D]

Man, look at the detail here, like on the bench behind the cop in the distance or on the number plates and other signage: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...3371/picture:8 Gorgeousness. But, as 42041 said, why bother with new transfers when all people want is the blown out contrast, magenta push and clipped highlights (look at the street lights in cap #2) of the old transfers? SMH.

Originally Posted by dvdmike

It's a great point, also a lot of 35mm prints it turns out had black crush going on in the 90s

Colour aside, that sort of crushed down look (Sony's ACTUAL black crush problem aside) with higher gamma that we see on a lot of these newer transfers hasn't come about by accident, I don't think. I reckon it's a genuine attempt to try and line up the gamma curve closer to the non-linear log response of film, especially the final prints, as opposed to before when things were mastered in a strictly linear fashion for the narrow, restrictive range of SD video (even if the master itself was HD).

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Man, look at the detail here, like on the bench behind the cop in the distance or on the number plates and other signage: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...3371/picture:8 Gorgeousness. But, as 42041 said, why bother with new transfers when all people want is the blown out contrast, magenta push and clipped highlights (look at the street lights in cap #2) of the old transfers? SMH.

This shot almost makes the original BD disc look like DVD.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...3371/picture:5

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Man, look at the detail here, like on the bench behind the cop in the distance or on the number plates and other signage: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...3371/picture:8 Gorgeousness. But, as 42041 said, why bother with new transfers when all people want is the blown out contrast, magenta push and clipped highlights (look at the street lights in cap #2) of the old transfers? SMH.


Colour aside, that sort of crushed down look (Sony's ACTUAL black crush problem aside) with higher gamma that we see on a lot of these newer transfers hasn't come about by accident, I don't think. I reckon it's a genuine attempt to try and line up the gamma curve of the image with the non-linear log response of film, especially the final prints, as opposed to before when things were mastered in a strictly linear fashion for the narrow, restrictive range of SD video (even if the master itself was HD).

That sounds plausible to be honest, I think there are issues people are not aware of really.
Thing is that if a master was struck warts and all, people would go nuts on here.
This is the same thing as the magenta push, in that they are catering to the crystal clear TV's of today just in the same way they catered to SD CRT

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

This shot almost makes the original BD disc look like DVD.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...3371/picture:5

It's beautiful how diffuse the highlights now look throughout the film. I made a similar point about the new transfer of Groundhog Day, how the big bump in detail and texture really allows that aspect of the original photography to come through unhindered.

Look at #3 with regards to the colour: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...3371/picture:3 Pink snow on, pink snow off. Pink snow on, pink snow off...

[42041]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

The thing is, i see constantly a pattern here with many people defending always the latest tranfer of a film as being the most accurate.

I'm really looking forward to the Bram Stoker's Dracula debate, where there were a lot of people defending the fist dark Bluray as being accurate, and now as it seems the new BLuray will be entirely different.
So, I'm really curious to see what attitude will have the defenders of the old Bluray.

Well, the fact is that the technology that allows you to accurately profile and reproduce the complex, non-linear color alchemy of analog printing in a digital image is fairly recent, coming with the rise of the DI process in the mid-00s. You could only achieve a rough approximation with the relatively simple adjustments telecine colorists had, say, 15 years ago. So a newer transfer has good reasons to be more accurate, if accuracy was the intent.
I usually can't speculate on specific color tints, but I can say when something more accurately captures the overall "look" of film, which has a distinct tonality and way of rolling off the extremes of exposure - and the old transfer looks nothing like it.
Elevated shadow brightness, leading to an overall washed-out, pastel look is probably the most common inaccuracy with older, dvd-era transfers (aside from the inexplicably omnipresent magenta). When DPs talk about shooting a thick or overexposed negative (as they often do), essentially, black crush is exactly what they're talking about: you are hiding the ugly shadow regions of your negative in the solid black of the print, and generally getting a more contrasty, colorful image.