King Kong 4K UHD (2005) (Ultimate Edition)

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

If every woman looked as “super weird” as she does in KING KONG, my penis would detonate in my pants like a grenade.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

If every woman looked as “super weird” as she does in KING KONG, my penis would detonate in my pants like a grenade.

You really can't see how they've fudged her face (and surrounding areas ) with a softening pass that makes her look like she's made of plastic? And to think you chided me for liking ye olde beauty passes of yesteryear when DPs would filter the ladies, they've done the digital equivalent of it here and it looks 10x worse than putting a stocking over the lens

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Didn't say there was

My point is that it wasn't just about covering a wig line, it was a "beauty pass" which was completely ridiculous.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

it was a "beauty pass" which was completely ridiculous

Hey, when you're making an homage to the 1930s...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

My point is that it wasn't just about covering a wig line, it was a "beauty pass" which was completely ridiculous.

And I didn't say it was *solely* about covering her hairline, but it's the thing that stood out to me the most. Eggheads r us, though it wouldn't put off Filmmaker, obvs

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Hey, when you're making an homage to the 1930s...

Then do it in that style, stick a filter in the camera rather than this ersatz digital w@nkery...then again that sums up Jackson's style! It's bizarre that the CG monkey looks far more realistic than some of the humans.

[RalphoR]

Dang, my eyes must be bad. I thought she looked pretty good

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And I didn't say it was *solely* about covering her hairline, but it's the thing that stood out to me the most. Eggheads r us, though it wouldn't put off Filmmaker, obvs.

It did seem like the emphasis was way more about the hairline than the overall beauty pass. Now was a beauty pass necessary? No (though if only Ms. Watt’s had that image tweaking and not nearly the whole filmed image, I’d take more umbrage. As it is, it seems that Jackson wanted the whole aesthetic of the movie to be “massaged”). I’m just saying they would have had to do a shit ton more effing around with her face in post than they did to make her anything less than transcendently gorgeous.

[Geoff D]

It's because the hairline distracts me the most! All throughout the movie I was like "try not to look at it, try not to look at it, try not to look at it - oh, dammit, I just looked"

[ROSS.T.G.]

Now I really need to open mine and watch it. I’ve had it for a year and a half.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by RalphoR

Dang, my eyes must be bad. I thought she looked pretty good

When you go looking for error, you’re bound to find it.

[RalphoR]

I found this blurb from an article online about Naomi's New York look. I guess she did wear wigs:

Ann’s New York look is largely in keeping with the era; although with an absence of pencil thin eyebrows and bobbed hair (Watts wore three curly wigs instead) Ann is deliberately soft to heighten her helplessness. This is something Orson Wells alike movie director Carl Denham (Jack Black) immediately seizes upon and exploits.

[Geoff D]

I told y'all it was a rug!

[Filmmaker]

I’d still tap that “egghead” raw.

[DR Herbert West]

Lynch knows how to film her.

[RalphoR]

Originally Posted by geoff d

i told y'all it was a rug!

[Show spoiler]04b89ffb6e32129b55f981424677fab293fe6e17a3f53ee1fd4e6cf48e577487.jpg

[Koroshiya Ichi]

Hi all,

Tried to watch the UHD yesterday through my Epson projector, which I'm still adjusting/calibrating. When the movie starts and you see the zoo and the shots of New York, it looked quite blown-out to me. I couldn't see any clouds, it was just one white/vanilla-ish mass. However, when I put in the blu-ray to compare I did see clouds etc as it didn't look blown-out. My question is, should I also see details in the sky (whites) or should it look blown-out? Has this anything to do with HDR-settings or should I change my contrast & brightness settings on my projector? Contrast & brightness are both set at standard 50/100. Any help/advice would be welcome. Thanks in advance.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Koroshiya Ichi

Hi all,

Tried to watch the UHD yesterday through my Epson projector, which I'm still adjusting/calibrating. When the movie starts and you see the zoo and the shots of New York, it looked quite blown-out to me. I couldn't see any clouds, it was just one white/vanilla-ish mass. However, when I put in the blu-ray to compare I did see clouds etc as it didn't look blown-out. My question is, should I also see details in the sky (whites) or should it look blown-out? Has this anything to do with HDR-settings or should I change my contrast & brightness settings on my projector? Contrast & brightness are both set at standard 50/100. Any help/advice would be welcome. Thanks in advance.

Is this what you're seeing?: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...123024&i=0&l=1

[Koroshiya Ichi]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Is this what you're seeing?: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...123024&i=0&l=1

Yes. Only the UHD has even less detail in the sky on my projector compared to what I'm seeing on the laptop (looking at caps-a-holic). Changed the contrast to 22/100 and the brightness to 60/100, which made the details in the sky come out more on the UHD, but I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Koroshiya Ichi

Yes. Only the UHD has even less detail in the sky on my projector compared to what I'm seeing on the laptop (looking at caps-a-holic). Changed the contrast to 22/100 and the brightness to 60/100, which made the details in the sky come out more on the UHD, but I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do.

Try turning the brightness down into the 30-40 range and see what happens.

[Koroshiya Ichi]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Try turning the brightness down into the 30-40 range and see what happens.

Will try that. However when I watched The Martian, i saw more stars in the beginning when viewing the Blu-ray compared to the UHD, so I bumped the brightness to 60/100 which brought out more of the stars on the UHD. I presumed I should be able to see as much stars on the UHD as on the Blu-ray. So i'm afraid that lowering the brightness under 50/100 will make it too dark.