Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 That's affirmative. I want you to blow up Madison Square Garden! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 4 hours ago, crumbs said: Some great comparisons in there, examples of remasters done properly and not just reusing decade old DVD transfers. Ridley Scott and James Cameron are probably two directors I have the most trust in when it comes to these things, they are fortunately very hands-on with their film restorations. Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator are superb examples of reference quality Bluray PQ. Especially when they're fixing up a previously flawed Bluray release, like Gladiator. Original release using DVD master: Remaster: What does it mean if I think the top image looks better? I don't like the re-colorization and removal of the "gritty, real" feeling of the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,412 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 4 hours ago, BloodBoal said: This is not quite what you're looking for, but caps-a-holic.com allows you to compare screencaps from various home video releases of a movie to see if there are such changes that were made. Examples (scroll down the page and move your mouse over the big picture to see the difference. If you want to see a different shot, just select one, then select "Fullscreen comparison"): https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5041&d2=5040&s1=47006&s2=46994&i=9&l=0 https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3554&d2=3552&s1=32885&s2=32864&i=6&l=0 https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=7986&d2=7987&s1=76032&s2=76048&i=0&l=0 https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5240&d2=5241&s1=48921&s2=48953&i=9&l=0 It's amazing how much better FOTR theatrical looks than FOTR Extended even in a shot like that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Green snow, ain't that a beauty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,339 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 48 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: What does it mean if I think the top image looks better? I don't like the re-colorization and removal of the "gritty, real" feeling of the original. What about the white halos around all the soldiers, due to excessive sharpening? And the general lack of detail at fullscreen compared with the second image? And I think you'll find the warmer colorization of the second image is far more accurate to Ridley's intentions for that film overall, not the washed out first version. 29 minutes ago, Jay said: It's amazing how much better FOTR theatrical looks than FOTR Extended even in a shot like that one! I'm still waiting for WB to admit this was an authoring error. I just cannot believe PJ intended for the entire movie to be coated in a sickly green layer of teal. It's such a shame, too, because the EE Bluray transfer is miles more detailed than the TE Bluray. Just compare this shot for a good example: https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5240&d2=5241&s1=49058&s2=49059&i=0&l=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Just now, crumbs said: What about the white halos around all the soldiers, due to excessive sharpening? And the general lack of detail at fullscreen compared with the second image? And I think you'll find the warmer colorization of the second image is far more accurate to Ridley's intentions for that film overall, not the washed out first version. Now that may be true. I saw Gladiator once and thought it was stupid so I don't know much about it. It was just my immediate reaction to seeing two images next to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,412 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, crumbs said: I'm still waiting for WB to admit this was an authoring error. I just cannot believe PJ intended for the entire movie to be coated in a sickly green layer of teal. It's such a shame, too, because the EE Bluray transfer is miles more detailed than the TE Bluray. Just compare this shot for a good example: https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5240&d2=5241&s1=49058&s2=49059&i=0&l=0 Wow, quite a difference in that shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, crumbs said: I'm still waiting for WB to admit this was an authoring error. I just cannot believe PJ intended for the entire movie to be coated in a sickly green layer of teal. It's such a shame, too, because the EE Bluray transfer is miles more detailed than the TE Bluray. Just compare this shot for a good example: https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5240&d2=5241&s1=49058&s2=49059&i=0&l=0 I'm glad I decided to wait on buying LOTR on bluray now! Still holding out on a massive Hobbit+LOTR with new features boxset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,339 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: I'm glad I decided to wait on buying LOTR on bluray now! Still holding out on a massive Hobbit+LOTR with new features boxset. I really hope we eventually see all that bonus material they withheld from the LOTR DVDs, but the latest update on that happening was sobering reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Just now, crumbs said: I really hope we eventually see all that bonus material they withheld from the LOTR DVDs, but the latest update on that happening was sobering reading. Yes the events of last summer were very disheartening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,412 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I must be forgetting what you guys are talking about (need to get that morning coffee going...), can you link me to what you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, Jay said: I must be forgetting what you guys are talking about (need to get that morning coffee going...), can you link me to what you're talking about? The two boxsets that WB released last year that were just re-packages of the same old releases and then the news that PJ & co. apparently offered to put together new bonus features and WB turned them down (presumably to keep costs low). Looking for a link. Here you go, @Jay http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2016/08/23/101644-exclusive-peter-jackson-not-involved-in-this-release/ The quote that is so disheartening: Quote “In addition there was the added difficulty of Warners needing to access the original negative and scan the outtakes, bloopers, and additional sequences. They declined to do this, which made Michael Pellerin and my original plans for the comprehensive documentary we hoped to produce for this box set, impossible to produce. Neither Michael nor myself are therefore involved in this release. Maybe Warners will support our planned documentary for the 25th anniversary, because we would love to make it one day.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,412 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: The two boxsets that WB released last year that were just re-packages of the same old releases and then the news that PJ & co. apparently offered to put together new bonus features and WB turned them down (presumably to keep costs low). Looking for a link. Well yes, I know the boxsets last year were straight reissues with no bonuses added, but it sounded like you guys were talking about something more specific than that with words like "sobering" and "disheartening" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 It was specifically Warner Home Video declining PJ's offer to do something more substantial. I think "disheartening" is the right word for that personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,412 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 minute ago, BloodBoal said: See here: Oh, is that all we're going on? Something someone "heard" from an "insider"? Alrighty then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Jay said: Oh, is that all we're going on? Something someone "heard" from an "insider"? Alrighty then.... No, it's the official statement from Peter Jackson that I linked to above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,412 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, Disco Stu said: Here you go, @Jay http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2016/08/23/101644-exclusive-peter-jackson-not-involved-in-this-release/ The quote that is so disheartening: Thanks! I remember now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,339 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 That description of the deleted scenes sounds juicy. I'd love to see the footage they didn't put in the EE. Wasn't the first cut of ROTK 5 hours long or something? 1 hour ago, BloodBoal said: If you guys have two hours to spare, here's an excellent, very informative interview video with Michael Pellerin (the guy who did the LOTR appendices), talking about the FOTR green tint issue, the still unreleased behind-the-scenes footage and deleted scenes, etc.: The green tint issue is discussed at 01:05:10 here (along with the eventual 4K transfer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,351 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, crumbs said: What about the white halos around all the soldiers, due to excessive sharpening? And the general lack of detail at fullscreen compared with the second image? The second, warmer pic looks much better indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 There is a Tolkien subforum, you know. 6 hours ago, Alexcremers said: E.T&Elliot WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,577 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 09/01/2017 at 3:28 AM, Rose Dawson said: I still think that Raiders is a poor transfer because of the color changes. I prefer the DVD or HD broadcast, I'd prefer it, if the man in the T-shirt was erased On 09/01/2017 at 3:42 AM, Rose Dawson said: Well, at least Always looks amazing. Agreed; its a gorgeous-looking film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 It's frustrating because Raiders really does look incredible aside from the color timing. Now, it may be that there was attempt to match the look of the original theatrical version in the desert scenes, but I think they went overboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 Beautiful transfer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan 689 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I always find it somewhat odd for viewers to attempt to speak with much authority about how various films should look or how remasters are completely inaccurate and spoil the film. There's a few reasons for this. Firstly, no-one has such a photographic memory that they can reliably tell me how a films colours looked in detail from decades or even a few years ago. Also, when people are commenting on how a film used to look as the definitive or true version, are they assuming that the projection was accurate? Was the print in perfect condition? Or are they judging remasters on the merits of old VHS or DVD era transfers that had to make allowances for technical colour limitations? There have been cock-ups (The French Connection is a famous one) but generally, and unless there's an obvious shift to a trendy colour scheme, I'm pretty happy to take directors & dops at their word if they say a new transfer is accurate. On the topic of 4K, it's true that a lot of films completed digitally are going to be upscaled unless special measures are taken but for me the main benefit of the UHD Blu-ray format is the much wider colour gamut and HDR. We can now have and, with HDR television sets, see transfers that contain all the colour, contrast & brightness information that was either on the original negative, digital files or what the director and dop intended us to see. Resolution is just a small part of the UHD format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I remember exactly how Star Trek: Generations looked in the theater. It looked like all the home video releases prior to the Blu-ray. It did not have an obnoxious green tint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 And ID4 sure as hell didn't look gold and sepia in 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 It must be that the films were never properly color timed, not even for their original theatrical releases, until the Blu-rays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,339 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Well that's the argument Peter Jackson uses for the FOTR EE Bluray. He never graded the film properly for the theatrical release. Yet I distinctly remember the colour grading featurette on the DVD... Hmmm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'm gonna wait 5 years to get a new TV so I get optimal 4K and HDR features Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 My parents bought a new 4K HDR TV and if looks like shit compared to my plasma. I'm in no rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'll probably still be using my plasma until OLED becomes way, way cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 My local Media Markt offers a 55' for 1,200€. I'm circling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,351 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 They are dumping early OLED screens because they are not 4K. So the unaware, innocent consumer thinks HDR is the answer? They hate shadows? 6 hours ago, Rose Dawson said: I remember exactly how Star Trek: Generations looked in the theater. It looked like all the home video releases prior to the Blu-ray. It did not have an obnoxious green tint. Alan1984 questions that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 But does that matter to people that stream with WLAN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,351 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Absolutely not! If you don't mind curved screens, I'd say, go for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,215 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 On 12.1.2017 at 8:23 AM, publicist said: My local Media Markt offers a 55' for 1,200€. I'm circling it. 1,300. Bilbo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,351 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Which still isn't much for a 55" OLED screen ... A Trinitron 32" tube television costed a lot more at the time. The curved screen is what bothers me. I loved it when I saw Star Wars, Alien and Blade Runner at my favorite theatre but that curved screen was the biggest screen of Belgium. Apparently it doesn't have any effect on a 55". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 14, 2017 Author Share Posted January 14, 2017 There is absolutely no reason to have a TV with a curved screen in your living room. You wouldn't be able to fit a screen big enough with it be be required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 The 55" 1080p OLED from LG is well priced at about $3,000 our local retailers. If you don't care about 4K. But I bought my 65" plasma for about that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan 689 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 On 12/01/2017 at 7:29 AM, Alexcremers said: They are dumping early OLED screens because they are not 4K. So the unaware, innocent consumer thinks HDR is the answer? They hate shadows? Alan1984 questions that. No I don't. Not necessarily. I said there had been screw ups and just about every Trek film prior to 2009 and Khan has an awful transfer. They're in real need of a decent restoration and accurate colour grading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 What sucks is that according to this site, http://realorfake4k.com - all the new Trek films on UHD are fake 4K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,339 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Daniel Clamp said: What sucks is that according to this site, http://realorfake4k.com - all the new Trek films on UHD are fake 4K. No great surprise -- most modern films have a 2K DI and all visual effects are rendered in 2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,215 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 6 hours ago, Alexcremers said: Which still isn't much for a 55" OLED screen ... A Trinitron 32" tube television costed a lot more at the time. I got my 32" Trinitron for around €2,000 in the year 2000 or something. My first projector two or three years later cost less and actually had less ghosting and therefore a more watchable image in dark scenes, even though the early LCD projectors had lousy contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 The new Trek films don't matter anyway. We still need the original films redone, except for The Wrath of Khan (2016 version) and Nemesis, which I think are pretty exceptional transfers. The spirit of John Alonzo visited me last night and demanded that the green tint be removed from Generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan 689 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 4 hours ago, Rose Dawson said: The new Trek films don't matter anyway. We still need the original films redone, except for The Wrath of Khan (2016 version) and Nemesis, which I think are pretty exceptional transfers. The spirit of John Alonzo visited me last night and demanded that the green tint be removed from Generations. I'm pretty sure that Nick Meyer confirmed that the 2016 Khan remaster was completed in 4K with HDR too so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a 4K disc very soon. A great shame that Paramount cheaped out and didn't show the other films a bit of love as well. I'm not sure I've bothered watching Generations since the Blu-ray came out so I've not seen or don't remember the green tint. I remember Nemesis looking a bit "DVD-era" with haloing etc but again, it's been years since I watched the disc so I could be remembering it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Generations is extremely green-tinted. It's obvious in every scene, but especially in the scenes that were memorably very orange or reddish in hue when the Enterprise is at Amargosa. That's how I know it's wrong. It's also DNR'd to death. It's still a beautiful film despite these massive flaws, a tribute to Alonzo. http://movie-screencaps.com/star-trek-generations-1994/21/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 The big Bond boxset is a wide variety of different transfer types. Of all the pre-Craig films, the very best transfers are: The Spy Who Loved Me Tomorrow Never Dies They look so new and filmic with all their grain structure intact and scanned properly. Next down, they might be older transfers but they still hold up really well: On Her Majesty's Secret Service Diamonds Are Forever Thunderball You Only Live Twice Goldfinger From Russia With Love Dr No The World Is Not Enough Next look okay, but are a step down: Live and Let Die The Man With the Golden Gun Below looks like it would have been newish in the early 2000s: Die Another Day (it looks similar to Star Trek Nemesis) Bottom of the barrel. These look no better than the DVD: Moonraker For Your Eyes Only Octopussy A View to a Kill The Living Daylights Licence to Kill GoldenEye (absolute fucking worst) Naïve Old Fart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now