Sign In

Dek Rollins

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
6-Apr-2015
Last activity
19-Jul-2019
Posts
3,009

Post History

Post
#1281718
Topic
Predator
Time

marin888 said:

We already have 4k BD - perfect home video release for 1.85:1.
So, I’m more for preserve this film as uncropped - Full Frame.

Is the 4K master actually used for the standard BD? Cause I can’t do anything in 4K.
And I didn’t mean as a replacement of releasing the scan open matte, obviously the full super8 frame would be the priority for most people. I just think that, if it looks good enough, watching it in widescreen would still be great (and for me personally, preferable 😃).

Post
#1281093
Topic
Alien 1979 35mm scan opportunity
Time

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

Dek Rollins said:

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

RU.08 said:

Well for the theatrical experience anyway. The “detail” in prints is 1-2K not anywhere near 4K (although they have much richer dynamic range than digital) and most prints have little shadow/highlight detail, the exception being dye-transfer prints that retain the same detail level into the shadows/highlights. Blurays and 2K/4K restorations are often sharpened way beyond the sharpness of prints as well. This is not a limitation of prints - films like Alien were shot in anamorphic and transferred using contact-printing so there is little to no loss of sharpness between the negative and the final prints.

So then I should get rid of this since it shouldn’t exist to own? Mastered in 4K and is older than ALIEN. (Warning, shit cover design.)

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Bridge-on-the-River-Kwai-4K-Blu-ray/183746/

You’re telling me I’d need to watch it properly if the scan were a low resolution of an outdated print? Not the 65mm~70mm print but a 35mm answer print?

Same goes for this too, I bet. ALSO older than ALIEN. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/2001-A-Space-Odyssey-4K-Blu-ray/224350/

Jonno said:

Indeed. 4K transfers should be technically superior, in terms of detail retention and consistency of performance, every time.

But that’s not what films shot in the 1970s were designed for - even TV and home video would have been a distant afterthought. It was all about rendering the best possible image on those theatrical prints, and all the creative decisions in the filmmaking process had that firmly set as their end goal.

4K (and, to be fair, Blu-ray) are fantastic at wringing visual information out of archival film materials - it’s among their chief selling points - but they’re aimed at achieving a much different purpose than the one those materials were created for. Hence my concern about claims of ‘original intent’, which is always a dicey issue with this technology.

This isn’t some bullshit whingey tripe about some George Lucas revisionism this forum is so bitchy about. Too much complaining about comparing it to an older print on an outdated format such as VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. Hell, the current Pet Semetary 4K+Blu-ray disc has fucking weird color timing but is revisioned. ALIEN doesn’t regarding the Theatrical Cut. Same goes for BLACK HAWK DOWN. 2K upscales don’t count.

So yes, perhaps this does recreate the theatrical experience of seeing this within the same day or a week of opening in 1979. I’m keeping the official 20th Century FOX 4K UHD release and this fan “restoration” will be a nice bonus disc, not a replacement.

EDIT: By the way, no need to pay attention to me, I’m a fucking dumbass.

Dude, chill out. You came in here to shit on the thread for no reason and it’s clear you don’t understand why people enjoy these preservations. Why should I, someone who doesn’t own any 4K equipment, be forced to accept the new UHD BD of Alien as the absolute for enjoying this picture? How do you know the color timing isn’t different from the theatrical release? Why is it wrong for people like me to see a theatrical preservation as the definitive version of a movie? We aren’t forcing you to watch it in place of your glorious official release. Even good BD releases don’t always preserve the theatrical experience as it was originally intended. And calling yourself a dumbass doesn’t automatically make you not an asshole shitting on a thread for no reason.

It’s a fan preservation, not a definitive or official one, and it won’t replace the 4K UHD.

For me, someone who doesn’t watch 4K discs and doesn’t have the equipment to play them, it will definitely replace the 4K UHD that I can’t watch. “Definitive” is usually a subjective term based on a persons preferences. “Official” is also a meaningless term in this situation, since the “official” versions of many films have incorrect color timing and even George Lucas-esque changes. The print is being scanned for the sake of preserving the theatrical experience, and for the people who prefer watching movies how they originally looked at the cinema. I seriously doubt that the 4K UHD disc looks like the picture did in theaters, and your going to need to show some proof if that’s what you’re saying, since you’re the one making the claim that this project is superfluous.

Case in point, the 4K UHD with the BD included is fucking trash regarding T2. I’d rather see a proper presentation of that compared to the sub-par bullshit of that release, which far more needs it compared to ALIEN.

You don’t think people would jump at the chance to scan a print of T2? Priorities can’t be set on something when the source of the project doesn’t exist yet. If you want a 35mm print of T2 scanned, go find a print and rent it and pay these good folks for the cost of scanning. If you don’t like that someone is scanning Alien, then I’m sorry but you’ll just have to live with it.

EDIT:

JayArgonaut said:

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

But get with the times of home media physical formats.

Troll confirmed. I shall respond no further after this.

Starve Trolls Do Not Feed Them

Lol sorry. 😛

Post
#1281044
Topic
Alien 1979 35mm scan opportunity
Time

TiddySprinklesPimpBillion said:

RU.08 said:

Well for the theatrical experience anyway. The “detail” in prints is 1-2K not anywhere near 4K (although they have much richer dynamic range than digital) and most prints have little shadow/highlight detail, the exception being dye-transfer prints that retain the same detail level into the shadows/highlights. Blurays and 2K/4K restorations are often sharpened way beyond the sharpness of prints as well. This is not a limitation of prints - films like Alien were shot in anamorphic and transferred using contact-printing so there is little to no loss of sharpness between the negative and the final prints.

So then I should get rid of this since it shouldn’t exist to own? Mastered in 4K and is older than ALIEN. (Warning, shit cover design.)

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Bridge-on-the-River-Kwai-4K-Blu-ray/183746/

You’re telling me I’d need to watch it properly if the scan were a low resolution of an outdated print? Not the 65mm~70mm print but a 35mm answer print?

Same goes for this too, I bet. ALSO older than ALIEN. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/2001-A-Space-Odyssey-4K-Blu-ray/224350/

Jonno said:

Indeed. 4K transfers should be technically superior, in terms of detail retention and consistency of performance, every time.

But that’s not what films shot in the 1970s were designed for - even TV and home video would have been a distant afterthought. It was all about rendering the best possible image on those theatrical prints, and all the creative decisions in the filmmaking process had that firmly set as their end goal.

4K (and, to be fair, Blu-ray) are fantastic at wringing visual information out of archival film materials - it’s among their chief selling points - but they’re aimed at achieving a much different purpose than the one those materials were created for. Hence my concern about claims of ‘original intent’, which is always a dicey issue with this technology.

This isn’t some bullshit whingey tripe about some George Lucas revisionism this forum is so bitchy about. Too much complaining about comparing it to an older print on an outdated format such as VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. Hell, the current Pet Semetary 4K+Blu-ray disc has fucking weird color timing but is revisioned. ALIEN doesn’t regarding the Theatrical Cut. Same goes for BLACK HAWK DOWN. 2K upscales don’t count.

So yes, perhaps this does recreate the theatrical experience of seeing this within the same day or a week of opening in 1979. I’m keeping the official 20th Century FOX 4K UHD release and this fan “restoration” will be a nice bonus disc, not a replacement.

EDIT: By the way, no need to pay attention to me, I’m a fucking dumbass.

Dude, chill out. You came in here to shit on the thread for no reason and it’s clear you don’t understand why people enjoy these preservations. Why should I, someone who doesn’t own any 4K equipment, be forced to accept the new UHD BD of Alien as the absolute for enjoying this picture? How do you know the color timing isn’t different from the theatrical release? Why is it wrong for people like me to see a theatrical preservation as the definitive version of a movie? We aren’t forcing you to watch it in place of your glorious official release. Even good BD releases don’t always preserve the theatrical experience as it was originally intended. And calling yourself a dumbass doesn’t automatically make you not an asshole shitting on a thread for no reason.

Post
#1276021
Topic
Project 4K80
Time

Bluto said:

Thanks for the info, Dek - I hadn’t come across this before. What software would allow you to apply this LUT to the Grindhouse ISO in order for the output to be another Blu-ray-compatible ISO?

Bluto

If you have a video editor there should be some sort of plugin available to apply LUTs. I honestly don’t remember how the Grindhouse ISO was packaged, but if you don’t care about menus, putting it through tsmuxer has a BD ISO option.

a_o said:

Dek Rollins said:

^This might be of interest to you. I prefer NeverarGreat’s LUT applied to the Grindhouse over any other version of Empire right now.

has someone applied this LUT to the film & shared?

Not to my knowledge. I can look into getting my file uploaded if you guys want it (24.8 GB).

Post
#1260856
Topic
The future of OT.com - UPDATE: Please donate!
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

it would be sad to see this place disappear.

Ditto. This site means a lot to me, so I hope option 1 or 2 works out well. I wouldn’t be able to make a monthly donation, though. But this site and its community have literally changed my life for the better. Thanks for everything Jay, Silverwook, Anchorhead, and the rest of you hooligans.

Post
#1255586
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Handman said:

They could never make Discovery if they were beholden to the aesthetic of the 60s

Why? I love the 60s aesthetic! It’d get me to watch this show, anyway.

I assume the-powers-that-be want the show to appeal to demographics beyond the hardcore Trekkies who like retro kitsch.

Most people would’ve been satisfied if they recreated this:

with some modern “movie” sensibilities. Not as unnecessarily shiny-white as JJ Abrams did, but that’s the idea. You can make it look like the same in universe time period without making it look like low budget '60s TV again. The Cage didn’t even have the excessively colorful lighting the series would have so the original look of the sets translate really well to a more realistic look.