James Cameron uses DVNR on Aliens Blu Ray transfer. — Page 7

msycamore said:

I'm 100% sure the theatrical cut have the same color timing as the DC cut, I only hope they reinsert the original Fox logo and don't have the added starfields that they fixed for the DC this time.

What did the original FOX logo look like? I can check this to for you guys, not sure about the starfields though.

I guess what would be easier to ask is this, is there any specific scene shots anyone would like to see? I could do some screen grabs.

Chewtobacca said:

I think that there is room for an intermediate position between Zombie84's and ImperialFighter's.  On one hand the old DVD and LD home video releases were often red shifted and washed out.  They also frequently had their contrast boosted. 

On the other hand, remastered Blu-ray transfers (by which I mean true remasters, not DNR scrubbing of old ones) that attempt to recreate the way that prints originally looked often appear strikingly different in terms of colors, because the old transfers were inaccurate; however, as Zombie84 stated, recreating the original appearance of films is never completely accurate.  It is possible that, even with the best intentions, those who restore films sometimes overcompensate in their attempts to restore how films originally looked.  The blue-cyan shift that is increasingly seen on many Blu-rays can be excessive, in my opinion.

The tendency of certain directors to revise how their films look also has to be taken into account.  I am not prepared to accept  that every time a Blu-ray looks different from previous releases it is all down to ENR emulation or an attempt to restore the theatrical look.  The Blu-ray-is-always-right attitude is just as extreme as the attitude of those who cannot accept that a look to which they have become accustomed is the only way to present a film.

EDIT: Like dark_jedi, I have not yet opened my set.  From screenshots, I agree with mysycamore that the Blu-rays look better than the last DVD releases in terms of color.  I am concerned about the cropping too though.  ImperialFighter, I will try to let you know about the colors on the theatrical cut of Alien after I watch my copy.

 Well, as I said:

"The DC timing may not be 100% perfect, because no transfer ever can be for an older film simply because the colours will no longer exist in any reliable way, and perhaps the DC is a bit punchier than it should be, but its closer to watching something from the original negative than any previous version of the film, including original prints"

It's not that the BD is necessarily perfect in every way. But its closer to the film than any other version you will see. And probably more so than 1979 prints. Those prints are washed out and have contrast and black level issues, because the processes of printing different generation degrades them that way. The DC, on the other hand, went back to the negatives and struck prints directly from a new Digital Intermediate. That's why, if you've ever seen the DC in theatres (I saw it two weeks ago, as it happens, at the Bloor Cinema here in Toronto) it has all that nice, inky black levels and not washed out grey, with all the colour saturation, proper contrast and detail level that a new scan from the negatives would have given you. It's a stunning way to see the films and far, far better than anything you could have seen in a 1979 theatre (being a limited release also helps preserve DC prints from the wear and tear of the 1979 wide-release).

I've seen the DC in theatres 4 times now and the 1979 version once, and even though the 1979 print was all red and scratched up, it was still pretty obvious that the milkier black levels and, from what I could discern through the fading, weaker colours and contrast was simply due to being a Kodak Eastman release print, in a time when Kodak was skimping on its print quality. If the DC timing is a bit too punchy than it ought to be the difference is not very significant. It's true that there is a bit of a modern trend to punch up the contrast and black levels on older movies, but its also true that peoples experiences of older movies are through home video where the brightness was increased and saturation decreased. Many films of the 70s, when you go back to the negatives, have really vibrant colours, very fine grain, and very inky, nice black levels, it's just that no one has seen them for so long, and even when you saw release prints you were never truely seeing them. That's why when Taxi Driver was restored back from its negative a few years ago everyone cried foul--wheres all that dirt and grain, and the murky lighting and bad contrast and desaturated colours? But the negative didn't originally look like that. Ironically, by showing the film as it actually was instead of the way it looked through low quality intermediates, it robbed the film of a significant part of its character.

Again, it's sort of impossible to know exactly how wrong or right it is. But IMO it is definitely the best representative of what the film actually looked like on the original answer print, excepting the changes made for the scene of Brett's search for Jones (which I believe also has some shots tightened up in the cutting as well, or at least that is how I remembered it...I think Scott says something to this effect in the commentary).

zombie84 said:

It's not that the BD is necessarily perfect in every way. But its closer to the film than any other version you will see.

Now that is all I need to know, but if anyone wants a few screens from somewhere just let me know.

dark_jedi said:

zombie84 said:

It's not that the BD is necessarily perfect in every way. But its closer to the film than any other version you will see.

Now that is all I need to know, but if anyone wants a few screens from somewhere just let me know.

Of course, I'm assuming the BD looks about the same as the film did in theatres and DVD in 2003, with the exception of the reverted timing for the Jones scene in the theatrical version. I haven't actually seen the BD. But there's no reason why it should be any different.

zombie84 said: Well, as I said:

"The DC timing may not be 100% perfect, because no transfer ever can be for an older film simply because the colours will no longer exist in any reliable way, and perhaps the DC is a bit punchier than it should be, but its closer to watching something from the original negative than any previous version of the film, including original prints"

You also said to Imperial Fighter:

 I understood what you are saying. But you are mistaken.

It seems to me that that is too strong a statement to make when you concede in the same post that it is impossible to be 100% perfect and therefore 100% sure.  I agree with everything you said about the Blu-rays, and I am sure that they are fantastic, but if the color timing does differ I can understand how he feels if he prefers the old transfers, inaccurate though they are in some respects.  I just think that one can see both sides -- that's all.

doubleofive said:

Lets start with the Here Jonsey scene.

Please refresh my memory on this scene, what am I looking for? it has been a very long time since I have watched any of these movies, and I will check what it is you want to know.

Chewtobacca said:

zombie84 said: Well, as I said:

"The DC timing may not be 100% perfect, because no transfer ever can be for an older film simply because the colours will no longer exist in any reliable way, and perhaps the DC is a bit punchier than it should be, but its closer to watching something from the original negative than any previous version of the film, including original prints"

You also said to Imperial Fighter:

 I understood what you are saying. But you are mistaken.

It seems to me that that is too strong a statement to make when you concede in the same post that it is impossible to be 100% perfect and therefore 100% sure.  I agree with everything you said about the Blu-rays, and I am sure that they are fantastic, but if the color timing does differ I can understand how he feels if he prefers the old transfers, inaccurate though they are in some respects.  I just think that one can see both sides -- that's all.

Well, what I said is that he is mistaken in insisting that the previous transfers are how the film should look and the yardstick by which to measure the film. This is still a fault. It doesn't matter if the DC is not 100%, it's still a mistake to take it to task for deviating from the previous transfers since the previous transfers were not accurate either, nor are theatrical prints (and ones memory of theatrical prints). Whether the DC is perfectly faithful or not, my point is that it's in my opinion a better representation of the look and image quality of the film.

dark_jedi said:

doubleofive said:

Lets start with the Here Jonsey scene.

Please refresh my memory on this scene, what am I looking for? it has been a very long time since I have watched any of these movies, and I will check what it is you want to know.

In the original version, when Brett is calling for Jones and enters a large room with some kind of vehicle in it and finds the alien skin shedding, the scene had a "rusty" sort of look to it, and it was darker. In the DC, it was tinted to be a fairly bright goldeny colour. One of the most obvious examples are some of the early establishing shots where he first enters the room.

dark_jedi said:

I guess what would be easier to ask is this, is there any specific scene shots anyone would like to see? I could do some screen grabs.

I'd like to see the whole thing.  It might be easier for you to just send me the set considering how long it would take to upload. ;-)

zombie84 said:

dark_jedi said:

doubleofive said:

Lets start with the Here Jonsey scene.

Please refresh my memory on this scene, what am I looking for? it has been a very long time since I have watched any of these movies, and I will check what it is you want to know.

 

In the original version, when Brett is calling for Jones and enters a large room with some kind of vehicle in it and finds the alien skin shedding, the scene had a "rusty" sort of look to it, and it was darker. In the DC, it was tinted to be a fairly bright goldeny colour. One of the most obvious examples are some of the early establishing shots where he first enters the room.

I will check it out.

zombie84 said:  Well, what I said is that he is mistaken in insisting that the previous transfers are how the film should look and the yardstick by which to measure the film.

He didn't.  He said that he had seen the films theatrically and thought that the previous transfers were closer in terms of color.  You didn't qualify the "you are mistaken" remark at all, and I certainly didn't take it the way you say you meant it.

zombie84 said:  This is still a fault. It doesn't matter if the DC is not 100%, it's still a mistake to take it to task for deviating from the previous transfers since the previous transfers were not accurate either, nor are theatrical prints (and ones memory of theatrical prints). 

I don't recall anyone taking the DC to task for deviating from previous transfers of the theatrical cut.  Some people don't like the fact that the theatrical version is timed in the same way as the DC.  I am not one of them, and I generally agree wtih you about the Blu-ray transfers, but I can certainly understand that point of view.

The only version of Alien that I own is the 2003 dvd with the theatrical and director's cuts branched together.  It's only been two years since I first saw the film, and I tracked down a copy of that dvd specifically so that I could see both versions (most stores around here were only carrying the old release), though of course I viewed the theatrical cut first.

Consequently, I'm only familiar with its colour timing from that version.  I had a look at the screenshots on dvdbeaver that were linked to earlier, and it seems to me that there isn't really that much difference, at least not how I'd imagined from reading this thread.  The older transfers from the 90's are kind of flat and washed out, the pal version being too green and the first ntsc too red.  The '03 has better contrast than either, though in some shots the whites are a bit too hot.  The Bluray timing looks the best in many shots, though it has more blue than any other version, which is occasionally a bit too much.  In general it resembles the '03, with some differences, which to my mind is a good thing.

But these aren't huge differences we're talking about here.  When I started reading this thread I was having visions of 2004 Star Wars type of changes in colour, but it's not even close to that.  The colours as presented in the newer transfers still look like images that were actually photographed and haven't been excessively tampered with as some seem to think.

I don't yet have an HD display, so I have to stick with dvd for the time being, but I'm not worried about the colour issues for Alien after seeing those screenshots.  A while back I made my own version of an isolated score from the Intrada cd release and synched it to the theatrical cut, so I don't even need to get another version for that.  It seems to me that in making the so-called "director's cut" there was a huge missed opportunity in that they could have gone back to the score as composed by Jerry Goldsmith--now that would have made for a worthwhile alternate version of the movie!  With just a bit of trimming here and there it works remarkably well, and in nearly every case what he composed suits the film far better than the hacked up mess that they actually used.  Of all the misguided and foolish things that have been done to movies, that has to rank as one of the worst.

hairy_hen said:

I had a look at the screenshots on dvdbeaver that were linked to earlier, and it seems to me that there isn't really that much difference, at least not how I'd imagined from reading this thread.

Thank you.  Everyone's comparing this to the Blade Runner Final Cut, but that clearly had drastic changes for stylistic purposes throughout.  It looks nothing like the theatrical or director's cuts at all.  The Alien and Aliens releases look pretty much the same to me.

Yes, I'm comparing the pre-Quad DVDs (with only one version of each film on the discs) to the Anthology BR set.  The color timing is pretty much the same.

Here is the FOX logo,

more screens,

DJ - are those screens from the theatrical cut, or the director's cut?

ChainsawAsh said:

DJ - are those screens from the theatrical cut, or the director's cut?

Theatrical.

Could you post some comparison caps from the DC version of those shots?  I'm curious as to whether the color timing was reverted to its original form on both versions or just the TC.

I actually switched to that after taking these snaps and it appears to be the same.

Interesting.

It's definitely not the same overly-gold look as it is on the Quadrilogy set.  Anyone have caps of that scene from the pre-2003 DVD for comparison's sake?

xhonzi said:

dark_jedi said:

more screens,

 

Hey look!  It's xhonzi!

Oh hai, xhonzi!

Ha!  I had the same thought, but didn't want to get banned. ;-)