UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Aliens -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

Top one is a zoom of the old Blu-ray. Bottom is the new 4K UHD.

source: https://x.com/highdefwatch/status/1769785261678817549?s=61
View attachment 216728 View attachment 216729

Got any scans of Paul Rieser’s face.

 

[TonyD]

Maybe they should have gone back in and redid Trues Lies after gaining all that experience.

 

[MarkantonyII]

A v odd technical decision, Aliens must be one of the first pre-DI 35mm films that’s been upscaled for UHD from an extant 2K master, when the negative could have been entirely rescanned in native 4K.

They must have had their reasons, but i can’t think of any good ones.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert - you’re always a gentleman!

People admitting they were wrong appears to be a lost moral in today’s world. However, not in my world, thanks to my parents.

 

[TonyD]

I’ve been wrong all my life about a ton of stuff.

 

[Dave H]

Safe to say the 2K scan of Aliens was from the original negative?

 

[Lord Dalek]

The restoration might have been done in 2k but I'm fairly sure the actual raw film scan was 4k.

 

[Dave H]

The restoration might have been done in 2k but I'm fairly sure the actual raw film scan was 4k.

It was confirmed it was a 2K scan.

 

[sbjork]

A v odd technical decision, Aliens must be one of the first pre-DI 35mm films that’s been upscaled for UHD from an extant 2K master, when the negative could have been entirely rescanned in native 4K.

They must have had their reasons, but i can’t think of any good ones.

Oh, gosh, let me tell you about the Full Moon UHD release of Trancers. On second though, I'd rather not have to relive that experience.

 

[yamato72]

Top one is a zoom of the old Blu-ray. Bottom is the new 4K UHD.

Spoiler: comparison shots

source: https://x.com/highdefwatch/status/1769785261678817549?s=61
View attachment 216728 View attachment 216729

Based on the pores visible in Sigourney Weaver's cheeks in the bottom photo, I guess this lends credence to the contention that a 2K image harvest does contain detail that doesn't necessarily make it into the finished 1080P BD. Unless the AI generated those pores.

I will probably spin my copy of the Aliens BD again before deciding if I get this disk.

 

[Steen DK]

Top one is a zoom of the old Blu-ray. Bottom is the new 4K UHD.

source: https://x.com/highdefwatch/status/1769785261678817549?s=61
View attachment 216728 View attachment 216729

That's one of the more fortunate examples. Sometimes you end up with something like this: https://slow.pics/c/JST3gImv

 

[cineMANIAC]

But it's not like JC himself was gonna do the restoration work.

Hand it off to people he trusts, let them do it, review the result, ask for changes if desired.

Maybe he didn't want to pay for those "countless hours", but he wasn't gonna spend those hours himself.

Wrong. Cameron has worked on all of his home video releases of his films. He never hands the work off to other people - it's his MO. Why do you think it took so long for these titles to come out? Lol

 

[Bryan^H]

Wow. The bottom one looks so much better.

What do you think looks so much better? The absense of the film grain?

 

[Tino]

What do you think looks so much better? The absense of the film grain?

Resolution and clarity mostly. Compare the eyes. It clearly looks better to me.

 

[Tino]

That's one of the more fortunate examples. Sometimes you end up with something like this: https://slow.pics/c/JST3gImv

What’s the issue with that screenshot?

 

[JoshZ]

A v odd technical decision, Aliens must be one of the first pre-DI 35mm films that’s been upscaled for UHD from an extant 2K master, when the negative could have been entirely rescanned in native 4K.

They must have had their reasons, but i can’t think of any good ones.

So, they're saying now that the new master is based on the scan done in 2010. What hasn't been confirmed yet is whether it's also built off the existing de-graining work Lowry Digital did at that time, or if that work has been redone with new algorithms. If Cameron wanted to keep all of the Lowry processing (which he was very enthusiastic about at the time it was done) and just "enhance" it with additional A.I. tools, that might explain why he didn't strike a new master.

However, if the de-graining was done from scratch, then it is indeed perplexing why they wouldn't want to start from a new 4K scan and master. Other than budget concerns, of course.

 

[Steen DK]

What’s the issue with that screenshot?

Did you click on it to switch between the BD and the UHD? The DNR/EE filter doesn't know what to do with the grain on Ripley's face, so it decides that she hasn't shaved.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Did you click on it to switch between the BD and the UHD? The DNR/EE filter doesn't know what to do with the grain on Ripley's face, so it decides that she hasn't shaved.

IMO, there are few of us that are noticing such an issue when the movie is in motion, at our normal sitting position and as we're caught up in the actual film.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

IMO, there are few of us that are noticing such an issue when the movie is in motion, at our normal sitting position and as we're caught up in the actual film.

Absolutely agree! Better to watch a film and get caught up in it than pour over a screengrab of imperfections that won't get noticed. I have said this endlessly...I do not like the concept of studying screenshots.

 

[tenia]

Based on the pores visible in Sigourney Weaver's cheeks in the bottom photo, I guess this lends credence to the contention that a 2K image harvest does contain detail that doesn't necessarily make it into the finished 1080P BD. Unless the AI generated those pores.

I will probably spin my copy of the Aliens BD again before deciding if I get this disk.

It's the AI-type upscale that generates those. It basically tries to turn noise into signal on select part of the frame, which is why it gives such a recognizable type of picture, which you wouldn't get if only using traditionnal sharpening and grain management filters.

IMO, there are few of us that are noticing such an issue when the movie is in motion, at our normal sitting position and as we're caught up in the actual film.

It's like non-optimal encodes though : it's not because 95% of viewers might not see the macroblocking or chroma issues they generate that they should keep on appearing on the market. At worst, that's at least for a continuous improvement strategy, but it's mostly because there are tons of releases proving it can be achieved and thus that there is 0 reason any movie released on BD and/or UHD that should suffer it, except if people are happy to give incompetent encodes a pass.

Just because some conditions allow to overlook it doesn't mean it's not there, nor that it could have been avoided.

(side note : I can spot poor encodes on my 50" plasma at a 7" viewing distance, because it makes the grain pattern flicker, and it's not good looking and it tires my eyes, even when "caught up in the film")
(side note 2 : on cases like Aliens, Abyss and even more so True Lies, it's obvious enough to widely bother the viewing conditions anyway, just like you might be bothered all the way through the latest restoration of To Catch A Thief)