Recent content by Ignacio

The rising scene is included on the 4K HDTV version, supposedly from this master. I don't remember about the music cues at the ending, though.

I'm quite pleased with the overall quality of the 4K disc, but I clearly suspect they went a bit too far with the grain removal. The sound is very nice as well.

This is going to be interesting in 4K, as the previous 1080p transfer was plagued with noise and the source wasn't exactly pristine. But the film was shot in a very rough style, with fast, wide open lenses (softer look), very low light levels, and probably Kodak 5247 was heavily pushed or...

I'm halfway through the 4K Blu-ray of "Casino Royale" (2K DI from Super 35mm) and I find it very processed, with halos and poor sharpness. Most likely the fault of the DI, not the disc itself, but it wasn't as obvious back in the day projected on 35mm.

James Cameron only used 65mm (and 3-D) for the Universal Studios attraction "Terminator 2: Battle Across Time" back in 1996, but then it wasn't supposed to be released on video. He didn't like anamorphic, which provided at the time the biggest negative area for regular 35mm formats, but also...

I'd say 1.66:1 was used in Europe well into the 80's, but most films shot with that A.R. in mind should translate well to 1.85:1, with the two Kubrick films from the 70's being an exception.

"Airport" looks pretty good on Blu-ray, although there should be room for improvements if transferred to a 4K disc from the 65mm OCN. I've always found the BD's audio a bit lacking, with very little stereo separation and depth, a rarity for a 4 or 6 mag track.

Yes, of course, but I feel that those who don't like the revisionism that has been applied also have the right to express their opinions, specially in a forum devoted to films in Blu-ray and UHD.

I agree with you, but bear in mind "TITANIC" wasn't shot only on EXR 5245 (50 ASA) stock, which was balanced for daylight and had very low sensitivity (and thus, very fine grain). 5245 was used for the daylight outdoor scenes. 7245 was the same stock in 16mm, and it wasn't used on this film...

If he insists in doing so, it's exactly because he wants to preserve his photochemical timing for home video. A scan of the OCN implies a digital color correction (that will try to mimic the photochemical one). Not that I support that point of view, but from a purist's (specially for his very...

That's absolutely common in the industry. There are plenty of color-correction plugins to add grain and other film related artifacts (gate weave, dirt, halation, even film-like colors, etc) as many people find digital cameras too clean. "Dehancer" and "Film Convert" are some of the most popular...

I've just seen some screencaps from "TRUE LIES" and all the detail is gone. Jamie Lee Curtis has received half of "The Irishman" face lifting process for some reason. While some people may be happy with the film looking very crisp and "prettier", for me just a 4K scan of the OCN, some cleaning...

Yes, it probably does. TITANIC was an optical blow up from Super 35 to 35mm anamorphic (sometime before the advent of Digital Intermediates). And a 4K direct scan from the OCN does matter, and I support that, of course. It’s kind like watching the original negative, timed, with all its info...

I have finally seen TITANIC in UHD and agree with most comments. It looks very good but it's a processed look and overall no longer resembles what we saw in theaters 25 years ago. Some close-ups are a little waxy and the whole thing has an oversharpened appeareance. In 35mm this was a very fine...

The previous disc had some passages that were grainy as hell, and it didn't look to me like film grain at all. I hope this has been improved.