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

[Robert Crawford]

And, yes, Crawford, I've seen the Aliens UHD, and I hate the look of it.

You should return it for a refund.

 

[Steen DK]

Don't worry, I didn't buy it myself.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Don't worry, I didn't buy it myself.

Good for you.

 

[sbjork]

Did you watch the technical analysis of the HDR and colour space? It is pretty clear that the UHD contains nothing that isn't already on the BD. It's just filtered and sharpened.

Did you actually go back and read the comments that I mentioned? Because it sure doesn't sound like you did. I said the video has issues, and it does. The voice is AI generated, and while I'm not saying that the whole video was AI generated, the content was still cobbled from elsewhere. The narration reads verbatim (but unattributed) quotes that were written by other people, and considering that I know one of those people, it was pretty jarring hearing his words being spoken by a different (and unnatural sounding) voice.

And as others pointed out, the color space argument proves nothing. That's not saying that the original 2K master and/or scans weren't used to create the new 4K version -- it's been verified that they were. But HDR is just a bucket, and what goes into the bucket doesn't prove where it came from. There are 4K releases based on 4K scans that are still just SDR in an HDR container. Including, I'm willing to bet, plenty of discs that you actually liked.

And no, even with the 2K scans as a source, it's not "just filtered and sharpened." That's a gross misrepresentation of what Park Road did. They used AI algorithms to remove the grain, and AI algoriths to generate new detail from the image. That's far from filtering and sharpening, and the results look nothing like old school discs that really were just filtered and sharpened. Whether or not they look good is still a fair question, and by all means, go ahead and ask those questions. But I'm starting to see more and more comments right now throwing out old-school technological terms like filtering, sharpening, edge enhancement, and others like that, and they're not accurate terms anymore to describe the process that Park Road used.

 

[Robert Saccone]

I finished watching Aliens last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it and FWIW I thought the amount of manufactured grain gave it enough of a gritty look to satisfy me. Coming from the tech sector I appreciate Cameron's interest in trying new things out and pushing the state of things along. That's just my view but I think every industry needs people like that.

 

[tenia]

The voice is AI generated, and while I'm not saying that the whole video was AI generated, the content was still cobbled from elsewhere.

As already explained before, the voice is AI generated because the guy is French (see here - but I also pics of his Dolby/Pathé/Hiventy conference at Lyon in 2023 :
)
and didn't like how he sounded in English.

I understand feeling the intro is overselling it when it starts by rehashing public info, but the tech analysis after that and the information provided by it are what they are. It's quite clear he's doing him himself and what the tools he's using to do so (or do you think he also recycled the Atmos analysis from someone else, and if so, who/where ?), and brushing this away because of the intro seems sophistic at best.

This being written, if the AI voice really is that much biasing for you, the (main) French version is here :

There are 4K releases based on 4K scans that are still just SDR in an HDR container. Including, I'm willing to bet, plenty of discs that you actually liked.

Which isn't the point tackled by the video, but rather about how the minimalist exploitation of HDR and WCG capabilities are most certainly an additionnal marker of the non-creation of a new better source for this remaster. By extension, it also means that the result most certainly is what it is not because of the movie's look, but because of the remaster's workflow, and that a more traditional remastering work would have allowed HDR and WCG to be used in a more able way.
And in a much more direct and factual manner, it also means that all the persons stating that the HDR grade allows to retrieve information in the darkest areas and in the highlights are factually wrong.

They used AI algorithms to remove the grain, and AI algoriths to generate new detail from the image.

Sure, these are more advanced tools (which is why it doesn't look like, say, the previous Truman Show master or even the T2 4k remaster), but it's still filtering and sharpening, which is why you'll read people throwing these terms around : the tools have evolved, but not what they're doing nor the impact on the result. Call it Artificial filtering 3.0, if you prefer.

 

[mi_z]

I think you misunderstood the point I was making.

Josh said that filmmakers are human beings, and just as prone to making bad decisions as anyone else. I was saying that you could apply the same logic to the other side of the argument -- the fans are also human beings also prone to bad decisions.

So why is it always the assumption that the filmmaker made a bad decision and that the fans know best?

Well I'm not saying fans are always right, but it's not really debatable that what is being applied to these films changes them drastically compared to normal UHD releases. Such heavy usage of AI, DNR, EE etc. not by necessity but by a desire for the films to look differently to how they should look is revisionism. It's not in the spirit of the process as I said above. And then these are the only versions made available.

I think fans often complain about colour correction and here it's clear that there is not an obvious "correct" or "wrong." You need to apply colour correction regardless so likely someone will complain. Often their basis for what is "correct" is from an older release which is just as likely, if not more so, to be wrong than what new releases have. I can't think of many releases that have been completely lambasted because of a grade, but I can think of a few that have been because of digital tinkering. Maybe the Bourne Identity? But that had other problems.

Films like The Godfather trilogy, while having some detractors, largely received a very positive reception. And at least people have the Blu Rays to fall back on if they wish.

 

[tenia]

I think fans often complain about colour correction and here it's clear that there is not an obvious "correct" or "wrong." You need to apply colour correction regardless so likely someone will complain. Often their basis for what is "correct" is on an older release which is just as likely, if not more so, to be wrong than what new releases have.

There has been, however, an ongoing underlying issue with some labs having such an intense color-signature, applied on so many of their works in a systemic manner, that it becomes intrusive in an obviously inaccurate way (because how many movies actually share such a close look ?). That's what lead, for instance, to Arrow to go back earlier in the restoration process of 4 Bruce Lee movies in order to make such it's before such an intrusive signature is applied. The end result still most likely is debatable because what is a 100% faithful color-grading, but it was 100% sure that the original color gradings of those restorations wasn't faithful.

On the other hand, less and less older presentations are used as references because there is enough hindsight about similar systemic issues plaguing those too. The misuse of past releases as references shouldn't distract for these findings.

The question however would be why we have this hindsight about these past systemic approaches, but haven't learnt our lesson to prevent newer presentations to suffer from a similar issue. This explains however why it's even harder to get a consensus on these presentations, because if one can't even get one on intrusively filtered presentations such as American Graffiti or those Cameron remasters, it's going to be even more complicated on things more delicate like color-gradings (despite cases having already been made and elements collected about this matter).

 

[Wayne Klein]

Did you watch the technical analysis of the HDR and colour space? It is pretty clear that the UHD contains nothing that isn't already on the BD. It's just filtered and sharpened.


I've hated sharpening since the days of VHS. But, ok, VHS was so fuzzy and TVs were so small back then that it could be excused.

Then DVDs came along, and they would still apply sharpening. Why? Habit, I guess - and TVs hadn't really grown much in size.

Then we got HD and much bigger TVs! Surely now artificial sharpening would be a thing of the past! And it mostly was... mostly, but there were still loads of films on BD that had plenty of sharpening applied.

But with 4K there could absolutely not be a need for sharpening any longer, right? Surely THIS time we could be done with this s***? Nope, even when TVs and media have resolutions that the human eye can barely detect, we apparently still need artificial sharpening to give us those high-contrast edges that some people love - and we end up with these Cameron films and the awful Lord of the Rings UHDs. I find it utterly baffling.


And, yes, Crawford, I've seen the Aliens UHD, and I hate the look of it.

Yep. I have mixed feelings about Aliens-for a casual viewer it will look great because it has more of a digital video quality that most folks seem to favor today but for film buffs, I suspect, these changes will put many off. Granted, we are a small but devoted group but this is really aimed at the modern audience for better or worse. Therewere some scenes that truly did benefit from the changes while others, it didn’t work for me. Again, I have mixed feelings about the UHD presentation of the film But also have to keep in mind thatmecen rhe earlier Blu had grain management used (though I do like the earlier Blu).

it’s Cameron’s film do with what he pleases but that doesn’t mean I wouldn‘T like a choice with a minimally tampered with appearance. I prefer the grittier presentation because it fit the material-whether it was intended to do so or not.

I'm not going to call Cameron’s baby ugly but it isn’t the cutest baby I’ve seen.

 

[Grady]

I'm not going to call Cameron’s baby ugly but it isn’t the cutest baby I’ve seen.

Flip Wilson, politically correct.

 

[Wayne Klein]

Flip Wilson, politically correct.

Nah, I won’t give the film a banana.

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread is far more entertaining than The Bachelorette.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Have been waiting a long time for the 4K release of Aliens ever since the first film came out on 4K blu-ray. Alien looks incredible on my Sony OLED so even though there seems to be controversy about the transfer to 4K blu-ray on Aliens I am looking forward to seeing it on my OLED at home. It should arrive this Wednesday along with True Lies on 4K blu-ray. As far as The Abyss goes it is still showing order received and am waiting for a shipping date on that. Aliens is one of my favorites so I am also looking forward to comparing my blu-ray to the new 4K disc.

 

[SPlow67]

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster, but this Aliens disc is the straw that made me finally crack and register an account. My irl friends don't care and I need to say my thoughts to someone.

For a little context I am 31, born in '93 and have been collecting physical movies since probably 2009/2010 or so, after the blu-ray format war was won. I now have rather large collection of both Blu's and UHD's, and while I'm sure many users collections here would dwarf mine, I feel I know my way around a disc. So when I say I do not like the Aliens transfer I mean it.

Now, I'm not here to debate the merits of running a 2K Blu-Ray DI through some deep-learning (AI) de-graining, and re-adding detail algorithms, and calling that 4K. That's been discussed ad-nauseam. It technically is a fairly clean and sharp image, and for some reason it's what Mr. Cameron wants. I feel like I am still allowed to be disappointed in what we got.

You see, having been born in '93, I was never able to see Aliens in theaters. I am someone who considers movies to be almost time capsule's of the times when they are made, so I would expect Aliens to look like it's shot in the 80's. One of my favorite things about the UHD format is the ability for me to see movies as they were originally released, sometimes with warts and all. Take Scott's Alien's UHD for example, you can tell this movie was shot on film, and frankly it looks gorgeous. But it still feels like a late 70's movie.

I think I would be less upset if there was a good widely available version that is more representative of the original print. But there really isn't, I strongly prefer the old anthology box set blu-ray, but even that was heavily processed release. I know people argue the film doesn't need a "restoration", I'm not even arguing for that. I just want a high definition version of Aliens that is accurate to what I would have seen on opening night. I know the original reels and footage exist and are archived, but it's not like my fly-over midwest state is getting a special showing anytime soon, I don't even think projectors even exist at my local cinemas anymore. And it's not like I can call up the studio and tell them I'm flying in, so get a screening ready. So the original theatrical experience of Aliens is basically unattainable for anyone who doesn't have access to the studio archives, and now we have to watch this weird uncanny valley transfer that, sure, technically looks good, but it doesn't look right, it doesn't have any soul anymore, and I just can't gel with it.

 

[ahollis]

Nothing like going down and down and down the rabbit hole.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Man I really miss Van Ling.

 

[UNdetectableMAN]

Enjoy the new Aliens special edition AI

 

[jayembee]

This thread is far more entertaining than The Bachelorette.

Talk about a low bar...

 

[sbjork]

Whoops, wrong thread!

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

All these comments and we haven't addressed the slipcover rating being only 4.