A few further thoughts on that project which might call for a “V3”:
While MJBenito’s color adjustments are great and the slight noise layer maybe rescue at least some filmic style, it cannot hide the already “scrubbed”, de-noised and somewhat waxy nature of the source.
Also, directly comparing the 2D Blu-ray release with the upscaled 3D one, the former still has a bit more resolution (visible on the clothes) so I wonder whether an open matte version could be created out of the 2D source with its higher quality and the missing information above and below stitched together from the 3D open matte version. However, the image angles seem to be a bit different and I’m not sure if either eye frame (left & right) from the 3D BD matches the original 2D film frames.
https://ibb.co/VCCCG5C
https://ibb.co/sPwHC6p
There is also an extended cut floating around from 35mm where the additional scenes don’t seem to be sourced from the film, but rather some Web-DL streaming video.
Sigh, all in all, it is so damn frustrating considering that those morons are sitting on the best source possible, the negatives, and apparently can’t simply release that stuff without screwing things up.
I can’t decide what I find more retarded: the stupid AI sharpening on the UHD-BD, the goddamn orange & teal ugly color gradings on both the Blu-rays or the filtering of the 3D-Blu-ray (the latter one maybe being the least non-sensical in regard to the noise which might distract in a 3D experience, although I doubt even that as our human vision isn’t noise-free either thanks to retinal-noise which can be very visible as well). Even if, there is no good reason not to release the open matte in 2D without the damn noise filtering.
So at the end, neither version is really great.
@MJBenito: maybe you could consider to release also a regraded version like this one here, but based on the 2D cinema scope source with its better quality or test another version with even more noise added as the Blu-ray has a lot more (color) noise than its 3D counterpart: