UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Aliens -- in 4k UHD (3 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

You mean, like Terminator 2 level of degraining?
Because, I'm sorry, but that looks awful to my eyes...
I prefer the original grain structure and the films to look like films.

You’re conflating with a film for which the master was created in a very different way, by a different facility.

 

[Tino]

Here a FB video where Cameron discusses how Aliens had more grain than he wanted but was a result of film stock he used at that time.

James Cameron discusses the aspect ratio and grain of Aliens (DVD commentary) #Aliens #JamesCameron #AspectRatio #Film #FilmMaking #FilmGrain #TheAbyss #Super35 #Director #DVDcommentary #Alien #Dvd #commentary | Alien_Theory

James Cameron discusses the aspect ratio and grain of Aliens (DVD commentary) #Aliens #JamesCameron #AspectRatio #Film #FilmMaking #FilmGrain #TheAbyss #Super35 #Director #DVDcommentary #Alien #Dvd...

www.facebook.com

 

[OliverK]

Here a FB video where Cameron discusses how Aliens had more grain than he wanted but was a result of film stock he used at that time.

James Cameron discusses the aspect ratio and grain of Aliens (DVD commentary) #Aliens #JamesCameron #AspectRatio #Film #FilmMaking #FilmGrain #TheAbyss #Super35 #Director #DVDcommentary #Alien #Dvd #commentary | Alien_Theory

James Cameron discusses the aspect ratio and grain of Aliens (DVD commentary) #Aliens #JamesCameron #AspectRatio #Film #FilmMaking #FilmGrain #TheAbyss #Super35 #Director #DVDcommentary #Alien #Dvd...

www.facebook.com

Thanks for posting that.

Everybody encounters some limitations in production but only some very rare directors go back and try to "fix" things after the fact and James Cameron now is right up there with George Lucas and Peter Jackson when it comes to making their older movies a moving target rather than something that is worth preserving as it was.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thanks for posting that.

Everybody encounters some limitations in production but only some very rare directors go back and try to "fix" things after the fact and James Cameron now is right up there with George Lucas and Peter Jackson when it comes to making their older movies a moving target rather than something that is worth preserving as it was.

These 4K/UHD releases have little to do with film preservation.

 

[OliverK]

These 4K/UHD releases have little to do with film preservation.

Definitely what they Could have something to do with preserving the look of film.

While film preservation status per se as in the negative being in good shape and so on is nothing to be worried about for these movies it looks like it is getting more difficult to also see the movies in a way that within reasons replicates the look of the theatrical release.

In that way it is ironic that UHD which could have brought us closer is now removing us further from what these movies looked like.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Definitely what they Could have something to do with preserving the look of film.

While film preservation status per se as in the negative being in good shape and so on is nothing to be worried about for these movies it looks like it is getting more difficult to also see the movies in a way that within reasons replicates the look of the theatrical release.

In that way it is ironic that UHD which could have brought us closer is now removing us further from what these movies looked like.

The directors are under no obligation to replicate your movie theater experience with these home video format releases. If you don’t like what they’re doing with their films then don’t purchase them on home video. Frankly I’m fine with how these 4K/UHD releases look on my home theater system. I get it, you’re not but we don’t always get what we want, do we?

 

[Konstantinos]

The directors are under no obligation to replicate your movie theater experience with these home video format releases. If you don’t like what they’re doing with their films then don’t purchase them on home video. Frankly I’m fine with how these 4K/UHD releases look on my home theater system. I get it, you’re not but we don’t always get what we want, do we?

You know, I'm almost sure that if people like Mr. Harris and other reviewers, condemned this kind of "restoration", or "re-imagining" or whatever you may call it, maybe we would get what we want.
No offense to anyone, but this is how I feel.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks for posting that.

Everybody encounters some limitations in production but only some very rare directors go back and try to "fix" things after the fact and James Cameron now is right up there with George Lucas and Peter Jackson when it comes to making their older movies a moving target rather than something that is worth preserving as it was.

Mr. Cameron’s films are fully preserved as they were. The 4k home video release is merely a modern variant.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You know, I'm almost sure that if people like Mr. Harris and other reviewers, condemned this kind of "restoration", or "re-imagining" or whatever you may call it, maybe we would get what we want.
No offense to anyone, but this is how I feel.

No offense taken but I believe you’re overestimating the impact reviewers have on the industry.

 

[Robert Harris]

You know, I'm almost sure that if people like Mr. Harris and other reviewers, condemned this kind of "restoration", or "re-imagining" or whatever you may call it, maybe we would get what we want.
No offense to anyone, but this is how I feel.

There are certain films that used grain, color and other attributes as an integral part of the production AS DESIGNED.

That is not the case with these films, and I applaud the new variants, which make 4k viewing a decided pleasure.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Mr. Cameron’s films are fully preserved as they were. The 4k home video release is merely a modern variant.

Thank you!

 

[sbjork]

There are certain films that used grain, color and other attributes as an integral part of the production AS DESIGNED.

That is not the case with these films, and I applaud the new variants, which make 4k viewing a decided pleasure.

And again, a 4K scan from the OCN doesn't preserve the theatrical experience of film anyway. And to your point, the design of the original productions never once involved people seeing the negatives as shot. They were always designed to go through the printing process, and intended to be seen that way. And especially in the case of Aliens, Cameron was never 100% happy with the results. People who say that they want to preserve the look of film, but insist that 4K scans from the negative need to remain untouched in terms of grain structure and detail, don't really want to preserve the original look of film. They want something better, and that's fine. But Cameron also wants something better, so he gave them what they wanted, just not in the way that they wanted. Either way, the original experience has not been preserved. These new AI processed masters don't look the way that the movies originally did, but an untouched 4K scan from the OCN also doesn't look the way that the movies originally did. Purists aren't as pure as they think that they are.

It's still perfectly fair not to like how these new 4K masters look, and to wish that they had been done differently. There's plenty of fair arguments back and forth to be made in that regard. What's not fair is to act like the image as preserved on the negative was ever seen by anyone, or was ever intended to be seen in the first place. It wasn't. Compromise is always involved in transferring film to home video, and if what we're seeing looks better than a theatrical print, then compromises were made, full stop.

 

[mi_z]

And again, a 4K scan from the OCN doesn't preserve the theatrical experience of film anyway. And to your point, the design of the original productions never once involved people seeing the negatives as shot. They were always designed to go through the printing process, and intended to be seen that way. And especially in the case of Aliens, Cameron was never 100% happy with the results. People who say that they want to preserve the look of film, but insist that 4K scans from the negative need to remain untouched in terms of grain structure and detail, don't really want to preserve the original look of film. They want something better, and that's fine. But Cameron also wants something better, so he gave them what they wanted, just not in the way that they wanted. Either way, the original experience has not been preserved. These new AI processed masters don't look the way that the movies originally did, but an untouched 4K scan from the OCN also doesn't look the way that the movies originally did. Purists aren't as pure as they think that they are.

It's still perfectly fair not to like how these new 4K masters look, and to wish that they had been done differently. There's plenty of fair arguments back and forth to be made in that regard. What's not fair is to act like the image as preserved on the negative was ever seen by anyone, or was ever intended to be seen in the first place. It wasn't. Compromise is always involved in transferring film to home video, and if what we're seeing looks better than a theatrical print, then compromises were made, full stop.

It's preposterous to compare scanning an OCN with the travesties of the Cameron 4ks. They are not the same. Yes, the experience wasn't the same as when it was presented, but neither was watching it on 4k screens to begin with, or on any screens for that matter. It is entirely reasonable to capture the detail recorded by the camera onto the OCN. Cameron's basterdised versions aren't even in the spirit of the process. And it looks terrible to most people, because he has bad taste.

And to those saying he is under no obligation... he could just release both versions. The same could be said with Peter Jackson and George Lucas. They are extremely arrogant to think that they alone can decide what it looks like when they weren't the only people working on a film. By its nature it is collaborative and the amount work they put in isn't even a percent the amount of work it took to make it. And ignoring all the people that weren't "creatives", they still only are a part of the process. By changing the films you are changing history and someone else's work. Also, millions of people watched it differently as it came out. Why is their experience irrelevant? Why is the way the film looked originally irrelevant?

I compare this to Wim Wenders on Wings of Desire who used scanned the OCN at 4k to vastly improve the image shown -- including maintaining true black and white footage -- while keeping imperfections like hairs in the frame. Nolan is one of the few who disagrees with scanning the OCN and his discs suffer for it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Oh boy!

 

[John Sparks]

I have two other editions of this, I decided a 3rd copy was in the cards...so I just ordered it...can't wait.

 

[Robert Harris]

And again, a 4K scan from the OCN doesn't preserve the theatrical experience of film anyway. And to your point, the design of the original productions never once involved people seeing the negatives as shot. They were always designed to go through the printing process, and intended to be seen that way. And especially in the case of Aliens, Cameron was never 100% happy with the results. People who say that they want to preserve the look of film, but insist that 4K scans from the negative need to remain untouched in terms of grain structure and detail, don't really want to preserve the original look of film. They want something better, and that's fine. But Cameron also wants something better, so he gave them what they wanted, just not in the way that they wanted. Either way, the original experience has not been preserved. These new AI processed masters don't look the way that the movies originally did, but an untouched 4K scan from the OCN also doesn't look the way that the movies originally did. Purists aren't as pure as they think that they are.

It's still perfectly fair not to like how these new 4K masters look, and to wish that they had been done differently. There's plenty of fair arguments back and forth to be made in that regard. What's not fair is to act like the image as preserved on the negative was ever seen by anyone, or was ever intended to be seen in the first place. It wasn't. Compromise is always involved in transferring film to home video, and if what we're seeing looks better than a theatrical print, then compromises were made, full stop.

Actually, a 4k DCP can be made to appear like an original print. Just without flicker, wear, cue marks, reel to reel color and density changes, etc.

 

[OliverK]

Mr. Cameron’s films are fully preserved as they were. The 4k home video release is merely a modern variant.

I am sure they are but it is not as if we had a "normal" Blu-ray release of either The Abyss or True Lies so for most of us that modern variant is the only available high resolution option.

 

[sbjork]

Actually, a 4k DCP can be made to appear like an original print. Just without flicker, wear, cue marks, reel to reel color and density changes, etc.

It absolutely can. My point is that's not what people want when they say the look of film should be respected.

 

[Robert Harris]

I’m leaving this discussion.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I will simply say that I hope this bodes well for The Abyss.