Did you know that more than 150 of Criterion releases are done by companies who don't give a shit about visual fidelity and just saturate old movies until detail and shadow are all but lost?
Are you aware that shoddy digital transfers have become the industry norm?
Pic somewhat related.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Bottom is clearly off but the top is tinted too magenta as well.
Top was shot on film the way director intended.
Literally anti soul
Film doesn't magically make everything perfectly balanced. There can be flaws with film as well.
Top was also color graded. Every single digital film scan is color graded, or else they'd look flat, grey, and low contrast due to the scanning method. Pic related.
Yup. morons don't realize that this is the reason why almost every single release of an old film has somewhat different colors. They literally have to grade it again every time they scan the film for a higher resolution.
The problem is that they often just do their own moronic shit when grading it, instead of trying to make it look as close to the original theatrical projection as possible.
Bottom is actually superwised by Mann, so that's how he intends you to see it.
The 4k versions of LotR have way better color grading than the older versions. Shame they're all DNR garbage.
Hackson is too obessed with making film look like digital. His WWI and Beatles documentaries were also ruined with heavy DNR.
There is too black on the bottom screen and maybe it would look bad on crt screens
Bottom looks exaclty like Bad Boys 2. I shit you not, look up an outdoor scene. its exactly the same
color grading and wide screen was a mistake
someone post the open matte on T3
T3 is particularly egregious for all the different fricking aspect ratios. Thankfully there's a few torrents on Rutracker that stitch them all together for the full picture.
left looks so much better
This is true but pic related isn’t an example. Michael Mann oversaw the blue tint on the Criterion release because he’s obsessed with the color. James Cameron did the same on his infamous Terminator 2 Blu-ray
Both look like shit. There is zero chance the film would've looked like either one at release.
Digital releases ALWAYS look better fricking moronic lead drinking boomer
All pics in this thread are from digital releases. No one here is watching actual film prints, moron. The thread is about shitty color grading.
So does the stuff like Blu-Ray, UHD, DNR, 4K... are those red flags or it's completely dependent on grading job upon scan?
DNR is a huge red flag, since it means the film has been digitally manipulated to get rid of the film grain, which also results in a substantial loss of image detail.
Blu-Ray, UHD and 4K are all great if done well. It all depends on whether the remaster is done by competent people. Also, UHD and 4K are just two different terms for basically the same thing.
4K is god tier if done well. Lawrence of Arabia is probably the best 4K release out there since it was shot on 70mm and they didn't do anything stupid to ruin the look of the film.
Is there a website that lists good rereleases of classic movies?
For example here's what to avoid:
https://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16854&sid=60cadb4bb920d46987fac93a6709251c
I don't know of any good one. I just Google info on a film's releases if I'm planning on watching it.
Blu-Ray and 4K Blu-Ray are better than DVD for one simple reason even if we ignore the massive jump in resolution:
DVD is shit tier since it doesn't even support 24fps, so they have to show certain frames twice, which causes the picture to stutter. PAL DVDs must be 25fps, which doesn't frick it up too bad, but NTSC DVDs must be 29.97, which really fricks up the presentation and motion of a 24fps film.
Still, just watching a Blu-Ray isn't always enough to view the film correctly at real 24fps, since you also need a television or a monitor with a 24fps mode meant for watching movies. Some televisions automatically switch to it when you watch films, but there are also a lot of people who have never seen properly displayed 24fps and are used to the stuttery incorrect presentation with extra frames.
And if anyone wants to look deeper into the issue, the process of displaying a 24fps film at 29.97fps is called 3:2 pulldown.
So no DVD ever faithfully represented a classic movie since they all run at 24fps originally?
Correct.
NTSC DVD releases of films always have several extra frames inserted each second.
I think some PAL releases slightly speed up the movie the get the 24fps film running at 25fps.
It simply doesn't support it. A technical limitation of the format.
PAL DVDs are 25fps because that's the broadcast TV standard in PAL countries, and 29.97fps is the NTSC TV broadcast standard.
So each time a movie is shown on television program it does not run at proper frame rate?
Yes, exactly. It isn't noticeable to most people since they are so used to it, but as someone who works with display technology I can't stand it. It's a subtle difference, but once you learn to notice it, you'll never unsee it.
You mean change the aspect ratio? It's often done during television broadcasts and even on some streaming services, since there are too many morons who just want the image to fill the screen and hate black bars with a passion. Many older people are like this for some reason, I've noticed.
I don't get it. Why can't DVD show 24 frames exactly?
Wrong. DVD can be encoded at 24 FPS. The MPEG-2 stream does have the ability to mark certain frames as "repeat first field", in which case naive players display it as 30 FPS but progressive players decode it as 24 FPS correctly
True, but the problem here is that you need a DVD player able to do that, which most aren't. And there are frickloads of DVDs out there that don't use repeat first field, especially older ones.
>buys a BLUray
>complains it's blue
i'll never understand you idiots
Michael mann wanted that.
Michael mann was also never good.
Jesus christ, the problem is that film is an analogue medium and, as such, looks different depending on the projector used and other factors.
When converting to digital, you have to "lock" an actual look. A lot of the time they frick this process up but don't pretend like they just ignore the how the film is supposed to objectively look (this only happens rarely).
Additionally, when you see them have strong hues/tints that weren't in the original, it's likely a decision by the current owners in a bid to make the film look more modern because the average audience member actually prefers it. People are always whining about how digital looks worse than film while ignoring that film is consciously graded in such a way that looks identical to modern digital - ***almost*** as if that look is done on purpose
Criterion has always been for dilettantes and small-souled bugmen
It represents the fast-foodization of film: a boardroom churns out a pre-packaged 'arthouse' selection consisting of films that are already well-known and already released by much better companies, but grab the attention of redditors who started getting into 'cinema' 6 months ago and want to feel like they're experiencing culture
Every Criterionpleb will tell you about how great Valerie and Her Week of Wonders is, but how many of them could name, let alone have seen, any of Jaromil Jireš' other films? The actual cinema knowledge of anyone on the Criterion plantation is as deep as a puddle
>Oh you like movies? Name every film
Is there a better version of Repo Man out there because the criterion version looks pretty sweet.
How often do they resize 4:3 films?
What the frick did they do to his face? And why?
that scene has never looked right. on the top pic you can see that the edges aren't clean. I think the colors on the print are a tiny bit misaligned and it's a problem with the source.
for the blu-ray some idiot decided it'd be a good idea to use AI to redo the frames so that it would look smoother. but not only does it look worse, his eyeballs are exploding out of his skull. and that's what the movie is going to look like for the rest of time because studios almost never reverse these changes no matter how absurd they are.
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=421&y=323&d1=15953&d2=15954&s1=169259&s2=169283&l=0&i=8&go=1
weird how his eyes look further apart in the bottom pic
This is one reason I collect physical media. Often an older Bluray disc looks more faithful than a recent 4k disc (for example Terminator II).
My man got homierized
This is misleading because the new 4K transfer of Raiders is absolutely kino and reference quality
It's not misleading since that's how it fricking looks.
Except it's clearly fricking not the same release I'm talking about, you disingenuous shitheel. I'm sick of these threads.
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=502&y=233&d1=15953&d2=15954&s1=169258&s2=169279&l=0&i=5&go=1
The Blu-Ray release with the fricked up eyes uses the same master as the 4K release, you moron.
I hate this film. And yet I'm attracted to it.
The shitty thing here is that even if bottom has fricked up colors, it still looks sharper and more detailed than the version on top. So there's no perfect version either way.
You can adjust the color of your tv however you want.
I too manually change the white balance for every movie I watch while my friends and family patiently wait
I'm going to do this when I next watch Spectre, use Cool temperature to remove the piss filter
You are a brainless moron. The color settings for televisions are very limited and trying to push them too far will only further frick up the image. Try regrading a heavily color graded film to look natural with just your TV settings.
Even then white balance alone wouldn't be enough to fix most things.
>You are a brainless moron. The color settings for televisions are very limited and trying to push them too far will only further frick up the image. Try regrading a heavily color graded film to look natural with just your TV settings.
I did this just now with the Bond film Spectre. Changed Color profile from Expert (film maker mode) to Cool and shifted the Red balance. It significantly removes the yellow piss filter and resembles the before-and-after colour grading shots I've seen posted online.
post pics
Before, standard film maker mode which works great on 99% of movies but not piss filter movies like Spectre
After
Thought this would have a heavy grade like OP's pic for example. Now that would be impossible to fix. This is barely a change.
both tops look like made for tv bullshit
Thief looks good in blue tbh. I get that films will necessarily look somewhat different on every format but it is annoying that versions like this, where there's a clear deliberate difference, aren't provided as an alternative to a more accurate version.
HD was a mistake, DVD chads always win
iPhone is making the Before look more blue than reality, just take my word for it that it's worth tinkering with the colour of egregiously graded movies
this shit is literally imperceptibly different from your phone photos
the iPhone is fricking the colours, shifting the TV to Cool temp does mostly fix Spectre, it's not ideal but makes the film less fatiguing without the perpetual dirty yellow murk
Coloring was and will always be a joke in movie industry.