Batman (1989) (25th Anniversary Edition)

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Mistress9

it depends what you are talking about. You can light a scene with a teal tone or any tone for that matter, that is not the same as teal and orange which is blanket filters that color the entire image one color, which is what James Cameron is now doing to all of his films on bluray.

Let's ignore facts and experts and believe something just because, I guess.

[Mistress9]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Let's ignore facts and experts and believe something just because, I guess.

how do you explain Blade Runner final cut then?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Mistress9

how do you explain Blade Runner final cut then?

That was intentionally altered along with new effects, because it's not the same movie. It's like the Star Wars SEs. Also it looks much less blanketed teal on the UHD, with 12-bit color.

[Mistress9]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

That was intentionally altered along with new effects, because it's not the same movie. It's like the Star Wars SEs. Also it looks much less blanketed teal on the UHD, with 12-bit color.

well that is exactly what James Cameron does to his old films now, I don't understand what is the issue with my argument. They could have done the special effects without altering the color of the image, they made Blade Runner a mess of teal, orange and green because that is the current modern look of films, championed by Christopher Nolan who is completely color blind. This is a true vandalism of film. The restorers of Vertigo proudly said their restoration will take the film into the next 200 years, their INACCURATE restoration of it will live on for 200 years, and the same can be said of all these bluray transfers, we are on the brink of losing films forever.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Can people please stop taking these gimmick posters/sock accounts seriousy? Please.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Can people please stop taking these gimmick posters/sock accounts seriousy? Please.

It's a boring day in the world JC.

[shinobipopcorn]

All I can say is that I don't see any green in Jerry's hair. And I was sharp enough to spot the restoration of the actual green pieces of hair in Kira's wig in the Dark Crystal remaster (which you can't see in most older versions unlike Jen's blue wisps).

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The dude's obviously a troll. Only joined yesterday and all his posts have either been bait or the typical "teal and orange" and "blanket" something or other trolling shtick that many people on here fall for.

I’m pretty sure the user is a new page by the old user, PrincessToadstool. They both keep saying Scorsese ruined modern cinema and Golden Age of Hollywood is the only worthwhile era of filmmaking.

[Mistress9]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Can people please stop taking these gimmick posters/sock accounts seriousy? Please.

here we go, the person that dares to criticize film restorations is deemed crazy or a troll and has to be silenced.

[captainsolo]

All four Batfilms use the old 2005 masters which ironically finally made 89 and Returns slightly darker which is correct-but not dark enough and they have a whole host of other issues. They're currently the best around from a technical perspective, but I vastly prefer the old sound mix for 89 and wind up watching the LDs every year.

The Forever HD master is darn pitiful. It should be an eye popping, gorgeous experience in HD and is a flat looking mess. B&R as well but since Forever has more standard locales mixed in it is a more sober visual experience.
I also watch the Forever LD every year because not only is it a reference disc for that format, but it has the PCM 2.0 matrix surround track which is IMO better mixed than the 5.1.
I'm also the nerd who went out of the way to track down all four old flipper discs in the old DVD boxset to have the 1.33 opened up versions digitally. (Most of these are better encoded than the widescreen sides which are full of early on DVD era nasties.) Interestingly some are framed well like Returns and Forever while '89 seems to harm to action at times due to the opened-cropped framing. All four are absolutely better when properly matted.

[Dailyan]

People. Don't feed the troll.



This guy was once "Princess Toadstool".

[eledoremassis02]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

All four Batfilms use the old 2005 masters which ironically finally made 89 and Returns slightly darker which is correct-but not dark enough and they have a whole host of other issues. They're currently the best around from a technical perspective, but I vastly prefer the old sound mix for 89 and wind up watching the LDs every year.

The Forever HD master is darn pitiful. It should be an eye popping, gorgeous experience in HD and is a flat looking mess. B&R as well but since Forever has more standard locales mixed in it is a more sober visual experience.
I also watch the Forever LD every year because not only is it a reference disc for that format, but it has the PCM 2.0 matrix surround track which is IMO better mixed than the 5.1.
I'm also the nerd who went out of the way to track down all four old flipper discs in the old DVD boxset to have the 1.33 opened up versions digitally. (Most of these are better encoded than the widescreen sides which are full of early on DVD era nasties.) Interestingly some are framed well like Returns and Forever while '89 seems to harm to action at times due to the opened-cropped framing. All four are absolutely better when properly matted.

I havent seen forever on laserdisc tho I should. Is 89 as dark as it should be or did they lighten it?

[Blu-21]

Mistress, let me guess, you assume older formats like VHS and Laserdisc are more accurate with older films than Blu-Ray and UHD because they are analog.

[eledoremassis02]

Here's some clips I did for Batman and Returns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkmG...ature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzOo...ature=youtu.be

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Exact same debunked nonsense I've heard a thousand times, just because people spam it over and over again on here and originaltrilogy using countless sock puppets, doesn't make something true.

There's a reason this garbage doesn't spread to forums where insiders are much more interactive. Comments like this are laughed at, not even worth debunking. You literally have people on here spamming threads with nonsense over "blanket tints" that don't even exist on the Blu-rays they are freaking out over. Sheer lunacy.

I'm sure this poster was saying this stuff on HTF back in 2006. I remember someone being very obsessed with Batman's colour timing back then.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by eledoremassis02

I havent seen forever on laserdisc tho I should. Is 89 as dark as it should be or did they lighten it?

It was first brightened on the master for video across the board and it was only the 2005 master that finally was darker. However the intended look has not yet been preserved on video and a lot of this could be addressed with a modern 4k scan with proper grading. Returns is the same way.
Forever is a phenomenal LD, decent dvd and subpar Blu-ray. Again the 2.0 surround is punchier and the adr is better integrated than the 5.1 if you do pick up a copy to try.
The reason I stick with LD on 89 is because I love the format and prefer the sound of the older mix. Plus it was one of the first discs I ever found and have fond memories.
Essentially the old flipper DVDs will show what the LD master looked like but with all the added digital noise of being a very early dvd. With a good player and setup the laser looks better.

[eledoremassis02]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

It was first brightened on the master for video across the board and it was only the 2005 master that finally was darker. However the intended look has not yet been preserved on video and a lot of this could be addressed with a modern 4k scan with proper grading. Returns is the same way.
Forever is a phenomenal LD, decent dvd and subpar Blu-ray. Again the 2.0 surround is punchier and the adr is better integrated than the 5.1 if you do pick up a copy to try.
The reason I stick with LD on 89 is because I love the format and prefer the sound of the older mix. Plus it was one of the first discs I ever found and have fond memories.
Essentially the old flipper DVDs will show what the LD master looked like but with all the added digital noise of being a very early dvd. With a good player and setup the laser looks better.

I got a copy I'll definitely play it! I like a lot of the laserdisc mixes compared to a lot of newer remixes. I feel like they sound more airer (if that makes sense

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I’m pretty sure the user is a new page by the old user, PrincessToadstool. They both keep saying Scorsese ruined modern cinema and Golden Age of Hollywood is the only worthwhile era of filmmaking.

The Golden Age? You mean when white people played minority roles? When the acting of those days would’ve been out right laughed at these days? When they saw it more as a business rather than art? When there was a obstructing censorship rule that required no sad endings and no challenging issues? When they nearly all looked the same and I’m not talking about the B&W? When actors were blacklisted for being gay? Yeah, miss those days.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by eledoremassis02

I got a copy I'll definitely play it! I like a lot of the laserdisc mixes compared to a lot of newer remixes. I feel like they sound more airer (if that makes sense

You’re not wrong. Most of the time they have far more dynamic range as they were not messed with to the same degree as later formats. A source element would usually be pulled from the vault and copied over onto the pcm digital tracks. I’ve found innumerable examples of LD audio being better than any other and sometimes even the lossy Dolby digital ac3 can be better than lossless later releases due to incessant remixing in today’s world.

On Forever I think it is a case of films in that era still being mixed with Dolby SR in mind for general release prints as digital sound took years to become fully widespread and if the ac3 dropped out the optical stereo was your backup and had to still sound good.