Queue on 21/7/2010 at 13:06
I don't think it's a perceived quality in anyway. But there's a depth to the image found in films that are shot well that just can't be achieved by slapping on a filter. And lot of the digitally shot films, regardless of grain or added trickery, simply lack that same depth.
It doesn't mean digitally shot films are bad, it's just that they can't evoke the same emotions found in shadows and imperfections.
Kolya on 21/7/2010 at 13:34
Oh I agree with you about traditionally filmed material looking better, the depth and all that.
I just think that in some cases the grain and blurriness simply masks a lack of detail in the original picture.
(
http://imgur.com/EiOEc.jpg)
I used the "remastered" image and put back in some grain, desaturated and slightly blurred the image. Admittedly the generated noise, pardon grain, is too uniform. But it looks somewhat better already, doesn't it?
Original is here: (
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/editorial/screenshot/2010/6/predatorremaster_original.jpg)
Muzman on 21/7/2010 at 13:45
What's interesting is that they've selectively added contrast to Arnie as well as removing grain (it's probably not so bad when moving, but his shirt looks like some sci-fi outfit cut from red wetsuit material in that shot).
Crushing blacks like that is the fashionable, digital thing to do thanks to a lot of TV shows (I think).
It's funny because it would have probably been a lot of work to do and they're removing similarly careful work, and deliberate decisions by the DOP and director at the time, to bring up the baseline with a bit of haze and probably a filter.
Scots Taffer on 21/7/2010 at 13:49
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Regardless it was still far better than Indiana Jones 4 by a country mile.
Maybe that's true if you think soulless retreads are movies.
At least Indy 4 was original and entertaining in its own way for around half its running time. Predators couldn't muster a fraction of that with its leaden dialogue, insipid setpieces and retarded characters.
It's a perfect example of fanboyism gone wrong: wouldn't it have been cooler if you got to see Billy and Predator fight? Therefore they effectively recreate that scene (down to the musical cues) and surprise surprise, it was fucking boring.
EvaUnit02 on 8/9/2010 at 06:31
Some good news, Fox appear to have not repeated the mistakes of the recent Predator CE BD with the remastering of Aliens for the upcoming BD.
(
http://bit.ly/b06ogh)
Those screens of the BD remaster appear to retain the natural film grain as intended, lovely.
Quote Posted by "EvaUnit02"
Like Predator, Aliens has always been a very grainy film, due to the film stock that it was shot on (at least in the case of Aliens).
Fafhrd on 8/9/2010 at 08:24
Hooray for keeping the grain in, but I'm not sure I'm terribly keen on the way they've tweaked the shit out of the colour saturation.
catbarf on 8/9/2010 at 14:42
On the one hand, there's the desire to stay true to the original. On the other, there is the potential to improve the film.
It could go either way. Looking at some of the comparisons, like Ripley's face or the marines getting out of the cryotubes, the new coloration looks more vibrant and real. Then again, the scene in the Queen's nest looks darker and perhaps scarier, but also less of the 'hellish' look I got from the original film- a stylistic change. I think it's too early to start hating on it, but I have my reservations.
Kolya on 8/9/2010 at 19:30
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Those screens of the BD remaster appear to retain the natural film grain as intended, lovely.
Quote Posted by James Cameron
I just did a complete remaster of Aliens personally with the same colorist I worked with on Avatar. It’s spectacular. We went in and completely de-noised it, de-grained it, up-rezzed, color-corrected it, end-to-end, every frame, and it looks amazing. It looks better that it looked in the theaters originally. Because it was shot on a high-speed negative, that was a new negative that didn’t pan out too well and got replaced the following year. So it’s pretty grainy. We got rid of all the grain. It’s sharper and clearer and more beautiful than it’s ever looked. And we did that to the long version, to the director’s cut, the extended play.
((
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/08/18/james-cameron-has-been-digitally-tinkering-with-aliens-will-we-like-what-hes-done/) source)
Vivian on 8/9/2010 at 20:58
James Cameron is going all lucas on us, isn't he. Argh.
