James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron. - James Cameron
His name is James, James Cameron The bravest pioneer No budget too steep, no sea too deep Who's that? It's him, James Cameron James, James Cameron explorer of the sea With a dying thirst to be the first Could it be? Yeah that's him! James Cameron
Nah, I think Big Jim views these AI tools as just that, tools, not the rampant, aware Artificial General Intelligence of his Terminator stories. The transfers still suck, though.
When I buy a 4k of a old movie, I want the negative scanned and I want to see it like it would be been seen in the theater full resolution. I don’t want them to try to make it look like modern digital.
Devil’s advocate though it’s ironic what fans will and will not accept for revisionism. We’ll condemn grain reduction but HDR grading and Atmos remixes is certainly not what the original theater experience was like. The nit levels on HDR is way higher than a 35mm film strip projected on screen.
Film prints that showed in theaters are usually 4 generations removed from the original negative. No 4k film on disc or digital represents "what the film looked like in theaters." We've long since passed revisionism when it comes to how film look on home media. It really just comes down to "how much revisionism is too much revisionism?"
An equivalent 4k resolution was NEVER seen in theatres. After 3 generations OCN>IP>IN>Print including the projector lens, the final resolving power would sit around 720p. Kodak often compensated for generational loss by using DIR couplers which create an organic unsharp mask.
@@chrisrowe2308 David Fincher talked about this very thing on the commentary track of Se7en. He said that degradation with each generation washed out blacks and killed detail.
@@SHDEdits I’d say the one thing I do miss is I still remember theatrical shows on film being less blurry as a kid than all these horrid 1080p projects that still litter most of my screens in my city. The picture was soft but still maintained a semblance of detail that is lost in digital projectors plus the contrast was way better. It wasn’t until my local AMC got a Dolbyvision 4k laser projector that movies don’t feel like I’m looking through my old prescription glasses anymore.
For every George Lucas, James Cameron, and Steven Spielberg wanting to change their old movies, go ahead. Just don't delete the old ones, please. Include them in Blu Rays. Let us choose which one we want to stream, etc. Give us options, or leave it the hell alone.
I'll just repeat what I heard somewhere else and is a very good point. Filmgrain is information. You are literally erasing information in order to get a cleaner look. And all it does it makes all the actors look like wax puppets. But in times of Orange and Teal color grading and filters maybe not too surprising. Did anyone see Argylle? The actors look like they were animated. The skin has absolutely no texture to it.
The audience that still buys 4K blu-rays, ARE the "hardcore purist" and film fanatics you should be catering to. They should be saying "yes sir, whatever you want" to the film buffs willing to blow $50 on a movie they've seen 100 times and can watch for free online. The other 90% are perfectly fine with streaming, don't care about audio/visual details, don't want the clutter and "inconvenience" of physical media, and are none the wise to film preservation.
I wanna say this is true, but sadly there's a lot of ignorant 4K Blu-ray collectors , that will buy anything just to make their collection look bigger.
They do these restorations for the archives,. They still have the original scanned elements, so they can remaster again in 20 years so that new people can "buy" or license it.
Selling garbage as product is what created the people who dont collect or care, and especially not care to the point we stopped watching movies, series, shows, play games list goes on. I went back to stone age basically because I refuse to support and fund placebo and toxic waste. And I am not the only one. We went from being gamers, buying and renting movies left and right most of us had a PS1, PS2 and PCs at one point booming the enthusiasm to the point we today don't care for any media. The only people remaining who play games are basically streamers or who make money from it. I cant believe that out there in the world there are still zombies who waste their hard earned money on these today. Its equal to taking money from bank then setting it on fire, that even takes less effort.
A painting is a personal possession up until it's posted up in a gallery and a contract is signed or money is exchanged. Film is a much more collaborative art form, with every aspect of what makes a film work coming from a different artist or technician. A director might have final say on some aspects, but often that is not the case. Not to mention the money spent making big budget films almost never coming from the director. Sure, if you're indie shooting your own stuff out of your own pocket that's one thing, but at this level of filmmaking you would expect a more humble attitude about ownership. It's a hard problem, because we have all complained about studio interference and directors not being allowed to put their visions on screen, but how much control do we really want directors to have once a film is complete? There's no good answer.
Anyone else notice "move out of mom's basement" has become a juvenile response to something they're sensitive about but have nothing to defend or argue for their reason or position so they go with an ad hominum attack?
I know right? Mom's don't even pay for the mortgage mostly. Get out of your Dad's basement! And in the UK we don't even have basements so Get out of your Dad's loft! 😛
Note from my mother's basement: The new 4k version of Point Break looks the way it does (especially compared to the 1080p version) because it was restored from an interpositive, not the original negative. Because of that, it can't be the most detailed transfer and difference between 4k and 1080p will be smaller. Still, it's well done and certainly beats any of the Cameron 4ks. And no, if they'd have left the grain in the Cameron movies intact, it would not have looked worse or messy, it would look objectively better because not scrubbing the grain away actually leaves all the original fine detail intact. 4k is actually better equipped to handle grain fields, primarily because of better compression. Proper compression is the real fine art of getting grain right, not DNR. Just look at Sony's and Arrow's 4k transfers. That's how it's done. The video mentions Lawrence of Arabia. That's an amazing Transfer. 60 years old, looks brand new (mostly) and no AI. You might think you like how the Cameron 4ks look - but remember: All the fine detail was scrubbed away together with the grain. And the detail you see now has been newly recreated by AI. That's why it looks fake. Because it is. So why bother restoring the original negatives? Why not just completely recreate the movies digitally? The result can't be much worse. And let's be real - If Cameron could have, he would have. 😅
I can remove film grain on my PC with madVR renderer. It doesn't change the quality. You can heavily reduce or virtually eliminate noise/artifacts on the fly with a decent GPU.
@@Mia-rk9en so you have no problem with him canvas insulting anybody who criticise his transfer? Ironically, in the very same breath he claims to have gone through the movie frame by frame, doesn't that make HIM the basement dweller? If he thinks the people who love his movies must be such losers, what does that say about him?
The reason this bothers me so much is that ANYONE can make a degrained, waxy, digital looking version of a movie at home in pretty basic editing software. It's almost like slapping an ugly Instagram filter on things. But grain and texture and detail which is lost CANNOT be added back. You can fake that, but it's not the real detail. It's like carving away all the skin on your face because you think it is "blemished", you can't take it back. He did it backwards. Either offer two versions, or offer a great filmic restoration and let people play with it and alter it and edit it any way they choose.
I know the person at Park Road Post Production who was project managing the 4K restorations on THE ABYSS, TRUE LIES and the new ALIENS 4K version and it is very clear that the biggest problem with restorations is the marketing i.e. the fact that the studio or distributor doesn't want audiences to know what version they're getting in order to not affect sales. My friend is under an NDA to not reveal the sources they used, but he can confirm that TRUE LIES is not from a camera negative nor from an interpositive. So it was restored off a print and - if I were go hazard a guess - it was a very poor one where even scanning it in 4K would have likely had them dealing with all sorts of issues, even if it was a master-print. The AI clean-up process makes sense given the demands of a 4K presentation vs what they were dealing with. What I can tell you though is that the reason they didn't have camera negs for TRUE LIES (and likely for other titles) is the expense of scanning and rebuilding the edit from scratch; a cost that studios don't want to pay for and...here's what I don't understand...Cameron himself wasn't interested in paying for either possibly? My friend, who also works for Peter Jackson, has re-iterated that both directors aren't keen on working on new releases for their films unless they can get paid to do it and that they don't put their own cash into it. And that, more than anything, determines how a film gets restored and then how it gets marketed. That plus, as my mate reminded me, the demands from the public for what "4K" should LOOK LIKE works very hard against the quality of the films as they scanned and received them. Yes, a neg-scan would be a huge help (assuming the negs were in good condition), but even then there are expectations from the studio for how good something looks before they can rally up the marketing power to promote it. This is on top of the fact that the CG VFX shots in TRUE LIES were rendered at 2K and would have needed an AI-upscale anyways (which is how they addressed many shots in the LORD OF THE RINGS 4K releases).
Those movies were all negative cut, with the VFX shot back to film and cut in. So why would there need to rebuild the edit when the entire negative is cut together that way. Doubt any of the VFX files for True Lies exist, and not surprised they don't want to spent $$ redoing it. So whatever was scanned would include the finished VFX.
@@CinemaVFXGeek Because the more popular a film is, the more answer prints and interpositives are exhausted due to distribution, therefore the more times the cut negs are required to be processed to create new answer prints and interpositives for the purpose of striking new distribution prints. And that's assuming those negs were well stored and cared for. And these are the biggest movies of their time during their release runs....so the cut neg would've been given a fair bit of abuse. I don't know the story as to why they didn't use the original neg, I'm just told that it was a "print". My best guess was that it was not a release print, but some other intermediary version? I'm only going by what my friend had informed me. "So whatever was scanned would include the finished VFX." Yes, at 2K onto celluloid. And whatever quality loss that was incurred during DI in terms of what kind of sharpness and depth they could pull from the neg at that resolution and then printed back onto it. Again, don't know the full story. Only know that the quality of the TRUE LIES assets were, supposedly, "less than ideal for the expectations of a 4K HDR master". Though, obviously, not as terrible as that awful wide shot of the alien mothership surfacing on THE ABYSS. I still need to find out what happened there. Not endorsing why the solutions they took btw, just relaying to others here the economic realities of remastering corporate-produced entertainment for a specific audience of a certain size. And that some people in the process of the remasters themselves felt that the releases were a compromise.
@@SPVFilmsLtd Film scanners today can go higher than 4K, so they could have downsampled to 4K if they wanted. If they used an IN or IP, there would be enough information to get a good scan. A print isn't a great choice for scanning. Probably too contrasty. If that's the case, that could explain why everything got over processed.
I think the continuing decline of physical media sales has cheapened the time and effort of restorations of past years. This sadly is the new trend but where do we go from 4k anyways? Doubt 8k or higher will be that much of a difference or sell that well
Super 35 is not the problem. There have been many terrific looking 4K transfers made from films that filmed in Super 35. Check out the UHD releases for "Reservoir Dogs" or "Casino." These are state-of-the-art transfers. Super 35 has the reputation for being grainy with theatrical prints because of the anamorphic step, but handled properly it's not really an issue, as all films have an interpositive step. "The Abyss," "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," and 'Titanic" were all Oscar nominated for Best Cinematography with "Titanic" winning the award. A transfer off of the original camera negative for a Super 35 film, by it's very nature, would not have the interpositive step and thus the additional grain from making a copy wouldn't be an issue. If anyone had a complaint about the "Point Break" transfer it's because it wasn't transferred from the original camera negative but rather an interpositive. It still looks good, but may not quite have that last bit of resolution you get in a great 4K transfer off of the original camera negative.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct but I'm afraid you're wasting your breath. The guy who made this video knows little to nothing about film restoration, and unfortunately that's the norm. That's why Cameron is allowed to destroy movie history with his AI forgeries... and the people who's got a real passion for cinema of course can be shrugged off by this uber-rich, agenda-pushing globalist royalty as "basement dwellers" (the modern version of "dirty peasants").
Yeah idk what this video's author is smoking. The 4k releases of T1 and T2 look like a denoised, smeary mess and it looks horrible. Plus, claiming that s35 is the core problem is ridiculous.
@@thatcherfreeman Yeah they really don't look very good, the characteristics of the film is makes those movies look great. When those characteristics of the film are removed and replaced by weird A.I. generated visuals it just looks wrong. All they have to do is 4k transfers of the original film and it would look infinitely better
I don't think that the Cameron AI fuckery is as bad as George Lucas' intentional destruction of the original 35mm Star Wars films. But I do think that there's a delusion at the heart of his opinion of these 4K editions. This is less of a painstakingly crafted 4K restoration, and more of a quick and dirty painting over each frame with a soon to be dated digital process.
The sad truth is that people don't understand the difference between film and digital. If it is shot on film, increasing the resolution has nothing to do with the quality. All their doing is high lighting the imperfections in each shot. The things we couldn't see before are now present. Film is a light image burned onto film. Their is no resolution. Resolution requires pixels to increase quality. That it is why the old films hold up so well. Film is king if you're willing to sacrifice the time and energy.
@@thereviewartistrrp5493 There is value in making high resolution scans of films like these, and that's because while film doesn't have a "resolution" like digital video does, it does have an inherent "resolution" or "fidelity", if you will, created by the actual grain structure. If I'm not mistaken, 35mm film can, and this is a generality here, be upscaled to around 5.6k while still maintaining sharpness, so you can say 35mm has an effective resolution of 5.6k. Of course, that varies from film stock to film stock and also is affected by various shooting techniques. All in all, I'd say some films benefit greatly from being scanned at 4k. Some films can even benefit from being scanned at higher resolutions, such as 8k, if you're working with a larger negative like you'd find on Panavision. Other films, I think, would probably best be scanned at just Full 1080p HD.
@@thereviewartistrrp5493 Exactly. That's why it's all the more ridiculous to use any kind of AI on these movies period. Instead of enhancing the natural look of the film they are making it look sterile.
It sounds like a cheap, lazy, poor quality cashgrab. They probably need to work on it frame by frame by hand. Yes, it will take longer and cost more, but that's how special effects used to be done.
@@thereviewartistrrp5493 It's like, "Superman looks great restored, but I can now see the wires. We'll have to hire another department to remove them."
Agreed. I grew up on vhs and eventually dvds. I totally skipped Blu ray until last week!! Now I research what version of my favourite movies to buy as I hate colour grading thats so strong, no reason to mess with it at all. Regarding the AI, is no one checking this stuff? surely someone on the QC likes films and can see it looks garbage. Im half tempted to stick with recollecting dvds as they may be a bit less molested.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't being serious. To comment that on a video like this... Lol. I bet you can't actually cite an example of a classic that has been "ruined" by AI. Or are you intentionally misusing that word to get likes? It worked, apparently.
is as funny as the same guy who made 2 movies about protecting the enviroment is using 9000000 pieces of papper that came out from chopped trees to write the scripts those 3 hour long movies .
It's not just the grain. This AI crap is changing how things look in the film; weird malformations of human features, grease smudged backgrounds, and most importantly, some of the effects look more dated than they did on DVD. Yeah, there are more pixels on screen, but what's the point when they look like crap. And for James Cameron to just blow off the criticism just tells me he doesn't give af about his movies nor their proper preservation.
We just have to face it: Cameron, Lucas, Spielberg et al are just boomers being boomers. They just want more money. While I still love and grew up on their original works, the flip side has always been about them lining their pockets. The most crystalized version of this in recent years has been none other than Jeff Godlblum intentionally not leaving his off spring any money in his will. As a group, they truly believe that their existence came from nothing (which if you know anything about the "post-war boom" is preposterous), so using AI to smear their finest works is their act of also leaving nothing behind for those who come after.
@@avada0 it's not noise, Film is literally made of grain and each bit of grain photochemically records part of the image. You can MANAGE grain, but removing it entirely removes fine detail, which is then guesstimated by AI resulting in the weird artifacts we are seeing in these transfers. So he's right, grain is the brush stroke in film .
@@litemakr Well, I guess it's best called an artifact then (though still noise based). And so the film image is best represented if the grains are interpolated. But I don't agree that you actually remove fine detail. It's just the impression of detail that isn't there. Equivalent to zoomed in digital pictures. Which, when up-scaled with a simple nearest neighbor algorithm looks horrible, but much better with a complex algorithm. AI can be much better, if used well.
When you say things like "move out of Mom's basement", you've clearly lost touch with your audience. And this is coming from someone who lived on someone's couch and ate Big Mac's every day while writing Terminator, which he was able to due to his mother sending him coupons for said Big Mac's. The irony of the situation is palpable.
@@Assimandeli Now he does, but not when he first got started. Terminator and Aliens. 2 massive hits that sealed his career. Now he's a pompous, self-absorbed, narcissistic, dirt bag.
@@gideonwaxfarb But he is. He's attacking the very people who made him famous and all because they watch movies he hates. That's like James saying someone can't eat a donut because he's on a diet.
He's not wrong in saying that some of these people really need to get out more, regardless of whatever negative effects that might have on his personal brand.
2:10 Get your facts right, people: most blockbuster movies from the late-80s up to recent years have been shot in Super35, including mega-hits from the 90s like "Independence Day" and "The Matrix". It's not limited to Cameron's movies and the reason why he used it was because it worked better with VFX compared to anamorphic, which has its own sets of issues quality-wise. The truth is that there's no ultimate cinemascope process: if you want the highest possible quality, don't shoot scope but widescreen. Ever wondered why IMAX is 1.90:1?
@@remyetiennelebeau8364 It maximizes vertical resolution, which is what really matters when it comes to picture quality. Scope (2.39:1) is achieved either by cropping the frame (the Super35 method) or by using anamorphic lenses that stretch the image vertically to fit a 1.33:1 (nowadays, 1.5:1) frame. In both cases, you lose picture quality.
A example of just how bad True lies has become is a moment during the ski chase. During that chase Snow get's kicked up everywhere. When filming Cameron was worried the Snow would be over exposed & clipped, so he had it raked a particular way that caused it to be dimmer when kicked up so you could see all the highlight detail. On the new release however guess what, the snow is completely blown out into big white blobs. I know it's hardly the most important detail but things like this were clearly Important to Cameron at the time It's an example of Cameron destroying the hard work of his younger self. But hey only Basement dwellers care right? Basement Dwellers like the guy who used to include personal thank you notes with his Laserdiscs which waxed lyrical about the improved video quality & all the hard work in ensuring the most faithful transfer, god what a loser that guy must've been.
Yeah, the T2 4K BD looks rough because it uses the 3D BD as a base, which was re-coloured and had massive amounts of DNR applied for the 3D presentation, but that was StudioCanal who cocked that up, not Cameron. Still, purists wouldn’t be much happier with a transfer he’d personally oversee either, so I guess either way the fans lose.
@@wright96d yes to an extend, but AI also misinterprets texture and facial features. It doesn't know when something is supposed to be blurry. Wrinkles seem an inch deep and in all AI sharpening, faces from different people seem to appear from time to time. Very creepy.
It's REALLY easy to have a version on these gigantic storage sized discs that contains one with grain, one without. AI filter creepy shit is just bad all round and shouldn't be on any versions.
Sadly, they always do now and that's the biggest problem here by draining the color and almost turning them into monochrome and when there's color it's usually drab and one-dimensional focusing on a few select hues like orange, teal, blue whatever it is and as a film buff it p*isses me off because it kills authenticity and realism when everything looks the same and nothing looks like real life anymore. They think it's 'moody' to drown scenes in obscure unrealistic colors or darkness but audiences just want to be able to see what's going on there are other ways to create mood and atmosphere. Like a good script, now that's about as rare these days too as a summer without wind and rain...
Sorry, but Cameron obviously doesn't really care about film preservation. A film done in the 80s or 90s is NOT supposed to look like Avatar. They were shot on film stock and not digitally. Grain is part of the filmic experience. It should never be scrubbed away. Cameron tries to tell us that his films couldn't be restored in a different way as they would look too bad. What a load of crap. Just take a look at some of the Warner releases of 80s movies (Poltergeist, The Goonies, Beetlejuice and numerous others !) They look great and they were NOT restored to look like Avatar. And what about some movies from the 90s? Cameron stated that the restoration of True Lies was especially tricky. Well, compare that to the restoration done by Warner on The Fugitive. The Fugitive never looked really great on DVD or Blu Ray. The 4K, however, is a stunner. Or, take a look at Fox's 4K of Braveheart. It was released the same year as True Lies and the 4K is amazing. And no Mr. Cameron. I don't live in my Mom's basement. I have a fulfilling life and I love movies. Don't insult movie fans who are paying to see your movies and make you rich.
Film is actually really good quality and can most likely produce high def. The problem is in low light they used higher grain film because it's more sensitive to light. It's better to use when you can't properly light a scene because of space or something, but makes it look grainy. When you up the quality of the presentation, it magnifies the flaws. Day shot probably would look fine. A movie shot at night, not so much.
The main problem for me is that the AI still has all of these noticeable visual issues/glitches through the movement of the characters. Puts everything in a slightly more uncanny valley sort of feel.
It's not just using AI to remove grain, it also removes massive amounts of real detail. Moreover, the colour timing changes and the fact that these releases have very little expanded colour depth you expect with the format. ruclips.net/video/BxOqWYytypg/видео.htmlsi=fwxT7uca_YcIOr1f
That's why they should do the transfer by hand, frame by frame. Yes, it will cost more, and take longer, but it will also look right. That's how they used to do special effects before it all went digital anyway.
As someone who collects movies, going all the way back to silent films, such as german expressionst films, there are zero reasons for these transfers to be bad when movies like Haxan, Vampyre and even other old movies get exceptional treatment during transfers and 4k restorations.
That is the real issue. It isn't the lack of grain that is a problem, at least for me. It is the accompanying lack of fine detail that gets removed along with the grain. If Cameron is able to remove the appearance of film grain without removing fine details of the scene then I'm all for it.
@@Gamer_Man_Bathwater It's unnecessary. I get if it's a documentary but it's a Hollywood film, they're supposed to make the actors look their best. Also, I'm curious if the AI is generating what's actually there or if it's recognizing the existing wrinkles and assuming there needs to be more. Either way, looks like crap.
man they're just retards. With all the available space on a bluray, you could have 2 versions easily. The original print, and one with all the fuckery they wish and everyone happy. But they're too stupid
Because he didn't care, he is all about his Avatar movies and the studio which owns those movies pressured him to do it, so he just outsourced those to Peter Jackson's AI restoration studio which cranked noise reduction to the max and then added a thick layer of AI generated reconstruction to the picture.
back in the day, old films on 4k were the ones with the highest quality and new movies get upscaled to 4k (not true 4k), now it the tables have turned, its the old films getting the bad treatment while new movies are actually rendered at native 4k.
I just like the look of film. 35 mm, 65, 70, 16, 8 grains. It all. Check out Apollo 11 in 4k on a good big screen. I also like 24/25 fps. I also like 60 FPS crystal clear video of Paris Dakar or Blue Planet. Every media has its pros and cons. What clearly doesn’t work is trying to somehow convert one type into another. What a waste of time. A well preserved 35 mm can go almost directly to 4K without any up scaling magic. This is close to see it in the movie theater. Just the 35 mm on a big screen. Anyone seen Bladerunner Final Cut 4K or Alien? Looks good to me.
You glossed over the biggest problem! Characters eyes! Facial expressions are changed, blinks are removed, and sometimes looking in another direction. I don't care as much about the smoothed or over sharpened parts as this. The human element that brings emotion to a scene is being destroyed. Also, I had already made the mistake of buying T2 before learning about all of this. I feel ripped off
I'll just repeat what I heard somewhere else and is a very good point. Filmgrain is information. You are literally erasing information in order to get a cleaner look. And all it does it makes all the actors look like wax puppets. But in times of Orange and Teal color grading and filters maybe not too surprising. Did anyone see Argylle? The actors look like they were animated. The skin has absolutely no texture to it.
I do seriously wonder if some of it is older filmmakers not willing to admit to themselves their eyesight may be degrading with age; as most of those guilty seem to be over 65 years old.
Nearly all home video versions of the Terminator have some of the gun sounds changed. The revolver scene for example. Now sounds like a gun from Star Wars "pew, pew"
Or you can take the superior BR copy from... like 2008? And you can then take the DVD and transfer the audio from the DVD to the video of the BR and now you get the best of both worlds. In the pirate community this is known as a Hybrid.@dnasty312
Personally, I prefer going back to the older transfers in a lot of cases. Especially with older films. When they're too clean, they don't look like films anymore. Where as when there's some grain and the occasional imperfection, if you're watching with the lights off on a big screen TV then it almost feels like you're at the cinema. That's something that I really like about some of the better laserdisc releases. It may only be 480p but it has that more film like look when compared to the newer versions that have been "fixed". It's great that they can clean things up a bit and restore things to how that they would have looked originally, but I do think that they tend to go too far in an effort to make things appear more modern. Sometimes, the technically superior version isn't always actually better.
Not sure I agree with Super 35 films being predisposed to having a look like Point Break. There are great transfers of Super 35 films in 4K - The Matrix trilogy, the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films, Air Force One... granted there are Cameron films that would have benefitted from better film stock, but I doubt they'd have looked terrible if the digital restoration tech and decisions he made about it were so harsh. Grain is detail, and Cameron (for some weird reason) thinks removing said detail was a good idea, not to mention using so-called AI to guess (often poorly) what made-up detail should go where. He's made some great films and I don't diminish his skills as a director, but he's in over his head when it comes to remastering.
Yes! Grain is information. Also today's movies look horrible. Have you seen Argylle? The actors look like they were animated. No skin texture. Compare that with the old Top Gun trailer. Take a look for yourself. One looks quite natural despite the light filters (Top Gun) the other looks as if it is completely animated. Even the building etc. I can't even watch movies anymore. Especially the orange and teal color grading should be talked about. It's absolutely horrendous. Actors look completely orange in the face. Read the article ORANGE AND TEAL - HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS.
I think Cameron just hate the look of film. If you ever listened to his commentary on Aliens Blu-ray disc, he didn't want to shoot the film with anamorphic lenses because he doesn't like the soft look of it. Which is why Aliens is the only film in the franchise that isn't in 2.39:1 aspect ratio. If digital cinema cameras existed back in the 80s and 90s, I believe Cameron would've shot all of his films digitally. I do like the 4k version of both Aliens and The Abyss. But Trues Lies and T2 looked awful! I pre-ordered the 4k disc of Terminator, let's see how well that one will turn out.
Cameron had nothing to do with t2 that was studio canal and they accidentally used the 3d print. Far as true lies it’s the best it’s ever looked minus a couple scenes.
@@williamdriver1959 True about T2's 4K disc but that film was also shot on Super35mm film and had Cameron been involved, he probably would've scrubbed away all of the film grains. Hey, glad you think True Lies 4K looks great but there were too many shots that looked way too processed and the characters looks waxy for my taste. The best transfer of the film is the version that was shown on Hulu. I don't know if it's still available but it was a transfer that was meant to be released on Blu-ray several years back but apparently Cameron didn't approve it or something and it never got released. Remember, True Lies never came out on Blu-ray.
I'm still keeping my 2000 Artisan release of T2 Ultimate Edition DVD. MGM's first DVD release of the original did have the original mono track, for vereran fans.
This video does NOT explain Super35 well. Super35 has to do with the width of the film frame. In Super35 the width is the WHOLE film frame. In a regular 35mm frame there is space reserved for the audio track, on one side of the film frame before the films perforations (the physical holes on both sides of a film strip). In Super35 the camera exposes the whole surface of the film frame (the whole area between the perforations). No gap is left for the audio track. Normal height for Super35 is 3 perf (three perforations high frame), which is 16:9 aspect ratio. One can also expose a frame in 4 perf , meaning the height of the frame increases to 4 perforations. This creates 4:3 aspect ratio. I think the extra height in True Lies was done by filming 4 perf. This has nothing to do with an oval lens as the narrator claims. An oval lens (Anamorphic lens) is used to squeeze the photons on the whole surface area of the frame, thus creating a widescreen image on a 4 perf Super35 frame. When watching the footage in the 4:3 aspect ratio, the image should look squashed, if an oval anamorphic lens was used. To me, the open matt footage does not look squashed (like an oval lens was used, as the video claims). When using an oval lens the resulting image needs to be corrected back to wide screen aspect ratio in post production, yet the open matt footage looks like normal unsquashed 4 perf Super35 image in 4:3 aspect ratio. In my opinion the narrator either explained very poorly the Super35 concept or he is confused about the width/ hight, anamorphic lens and Super35 concepts in general.
@@ChaseMC215 He said True Lies was filmed using a format called Super35 and then went on explaining how the format uses "an oval lens". He mixed up two compleatly different things, thus confusing his audience. Super35 discribes the width of the frame. It has nothing to do with a lens.
If Disney wants a sweet payday all they need to do is re-release the THX version of the Star Wars Trilogy that was released in the 90s. It was just a re-scan of the original negative and fixed some audio issues.
Unfortunately George Lucas had a clause in the contract, back when he sold Star Wars to Disney, that basically said Disney was obliged to only showcase the most recent re-edits. Disney can't re-release the original cuts of Star Wars even if they wanted to, and I guarantee that they want to given how much they like money.
This video is full of inaccuracies, and the biggest misconception is that cinema lovers want grain 'cause it looks more "authentic", as if it was a simple aestethic choice. Leaving aside the fact that all art should be preserved as well as possible in the form it was first experienced by an audience, the point about grain is that it IS definition. Grain is detail. Grain stores the information, the real "resolution" of a photochemical picture. Any other trick like edge enhancement is just the illusion of a better definition, but AI goes many steps beyond and creates false information to fill the gaps; thus creating a FORGERY of an original movie. And in the ethics of restoration, that's simply unacceptable. But of course we're not talking about an important painting, we're talking about a movie, so a director is allowed to damage movie history forever without anyone lifting a finger.
You people keep making this BS up. Grain is not information. It's texture from the silver particles in the emulsion. It's there before the film was even exposed, so it can't be information. It's not even detail. It obscures detail and reduces sharpness. It's like looking through a sheer curtain. Why do you think Kodak spend decades making finer and finer grain film stocks. Stop the bs romanticizing. Many artists have tweaked paintings after they shown it. Frank Frazetta was notorious for retouching his older work. Kubrick would recut his films even after release. People like you don't get to decide what filmmakers can do to their own work. Go make your own movies instead.
@@CinemaVFXGeek I am on the fence between both sides of this argument, also what moviemakers can and cannot do, it's simple, we get to vote with our pocketbook, that is power to the people but also power to the artist...
@@CinemaVFXGeek still preferable to have grain as a real organic artifact rather than ai inventing the skin texture that it thinks was there. The amount of people okay with the uncanny valley effect this produces is unnerving.
I hate AI restorations. There's not a frame of real footage left, everything is just a computer's speculation of what a better quality frame would look like. It's not real anymore.
@@awesomereviews1561 not really, if you put something in the public domain for the public to enjoy and critique it is not only yours. We have the right to not like it and not buy it.
@@nick1635 it wasn't put in public domain. Public domain is when the work is no longer owned by anyone. Yes, you have the right to not like it and not buy it, but demanding it be done differently is entitlement.
First, I'm pleased to say that none of these films interest me beyond already owning Aliens in the Alien Anthology Blu-ray set; I will not be buying any of his other films on any physical media. What worries me, though, is the fact that if all the little digital age kids rush out and buy every copy printed of these smoothed-out films, who's to stop another studio from ruining other films; films I do want to buy? It makes me extremely happy to live in an age where Lawrence of Arabia was restored in 8k and released on 4k disc looking beyond fantastic. Same with 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Spartacus, The Matrix, The Shining, The Wizard of Oz, the Three Colours Trilogy, Werckmeister Harmonies, Nostalghia... you get my drift. If studios start doing to the films I want to own on 4k disc what Cameron has done to his; I will stop buying physical media.
The ALIEN 2010 BD has the horrible teal & orange cast (like ALIENS). The 4K has better grading. The 4K ALIEN disc is an improvement over the 2010 standard BD.
I've heard that the Matrix 4k release had a terrible color correction? Maybe I'm mixing it up with some other home media version. Also, should be noted, kids are not rushing to buy copies of his movies. Kids don't give a dick about this old man and his films.
There does exist a true 16:9 HD home video release of True Lies prior to the 4K version. This was on a very short-lived format called D-Theater or D-VHS in the late 90s. These releases were in 720p to 1080i and True Lies had a transfer done for this format. This transfer somehow made its way to Spain where it was released on blu-ray there and across Europe. You can still find these copies floating around Ebay to this day.
The answer to this is simple - make both versions available in the same quality, The AI special edition and a restored version of the original that presents the original theatrical experience that made these movies popular in the first place. It doesn't matter that the negatives are being preserved if the only version available is the AI enhanced version. The likelihood of anyone going back to the original negatives of these movies at this point is pretty much non existent and so the theatrical versions are really lost to modern audiences.
I remember watching that Peter Jackson Beatle’s doco and it just looked so… off… Like someone went to town on the sharpening tool and smoothening filter. It’s not film restoration at that point. It’s the laziest form of upscaling video footage. I don’t consider slapping an AI enhance tool on a video file “restoration”. Taking the original film elements, cleaning them, re-scanning them, using digital tools to manually remove tears and scratches - these are what I consider “restoration”. Anything else is just laziness.
The problem with CGI and AI is that they will look ridiculous in a few years. Old movies having grain and noise doesn't bother anyone, especially not those who enjoyed those films back then, so why remove it?
@@kosmas173 i agree. I love Terminator 1 but damn some special special effects look silly. The movie is 40 years old and a visual upgrade doesn't hurt the film. I mean for the purists there should be enough old DVDs on the market. Terminator 1 is a masterpiece but to not update the picture quality would be a pity.
@@Mia-rk9en Too bad it's not an upgrade. That would involve redoing some of the effects, which has been done for some things, original Star Trek for one. Cameron won't ever do that, and AI upscaling is a mess.
@@miguelferrazcostaPeople care too much about the preservation of film and their image quality. What a waste of time, says James Cameron, who’s spent the last twenty years doing nothing but work on digital worlds in Avatar. Get a job, basement dwellers!
Idk, I've always enjoyed the grainy look, I feel like it helps preserve detail, adds grittiness, which for movies like The Terminator and Aliens only add to the atmosphere. Like, there's a reason why a lot video games will introduce film gain despite never actually being filmed. It just help blend everything together.
Super 35 should be less grainy than standard 35 not more. Super 35 is just standard 35 but using the space normally reserved for optical audio. It would have very limited impact on grain.
"Aliens" is notorious, along with others using that film batch, for being grainy. Its part of the movie though. You can't remove it and have the same movie.
"All the Avatar films were done that way. Everything is done this way." Yeah THAT IS WHY IT SUCKS!!!!!!! Jeeeezus, this man is so incredible, the elephant in the room could be literally SITTING on him and he would still ignore it. 🙄 People like Cameron need to f*cking get over themself and realize that after your movies have been around for so long YOU have a goddamn RESPONSIBILITY to preserve them as they were shown originally and over the years and making sure the original experience is preserved. IF you feel like doing a "Modernized" version, at least make it freaking OPTIONAL and not the only version you can buy. Release it with a Vintage version to make everyone happy. It's not that hard and certainly doesn't require you to be a stuck up arrogant a-hole who thinks the audience, who made these movies the cult classics they are today, are all basement dwellers and freaking fools. THAT kind of mindset is a doozy and won't get you any favorable feedback. Without the fan support, these movies would have been long forgotten and there is a reason why these movies are such beloved classics. BECAUSE of their original Look and feel. We want THAT in HD and 4K and no freaking Software Re-Drawing. Because that is effectively speaking NOT the same film anymore. When all the elements have been re-processed. People who hate filmgrain can go pound sand and go back to their sleek CGI movies. You wouldn't wanna remove the brushstrokes of old oil paintings either, would you? 🤨
I don't dislike grain or the filmic look but I hate when the grain is inconsistent as hell between shots and how it's always moving it can be distracting and take you out of the movie, still what guys like Cameron do is certainly not the answer, it's just stupid.
@@Mr.Goodkat Thing is the whole picture is made of grain. So any kind of filtering directly alters the look of the whole picture. Some studios do that in a much more non-destructive way to make sure the look is a lot more even. The Directors Edition of Star Trek the Motion Picture was even done in a way to preserve as much image quality as possible by scanning it at high resolutions and even re-composing the VFX shots digitally so no optical prints of the effects had to be used. That's why the look of the film is very consistent and doesn't get grainier during Effect shots. And that is also why the new shots (that were done in a way Bob Wise wanted them originally fore the 1979 release) go hand in hand in a seamless way with the rest of the movie.
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 I wish they'd do something like that for every movie then and why can't they just take the frames or scenes which are too grainy and apply some very light management only to those parts of the movie? that way you wouldn't be turning the characters into wax monstrosities or even touching most of the film, only the parts with really heavy grain.
@@Mr.Goodkat most studios do some bit of filtering to adjust it. Some movies had their effects shot on 65mm which of course looks a lot finer than the regular 35mm scenes of the movie.That's why those scenes stand out a lot more than the rest of the movie.
I guess the debate is who should have control over art, after it has been released. I would argue, that the public should be able to whatch movies in the way they where released. So like a first edition book, it would be nice, if the original movie would get stored by archives, that make that version publicly avaiable, maybe 10 years after lounch, maybe for a fee that gets paid to the studio. Of course the director should make as many new version as he whants, but the original should be accessable, like it is with books. Because the collective memory of that piece of art should be preserved.
"Super 35 is basically spherical" is the dumbest description and totally inaccurate. Super 35 is what most movies shot on film are shot in, and is a film stock format. Video cameras are loaded from the top, not the side like stills cameras, so there's a 1.6x crop compared to stills cameras. Spherical is a type of lens, as opposed to anamorphic. Cameron filmed in OPEN GATE which is taller than it is wide. Film stock's speed has nothing to do with grain. There's so much terrible misinformation in this video. Super 35 has nothing to do with grain either. So dumb. When they say "restoration," they're applying denoising to get rid of noise from exposure issues, film transfers, and film degrading over time.
Ghostbusters (1984) was shot on the same 35mm Kodak Eastman 5384 film stock as Aliens. Sigourney Weaver is in both films. At least Sigourney Weaver looks fine without AI and the film itself looks great. I saw the 4K restoration in a theater and it looked fine. The image might be a little soft and there's grain, yes. The grain is where the fine detail lives!
Because the more "realistic" the image, the easier it is to tell that the practical effects are actually props and your imagination no longer meets the film half way. It unintentionally kills the illusion, thereby ending suspension of disbelief.
No not really. In fact today's movies look less realistic. It isn't intentional but it definitely let's the CGI stick out less. Film has a resolution of about 4K. Digital IMAX has only a resolution of 2K. Let that sink in. All they are doing is removing film grain. That does NOT make your props stick out more. All it does it removes actual information since filmgrain is information. It's how analog film works. You are left with a waxy look on the actors face. Today's movies are even worse. Look at Argylle. You can't even see skin texture. If anything 80s movies had more details not less. Unless you were using very soft lenses or a more grainy film stock.
@@TalentCaldwell It got nothing to do with 48fps, they just didn't have time to polish the movie, it was a rushed production.... ffs... Trust me, 24fps wouldn't have changed anything... 48fps was one of their better decisions, they just had to rely on bad CCi work to get the movie out in time due to production hell. If we could successfully convert The fps of Lord of the rings to 48fps, it would look EXACTLY the same, just smoother movements.
@@birdsteak9267 I wasn’t critiquing the quality of the film. I haven’t even seen it. I was only reporting on the VERY REAL outcry people made about seeing the first movie in 48fps. Not an opinion; an actual verifiable fact that happened. Many articles and YT videos made on it in fact.
@TalentCaldwell I know about the outcry back then too, but it's just the same old outcry as always when something new comes; it was the same when color film started to become a thing. Do anyone wish us all to be stuck with black and white because some people have a strong opinion that black and white is the superior format? Probably someone out there still in 2024, but we both know that isn't true. Can you shoot movies and take advantage of the black and white to create something that only black and white can capture, sure... But color adds life, and so do frames. 24 FPS wasn't chosen because it was the best format; it was the cheapest option. Color early on was expensive; Wizard of Oz isn't even true colors either. So only a few colored movies were made at the time. Now we can finally get perfect smoothness without using "image smoothness" on the TV to fix it and lose image quality in the process. 48 fps will fix that so we can keep image clarity and have smoother transitions. Turn off the smoothness on the TV and you will see a massive improvement in the image, but you will notice the choppyness that these TV features try to blur out to smooth out frame-transition.. 24 fps isn't a big problem on projectors, but it's horrible on HD TV. It's time to stop blaming frames for rushed CGI work. We cannot change old movies to 48fps, but we can try to move with the time and take advantage of the technology that movie-makers wished they had, but they had to settle with the shitty 24fps back then. Movie makers who came later are just trying to be pretentious, failing to realize that 24fps was simply a desperate, costly measure, not an artistic measure. 48 fps was the goal since the Edison Company invented the video camera. Now we finally have it, and people think it ruins the "IMAGE." And have ZERO scientific evidence for it, like the people who fight over different woods on electric guitars 🤣🤣 The Hobbit isn't really that bad either, it was far worse with the Marvel movies because the Hobbits had actual stages full of props, plenty of practical effects, they just ran out of time to get costumes for the orc's and other such things, so they opted for animation, because Jackson was called in after "Pre-Production" and he did a good job saving it.
My main issue with Al-enhanced films is that they reconstruct the image using a digital mash-up. It's like a bizarre concoction of countless fragmented images and algorithms. The final product reminds me of those homemade gifts from kindergarteners. Imagine getting a Batman doll made from tin foil, marbles, and yarn. It's undeniably endearing, but it's no Michael Keaton.
There is a difference between cleaning up some excess grain for clarity and nuking all grain and adding machine learning based sharpening to "restore/hallucinate" back the detail you lost during the nuclear blast. Even the most avid film restorationist should understand that 100% raw negatives aren't going to be suitable for release, but I think even those would be less jarring than these ugly Instagram filtered looking releases. Also regarding the movies being the property of James Cameron, sure, but doing such an aggressive transformation does in my opinion alter the movie enough that anyone who bought the movie on digital and were forcefully upgraded to the new release should be given the option for a refund or the ability to stick with the original release they bought. ps. please stop with all the ai bullshit in movies, it gives negative value.
They're not "4K restorations" they are not new scans. They are regular scans UPSCALED to 4K resolution. Cameron should not be allowed anywhere near his movies for home video. And Park Road should be shut down.
You focus too much on the grain removal controversy and gloss over the AI artifact problem. The biggest reason we hate the new restorations is that while the upscaling/digital restoration process is impressive in its own right, and is very good at taking bad footage and turning it into an *approximation* of good footage, it winds up making everything look surreal and uncanny. It makes lines too sharp. Contrasts too stark. It doesn't accurately guess what a light source would look like filtered through a real life camera lens. It removes motion blur but keeps the motion choppy. It especially doesn't get what human skin is supposed to look like, and how facial expressions work. Sure, Terminator and Aliens could have been shot better had Cameron used IMAX cameras or whatever. But they still look pretty damn fucking beautiful even with the imperfections of Super 35. And I just have a visceral reaction to AI making already beautiful footage into something that looks like bad Marvel CGI.
I don´t get this obsession with 4k,6k and what ever K.... Sharp digital look kills the softnes and visual poetry. Old films shouldn´t be touched . just preserved as they are the way they look.
I agree 100%. Clean them up is all that's needed and colors boosted perhaps but not changed, kept as they originally look. Basically, 4K sucks always did always will it's for 25 year old silly revisionists who think they know cinema. Give me good old DVD. Seriously, it'll be the one surviving physical disc format in the end anyway. My main gripe with all this mess is criminally ignored in this video, in fact many people suddenly become colorblind and overlook it, guess most become conditioned; the main issue and main problem in all of this mess is, as always the grading. Neither The Terminator, True Lies or Aliens look they way we know them, the former all milky the latter now all blue. The post-production madness craze of this moronic trend, going on two decades now is the longest running bad joke in human history. It goes for Cameron as for Spielberg, they're all guilty of it changing the look of their classics because they can so to cater to new audiences, indoctrinated to the uniformed samey look of current movies. Never did I (naively) think they'd one day mess with classic movies, let them do to modern movies whatever they want I'm not watching those anyway but friggin' lay off the classics and older movies. They haven't, they've gone berserk across the board...
I thought the hole point of upscaling to 4K was to scan every frame - clean it if necessary and fix any slight defect with AI not just use AI to upscale it all .
I respect an artist and his work, and I hope no one messes with it after he's gone, like what happened to Roald Dahl. At the same time, I like the 80s movies look like they were made in, well, the 80s.
The removal of film grain bothers me but what bothers me way more is when they tint everything blue or green. I do not understand why that is so common
If I had to guess, and I am purely speculating and haven’t got a clue if this is even remotely true or anything, they do it because the vast majority of home video/streaming viewers (that is to say, not actual movie enthusiasts who care about image quality) don’t have their TV’s calibrated, or even adjust the picture settings themselves, they straight up use their TV’s/laptops/phones at factory/showroom settings. Or maybe not, maybe they just like to make their films look worse.
I felt the same about The Crow. I recently watched the 4k and felt strange. It looks great, but it's lost all that grain. The grain was like a personality to that movie. Like it should be there.
I totally agree. Lucas also went back and redid all the analog vfx for THX 1138 and there are no analog versions of it in existance, unless you can find a VHS copy. Im fine with the creators doing revisualizations, but let me decide if i want a straight restoration or their digial restoration.
The BBC, here in the UK, screened the original version of THX 1138 late one night in one of their "cult film" strands, back in the 1990s. It was actually screened in scope, which was a rare thing on television back then. Still got it, albeit only recorded on VHS, but it implies there were high-quality scope prints of the original unmolested version floating around in the 90s.
The people that complain about the smeary look of these 4K scans aren't the same people that would complain the movie is too grainy. Plenty of movies are very grainy. That's the tech of the time. The thing is, I can always make that version myself by ripping the disc and modifying the output or putting the image through an image processor either separate or in my TV. The thing I can't do is get back the flimic look of movies from this time period. If they were grainy, that's what we saw in theaters. It was good enough for theaters on giant screens, it's gonna be good enough for my TV at home.
7:11 this is cope, that special kind of cope when you're just baffled by something you don't understand and take it as an insult. It is, I think, the greatest argument against his "right" to mangle his past works. Were he able to understand the concerns and respond like an adult, that might be a different story.
Super 35 isn’t the problem. You mention that often without explaining why that would be a problem. All the ‘problems’ are post-processing issues. Nothing to do with the original format.
I can't remember who, but there's a much better video on this topic out there. This guy sounds like too much of an apologist and skipped over how inhuman the actors can look, how facial expressions are changed and put into the uncanny valley
None of this is true. The super 35 format has amazing clarity and resolution and properly mastered excels far beyond the limits of blu ray’s h.264 encoding by every metric. ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ and ‘Top Gun’ (the first movie shot in the super 35 format) are just two examples of how visually rich that format is and what it has to offer the UHD h.265 encode. It even has enough latitude and color depth to push DolbyVision to its very limits. The reason why James Cameron’s recent 4K remasters look so poor has absolutely nothing to do with the limitations of his capture media but instead has everything to do with the fact that Cameron has become an undisciplined, heavy handed revisionist of his original work due to his fascination with current technology. This is nothing new, he was doing this over a decade ago when he was remastering ‘Titanic’ and he’s doing it now but with even more powerful and potentially destructive tools to deface his classic works.
Cameron needs to understand that It’s the visual artifacts caused by the AI upscale that are concerning. If these are the definitive 4K versions of the films, these ugly artifacts will be included for all time.
James Caneron's response sounds like we should be grateful for whatever crap version of his films he gives us in 4K. He is entitled to monkey around with the films that made him famous, that does not entitle him to monkey around with his films and tell us that is what we are entitled to get from him. Give us the choice of what version we want to own.
Personally I don't like recolorcorrection because I just want watch movies with normal natural photorealistic colors but in these restorations they for some reason put this somewhat blue shades😢
It will all be destroyed soon, anyways, so it doesn't really matter when all is said and done. 1 John 2:15-17 15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 2 Peter 3:3-13 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 *But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.* 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, *and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.* 11 *Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved,* what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, *and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?* 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
It's not simply about the grain. It's about the organic look of film. Extreme digital make up looks bad even in nowadays standard, it looks like plastic. Weird choice he made.
As a long time Film fan, I understand both sides and where they're coming from. Film fans want the films updated but still look the way they did when fans first watched it. To James Cameron's comments, in a way, he's right. Cameron wants to update and modernize the look of his films and some fans have been too obsessed with film grain. I think there is a proper middle-ground...unfortunately there are going to be people criticizing every little thing. I think the worst is, for example, when they updated Donner's Superman the movie. They screwed up the look, the color the audio and music ques. When the cinematographer Geffory Unsworth shot Superman the movie, he deliberately shot it to give it a little halo glow effect, to give it a dream like look and the updated HD versions ruined that, the color, the audio and music ques. These HD UHD4K updates of classic movies, most of the time the 5.1 and 7. surround sound is screwed up and Ruins the film. What's wrong with good old fashion Hi-Fi Stereo sound?! Not everyone wants to or can afford to spend thousands of dollars on 5.1 surround sound audio equipment. Update and modernize films to HD and UHD 4K while still keeping their classic look and quality sound.
I'm team original version. To me, AI upscaling is the equivalent of 4:3 cropping, as in "my new TV is not being fully utilized" is a bad argument to modify the source material. I want my old films to look old. I want my cheap films to look cheap. I wish we could have a label for "AS SEEN IN THEATERS", I'd be all over those.
I remember when "digital restoration" was first becoming a thing. Companies were digitally restoring these classic movies from when color was new to cinema, and they made things look and sound a lot better. I was quite in favor of it back then; it made it easier to watch the movies because it looked better and the sound was clearer. But I don't really trust these AI powered restorations. Certainly Cameron is using some much better quality ones than what most people have available, but it still leads to some curious artifacts in the video that may be difficult to notice but still impact the quality in a weird way. I get where 's Cameron's coming from. Film grain wasn't something he wanted in his films, and strictly speaking neither did I. I SHOULD be in favor of cleaning up these movies to make them clearer. I think the problem has to do with a lot of visual effects. I think the film grain helped conceal them and make them look more natural. But when you remove that grain, the slight errors in the effects stand out more, and they look less-believable.
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron.
- James Cameron
100% correct (even though I don't understand what you said).
@@0volts157 it's from south park lol
His name is James, James Cameron
The bravest pioneer
No budget too steep, no sea too deep
Who's that?
It's him, James Cameron
James, James Cameron explorer of the sea
With a dying thirst to be the first
Could it be? Yeah that's him!
James Cameron
@@EbonyPope
"Systems are normal... You guys hearing the song okay up there?"
"......... Yes, James. We hear the song."
@@weilim10 ...no budget too steep, no sea too deep... Hrmmmmh...
Sorry. Can't get it out of my head. :D
The guy who wrote a story about the dangers of AI, using AI to "enhance" his films.
< insert picture Palpatine "ironic" >
We can't say he didn't warn us.
James Cameron was created by Skynet
The calls were coming from inside the house.
Nah, I think Big Jim views these AI tools as just that, tools, not the rampant, aware Artificial General Intelligence of his Terminator stories.
The transfers still suck, though.
then this video is voiced over by AI, the cycle is crazy
When I buy a 4k of a old movie, I want the negative scanned and I want to see it like it would be been seen in the theater full resolution. I don’t want them to try to make it look like modern digital.
Devil’s advocate though it’s ironic what fans will and will not accept for revisionism. We’ll condemn grain reduction but HDR grading and Atmos remixes is certainly not what the original theater experience was like. The nit levels on HDR is way higher than a 35mm film strip projected on screen.
Film prints that showed in theaters are usually 4 generations removed from the original negative. No 4k film on disc or digital represents "what the film looked like in theaters." We've long since passed revisionism when it comes to how film look on home media. It really just comes down to "how much revisionism is too much revisionism?"
An equivalent 4k resolution was NEVER seen in theatres. After 3 generations OCN>IP>IN>Print including the projector lens, the final resolving power would sit around 720p. Kodak often compensated for generational loss by using DIR couplers which create an organic unsharp mask.
@@chrisrowe2308 David Fincher talked about this very thing on the commentary track of Se7en. He said that degradation with each generation washed out blacks and killed detail.
@@SHDEdits I’d say the one thing I do miss is I still remember theatrical shows on film being less blurry as a kid than all these horrid 1080p projects that still litter most of my screens in my city. The picture was soft but still maintained a semblance of detail that is lost in digital projectors plus the contrast was way better. It wasn’t until my local AMC got a Dolbyvision 4k laser projector that movies don’t feel like I’m looking through my old prescription glasses anymore.
For every George Lucas, James Cameron, and Steven Spielberg wanting to change their old movies, go ahead. Just don't delete the old ones, please. Include them in Blu Rays. Let us choose which one we want to stream, etc. Give us options, or leave it the hell alone.
Yes PLEASE.
The bargaining stage of grief
I'll just repeat what I heard somewhere else and is a very good point. Filmgrain is information. You are literally erasing information in order to get a cleaner look. And all it does it makes all the actors look like wax puppets. But in times of Orange and Teal color grading and filters maybe not too surprising. Did anyone see Argylle? The actors look like they were animated. The skin has absolutely no texture to it.
@@EbonyPope could not agree more!
Do not include Spielberg as one of these. Steven "locks" his film after he's done and has only done a retouch once, even regrets it to this day.
The audience that still buys 4K blu-rays, ARE the "hardcore purist" and film fanatics you should be catering to.
They should be saying "yes sir, whatever you want" to the film buffs willing to blow $50 on a movie they've seen 100 times and can watch for free online.
The other 90% are perfectly fine with streaming, don't care about audio/visual details, don't want the clutter and "inconvenience" of physical media, and are none the wise to film preservation.
I wanna say this is true, but sadly there's a lot of ignorant 4K Blu-ray collectors , that will buy anything just to make their collection look bigger.
They do these restorations for the archives,. They still have the original scanned elements, so they can remaster again in 20 years so that new people can "buy" or license it.
Selling garbage as product is what created the people who dont collect or care, and especially not care to the point we stopped watching movies, series, shows, play games list goes on. I went back to stone age basically because I refuse to support and fund placebo and toxic waste. And I am not the only one.
We went from being gamers, buying and renting movies left and right most of us had a PS1, PS2 and PCs at one point booming the enthusiasm to the point we today don't care for any media.
The only people remaining who play games are basically streamers or who make money from it. I cant believe that out there in the world there are still zombies who waste their hard earned money on these today. Its equal to taking money from bank then setting it on fire, that even takes less effort.
@@ekahnoman7331 That’s me! I’m the psycho blowing $50 on movies I’ve seen 100 times!
@@frannyfranmanhell yah
If Leonardo DaVinci came back to life and wanted to add blushes to the Mona Lisa, NO ONE IS GONNA LET HIM.
And that's absolutely normal. Who in their right mind would let a ghoul paint over this masterpiece anyway?
A painting is a personal possession up until it's posted up in a gallery and a contract is signed or money is exchanged. Film is a much more collaborative art form, with every aspect of what makes a film work coming from a different artist or technician. A director might have final say on some aspects, but often that is not the case. Not to mention the money spent making big budget films almost never coming from the director. Sure, if you're indie shooting your own stuff out of your own pocket that's one thing, but at this level of filmmaking you would expect a more humble attitude about ownership. It's a hard problem, because we have all complained about studio interference and directors not being allowed to put their visions on screen, but how much control do we really want directors to have once a film is complete? There's no good answer.
@@seithcg Seemingly James Cameron
Yeah, they would. it's Leonardo Da vinci. Why would not let him? The Mona lisa worth would skyrocket immediately
@garvindean6443 the Mona Lisa is priceless so that makes zero sense
Anyone else notice "move out of mom's basement" has become a juvenile response to something they're sensitive about but have nothing to defend or argue for their reason or position so they go with an ad hominum attack?
Learn to spell "ad hominem." He did provide a well-argumented response, you're just unable to hear past the first sentence.
Because those complaining have never resorted to ad hominem attacks, have they?
@@Pyro-MolochGlazing James Cameron huh there's always one
I know right? Mom's don't even pay for the mortgage mostly. Get out of your Dad's basement! And in the UK we don't even have basements so Get out of your Dad's loft! 😛
Just some buy it 😂
Note from my mother's basement: The new 4k version of Point Break looks the way it does (especially compared to the 1080p version) because it was restored from an interpositive, not the original negative. Because of that, it can't be the most detailed transfer and difference between 4k and 1080p will be smaller. Still, it's well done and certainly beats any of the Cameron 4ks.
And no, if they'd have left the grain in the Cameron movies intact, it would not have looked worse or messy, it would look objectively better because not scrubbing the grain away actually leaves all the original fine detail intact. 4k is actually better equipped to handle grain fields, primarily because of better compression. Proper compression is the real fine art of getting grain right, not DNR. Just look at Sony's and Arrow's 4k transfers. That's how it's done. The video mentions Lawrence of Arabia. That's an amazing Transfer. 60 years old, looks brand new (mostly) and no AI.
You might think you like how the Cameron 4ks look - but remember: All the fine detail was scrubbed away together with the grain. And the detail you see now has been newly recreated by AI. That's why it looks fake. Because it is. So why bother restoring the original negatives? Why not just completely recreate the movies digitally? The result can't be much worse. And let's be real - If Cameron could have, he would have. 😅
Agreed. Lawrence was stunning, and i only watched the 1080p
Amen!! 👍👍
I can remove film grain on my PC with madVR renderer. It doesn't change the quality. You can heavily reduce or virtually eliminate noise/artifacts on the fly with a decent GPU.
Beautifully said!
James Cameron is being lazy? Whaaat?
It’s just sad that Cameron is embarrassed by the look of his own older movies and has zero respect for his fans that love them.
the same fans that don't respect his desire to change them if he wishes? It's a two way street there pal.
Totally. And you as so called fan just watch them on VHS. Problem solved. While the majority enjoys the rereleases.
@@Mia-rk9en yea just watch them on decaying nonexistent vhs problem solved 😂
@@Mia-rk9en so you have no problem with him canvas insulting anybody who criticise his transfer? Ironically, in the very same breath he claims to have gone through the movie frame by frame, doesn't that make HIM the basement dweller? If he thinks the people who love his movies must be such losers, what does that say about him?
@@scottb3034 He is not the same. Now he's an old geezer with different interests compared to 3-4 decades back when he still had some hot blood in him.
The reason this bothers me so much is that ANYONE can make a degrained, waxy, digital looking version of a movie at home in pretty basic editing software. It's almost like slapping an ugly Instagram filter on things. But grain and texture and detail which is lost CANNOT be added back. You can fake that, but it's not the real detail. It's like carving away all the skin on your face because you think it is "blemished", you can't take it back. He did it backwards. Either offer two versions, or offer a great filmic restoration and let people play with it and alter it and edit it any way they choose.
Good point.
I know the person at Park Road Post Production who was project managing the 4K restorations on THE ABYSS, TRUE LIES and the new ALIENS 4K version and it is very clear that the biggest problem with restorations is the marketing i.e. the fact that the studio or distributor doesn't want audiences to know what version they're getting in order to not affect sales. My friend is under an NDA to not reveal the sources they used, but he can confirm that TRUE LIES is not from a camera negative nor from an interpositive. So it was restored off a print and - if I were go hazard a guess - it was a very poor one where even scanning it in 4K would have likely had them dealing with all sorts of issues, even if it was a master-print. The AI clean-up process makes sense given the demands of a 4K presentation vs what they were dealing with.
What I can tell you though is that the reason they didn't have camera negs for TRUE LIES (and likely for other titles) is the expense of scanning and rebuilding the edit from scratch; a cost that studios don't want to pay for and...here's what I don't understand...Cameron himself wasn't interested in paying for either possibly? My friend, who also works for Peter Jackson, has re-iterated that both directors aren't keen on working on new releases for their films unless they can get paid to do it and that they don't put their own cash into it.
And that, more than anything, determines how a film gets restored and then how it gets marketed. That plus, as my mate reminded me, the demands from the public for what "4K" should LOOK LIKE works very hard against the quality of the films as they scanned and received them. Yes, a neg-scan would be a huge help (assuming the negs were in good condition), but even then there are expectations from the studio for how good something looks before they can rally up the marketing power to promote it.
This is on top of the fact that the CG VFX shots in TRUE LIES were rendered at 2K and would have needed an AI-upscale anyways (which is how they addressed many shots in the LORD OF THE RINGS 4K releases).
I don't mind the upscale on inorganic elements and VFX. It's what these AI upscales do to the humans that is the problem
Those movies were all negative cut, with the VFX shot back to film and cut in. So why would there need to rebuild the edit when the entire negative is cut together that way.
Doubt any of the VFX files for True Lies exist, and not surprised they don't want to spent $$ redoing it. So whatever was scanned would include the finished VFX.
@@CinemaVFXGeek Because the more popular a film is, the more answer prints and interpositives are exhausted due to distribution, therefore the more times the cut negs are required to be processed to create new answer prints and interpositives for the purpose of striking new distribution prints. And that's assuming those negs were well stored and cared for. And these are the biggest movies of their time during their release runs....so the cut neg would've been given a fair bit of abuse.
I don't know the story as to why they didn't use the original neg, I'm just told that it was a "print". My best guess was that it was not a release print, but some other intermediary version? I'm only going by what my friend had informed me.
"So whatever was scanned would include the finished VFX."
Yes, at 2K onto celluloid. And whatever quality loss that was incurred during DI in terms of what kind of sharpness and depth they could pull from the neg at that resolution and then printed back onto it.
Again, don't know the full story. Only know that the quality of the TRUE LIES assets were, supposedly, "less than ideal for the expectations of a 4K HDR master".
Though, obviously, not as terrible as that awful wide shot of the alien mothership surfacing on THE ABYSS. I still need to find out what happened there.
Not endorsing why the solutions they took btw, just relaying to others here the economic realities of remastering corporate-produced entertainment for a specific audience of a certain size. And that some people in the process of the remasters themselves felt that the releases were a compromise.
@@SPVFilmsLtd Film scanners today can go higher than 4K, so they could have downsampled to 4K if they wanted. If they used an IN or IP, there would be enough information to get a good scan. A print isn't a great choice for scanning. Probably too contrasty. If that's the case, that could explain why everything got over processed.
I think the continuing decline of physical media sales has cheapened the time and effort of restorations of past years. This sadly is the new trend but where do we go from 4k anyways? Doubt 8k or higher will be that much of a difference or sell that well
Super 35 is not the problem. There have been many terrific looking 4K transfers made from films that filmed in Super 35. Check out the UHD releases for "Reservoir Dogs" or "Casino." These are state-of-the-art transfers. Super 35 has the reputation for being grainy with theatrical prints because of the anamorphic step, but handled properly it's not really an issue, as all films have an interpositive step. "The Abyss," "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," and 'Titanic" were all Oscar nominated for Best Cinematography with "Titanic" winning the award.
A transfer off of the original camera negative for a Super 35 film, by it's very nature, would not have the interpositive step and thus the additional grain from making a copy wouldn't be an issue. If anyone had a complaint about the "Point Break" transfer it's because it wasn't transferred from the original camera negative but rather an interpositive. It still looks good, but may not quite have that last bit of resolution you get in a great 4K transfer off of the original camera negative.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct but I'm afraid you're wasting your breath. The guy who made this video knows little to nothing about film restoration, and unfortunately that's the norm. That's why Cameron is allowed to destroy movie history with his AI forgeries... and the people who's got a real passion for cinema of course can be shrugged off by this uber-rich, agenda-pushing globalist royalty as "basement dwellers" (the modern version of "dirty peasants").
What is this 4K you speak of? It sounds too much to me.
Yeah idk what this video's author is smoking. The 4k releases of T1 and T2 look like a denoised, smeary mess and it looks horrible. Plus, claiming that s35 is the core problem is ridiculous.
@@thatcherfreeman Yeah they really don't look very good, the characteristics of the film is makes those movies look great. When those characteristics of the film are removed and replaced by weird A.I. generated visuals it just looks wrong. All they have to do is 4k transfers of the original film and it would look infinitely better
The author of the video has mistaken the process of creating theatrical prints of Super 35 shot films with their digital restorations.
I don't think that the Cameron AI fuckery is as bad as George Lucas' intentional destruction of the original 35mm Star Wars films. But I do think that there's a delusion at the heart of his opinion of these 4K editions. This is less of a painstakingly crafted 4K restoration, and more of a quick and dirty painting over each frame with a soon to be dated digital process.
The sad truth is that people don't understand the difference between film and digital. If it is shot on film, increasing the resolution has nothing to do with the quality. All their doing is high lighting the imperfections in each shot. The things we couldn't see before are now present. Film is a light image burned onto film. Their is no resolution. Resolution requires pixels to increase quality. That it is why the old films hold up so well. Film is king if you're willing to sacrifice the time and energy.
@@thereviewartistrrp5493 There is value in making high resolution scans of films like these, and that's because while film doesn't have a "resolution" like digital video does, it does have an inherent "resolution" or "fidelity", if you will, created by the actual grain structure. If I'm not mistaken, 35mm film can, and this is a generality here, be upscaled to around 5.6k while still maintaining sharpness, so you can say 35mm has an effective resolution of 5.6k. Of course, that varies from film stock to film stock and also is affected by various shooting techniques. All in all, I'd say some films benefit greatly from being scanned at 4k. Some films can even benefit from being scanned at higher resolutions, such as 8k, if you're working with a larger negative like you'd find on Panavision. Other films, I think, would probably best be scanned at just Full 1080p HD.
@@thereviewartistrrp5493 Exactly. That's why it's all the more ridiculous to use any kind of AI on these movies period. Instead of enhancing the natural look of the film they are making it look sterile.
It sounds like a cheap, lazy, poor quality cashgrab.
They probably need to work on it frame by frame by hand.
Yes, it will take longer and cost more, but that's how special effects used to be done.
@@thereviewartistrrp5493 It's like, "Superman looks great restored, but I can now see the wires. We'll have to hire another department to remove them."
James Cameron loves the generic ugly clean modern digital look.
Yes he does. It’s disgusting
Its so sad to see cinema classics being ruined by AI bullshlt.
Agreed. I grew up on vhs and eventually dvds. I totally skipped Blu ray until last week!! Now I research what version of my favourite movies to buy as I hate colour grading thats so strong, no reason to mess with it at all.
Regarding the AI, is no one checking this stuff? surely someone on the QC likes films and can see it looks garbage.
Im half tempted to stick with recollecting dvds as they may be a bit less molested.
You 2 nerds need to get out of your mom's basements
Extremelly sad man.
It's even sadder to see fools like you treat film like a religion. Did you not watch the video you commented on?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't being serious. To comment that on a video like this... Lol. I bet you can't actually cite an example of a classic that has been "ruined" by AI. Or are you intentionally misusing that word to get likes? It worked, apparently.
gotta love that the guy who made 2 movies about the dangers of AI is using AI to ruin his own films.
@@TheTrashStash Its subjective. Its ruined for some and it isn't for others.
is as funny as the same guy who made 2 movies about protecting the enviroment is using 9000000 pieces of papper that came out from chopped trees to write the scripts those 3 hour long movies .
If I were a superpoweful AI, and humans hated me for "ruining" some old movies, I'd probably wipe out humanity just out of spite.
@@FernieCanto who's to say that wont happen?
@@RexColt don't think so. Objectively, it's ruined because it no longer looks true to the source.
It's not just the grain. This AI crap is changing how things look in the film; weird malformations of human features, grease smudged backgrounds, and most importantly, some of the effects look more dated than they did on DVD. Yeah, there are more pixels on screen, but what's the point when they look like crap. And for James Cameron to just blow off the criticism just tells me he doesn't give af about his movies nor their proper preservation.
We just have to face it: Cameron, Lucas, Spielberg et al are just boomers being boomers. They just want more money. While I still love and grew up on their original works, the flip side has always been about them lining their pockets.
The most crystalized version of this in recent years has been none other than Jeff Godlblum intentionally not leaving his off spring any money in his will.
As a group, they truly believe that their existence came from nothing (which if you know anything about the "post-war boom" is preposterous), so using AI to smear their finest works is their act of also leaving nothing behind for those who come after.
Hating grain is hating brush strokes. It's part of the film medium.
you need to move out of your moms basement
It's noise. It belongs to oblivion.
@@avada0 it's not noise, Film is literally made of grain and each bit of grain photochemically records part of the image. You can MANAGE grain, but removing it entirely removes fine detail, which is then guesstimated by AI resulting in the weird artifacts we are seeing in these transfers. So he's right, grain is the brush stroke in film .
@@avada0Your brain is full of noise.
@@litemakr Well, I guess it's best called an artifact then (though still noise based). And so the film image is best represented if the grains are interpolated.
But I don't agree that you actually remove fine detail. It's just the impression of detail that isn't there.
Equivalent to zoomed in digital pictures. Which, when up-scaled with a simple nearest neighbor algorithm looks horrible, but much better with a complex algorithm. AI can be much better, if used well.
When you say things like "move out of Mom's basement", you've clearly lost touch with your audience. And this is coming from someone who lived on someone's couch and ate Big Mac's every day while writing Terminator, which he was able to due to his mother sending him coupons for said Big Mac's.
The irony of the situation is palpable.
His whole career is creating movies for people that live in their "mom's basement"
@@Assimandeli Now he does, but not when he first got started.
Terminator and Aliens. 2 massive hits that sealed his career. Now he's a pompous, self-absorbed, narcissistic, dirt bag.
He's lost touch, but he's still not wrong.
@@gideonwaxfarb But he is. He's attacking the very people who made him famous and all because they watch movies he hates.
That's like James saying someone can't eat a donut because he's on a diet.
He's not wrong in saying that some of these people really need to get out more, regardless of whatever negative effects that might have on his personal brand.
2:10 Get your facts right, people: most blockbuster movies from the late-80s up to recent years have been shot in Super35, including mega-hits from the 90s like "Independence Day" and "The Matrix". It's not limited to Cameron's movies and the reason why he used it was because it worked better with VFX compared to anamorphic, which has its own sets of issues quality-wise. The truth is that there's no ultimate cinemascope process: if you want the highest possible quality, don't shoot scope but widescreen. Ever wondered why IMAX is 1.90:1?
Exactly!!
Why?
@@remyetiennelebeau8364 Why what?
@@thermonuclearcollider4418 why the IMAX ratio is 1.90 to 1?
@@remyetiennelebeau8364 It maximizes vertical resolution, which is what really matters when it comes to picture quality. Scope (2.39:1) is achieved either by cropping the frame (the Super35 method) or by using anamorphic lenses that stretch the image vertically to fit a 1.33:1 (nowadays, 1.5:1) frame. In both cases, you lose picture quality.
A example of just how bad True lies has become is a moment during the ski chase.
During that chase Snow get's kicked up everywhere. When filming Cameron was worried the Snow would be over exposed & clipped, so he had it raked a particular way that caused it to be dimmer when kicked up so you could see all the highlight detail.
On the new release however guess what, the snow is completely blown out into big white blobs.
I know it's hardly the most important detail but things like this were clearly Important to Cameron at the time
It's an example of Cameron destroying the hard work of his younger self.
But hey only Basement dwellers care right? Basement Dwellers like the guy who used to include personal thank you notes with his Laserdiscs which waxed lyrical about the improved video quality & all the hard work in ensuring the most faithful transfer, god what a loser that guy must've been.
You need to move out of your mom's basement...
@@Mia-rk9en Yes, Mia, you do.
It ain't just the grain. Recolouring of the movies is an even bigger issue which you didn't even bother to bring up...
Yeah, the T2 4K BD looks rough because it uses the 3D BD as a base, which was re-coloured and had massive amounts of DNR applied for the 3D presentation, but that was StudioCanal who cocked that up, not Cameron. Still, purists wouldn’t be much happier with a transfer he’d personally oversee either, so I guess either way the fans lose.
yep they all look blue
The problem is not the overly smooth look. It's that it looks creepy.
Just like James Cameron.
It looks creepy because it’s overly smooth
@@wright96d yes to an extend, but AI also misinterprets texture and facial features. It doesn't know when something is supposed to be blurry. Wrinkles seem an inch deep and in all AI sharpening, faces from different people seem to appear from time to time. Very creepy.
It's REALLY easy to have a version on these gigantic storage sized discs that contains one with grain, one without. AI filter creepy shit is just bad all round and shouldn't be on any versions.
@@DirectorHMAN They would have to be on separate discs. Lowering the bitrate of both versions to streaming quality defeats the purpose of a disc.
Don't mes with the colors
Sadly, they always do now and that's the biggest problem here by draining the color and almost turning them into monochrome and when there's color it's usually drab and one-dimensional focusing on a few select hues like orange, teal, blue whatever it is and as a film buff it p*isses me off because it kills authenticity and realism when everything looks the same and nothing looks like real life anymore. They think it's 'moody' to drown scenes in obscure unrealistic colors or darkness but audiences just want to be able to see what's going on there are other ways to create mood and atmosphere. Like a good script, now that's about as rare these days too as a summer without wind and rain...
Sorry, but Cameron obviously doesn't really care about film preservation. A film done in the 80s or 90s is NOT supposed to look like Avatar. They were shot on film stock and not digitally. Grain is part of the filmic experience. It should never be scrubbed away. Cameron tries to tell us that his films couldn't be restored in a different way as they would look too bad. What a load of crap. Just take a look at some of the Warner releases of 80s movies (Poltergeist, The Goonies, Beetlejuice and numerous others !) They look great and they were NOT restored to look like Avatar. And what about some movies from the 90s? Cameron stated that the restoration of True Lies was especially tricky. Well, compare that to the restoration done by Warner on The Fugitive. The Fugitive never looked really great on DVD or Blu Ray. The 4K, however, is a stunner. Or, take a look at Fox's 4K of Braveheart. It was released the same year as True Lies and the 4K is amazing. And no Mr. Cameron. I don't live in my Mom's basement. I have a fulfilling life and I love movies. Don't insult movie fans who are paying to see your movies and make you rich.
Word!!
Film is actually really good quality and can most likely produce high def.
The problem is in low light they used higher grain film because it's more sensitive to light. It's better to use when you can't properly light a scene because of space or something, but makes it look grainy.
When you up the quality of the presentation, it magnifies the flaws. Day shot probably would look fine. A movie shot at night, not so much.
Film creators ironically will never have as much respect for their own work as the fans have
💯
Agree
The main problem for me is that the AI still has all of these noticeable visual issues/glitches through the movement of the characters. Puts everything in a slightly more uncanny valley sort of feel.
It's not just using AI to remove grain, it also removes massive amounts of real detail. Moreover, the colour timing changes and the fact that these releases have very little expanded colour depth you expect with the format. ruclips.net/video/BxOqWYytypg/видео.htmlsi=fwxT7uca_YcIOr1f
That's why they should do the transfer by hand, frame by frame.
Yes, it will cost more, and take longer, but it will also look right.
That's how they used to do special effects before it all went digital anyway.
Damn even black mesa is disappointed.
As someone who collects movies, going all the way back to silent films, such as german expressionst films, there are zero reasons for these transfers to be bad when movies like Haxan, Vampyre and even other old movies get exceptional treatment during transfers and 4k restorations.
"Mom's basement"...The laziest, most inane comeback possible.
A waxed out AI picture is not what movies today look like lol
That is the real issue. It isn't the lack of grain that is a problem, at least for me. It is the accompanying lack of fine detail that gets removed along with the grain. If Cameron is able to remove the appearance of film grain without removing fine details of the scene then I'm all for it.
3:34 Whoa! They say the camera adds 10 pounds. AI enhancement adds 10 years. lol
Yeah the A.I. goes nuts with the wrinkles. It looks very unsettling
@@Gamer_Man_Bathwater It's unnecessary. I get if it's a documentary but it's a Hollywood film, they're supposed to make the actors look their best. Also, I'm curious if the AI is generating what's actually there or if it's recognizing the existing wrinkles and assuming there needs to be more. Either way, looks like crap.
or ten penises if your like your tensors a little... unsafe
Cameron's ego has come down with a case of Luca-stitis
man they're just retards. With all the available space on a bluray, you could have 2 versions easily. The original print, and one with all the fuckery they wish and everyone happy. But they're too stupid
Because he didn't care, he is all about his Avatar movies and the studio which owns those movies pressured him to do it, so he just outsourced those to Peter Jackson's AI restoration studio which cranked noise reduction to the max and then added a thick layer of AI generated reconstruction to the picture.
Nonsense. He cares about every frame of every film he's made dumb ass.
so baffling to me, why does he care so much about that shit and dismiss the legendary as fuck shit hes made , so strange.
@@rickflair3228 It's not strange at all. He makes a lot more $$$ present day from the Avatar franchise than anything else he's done.
Peter Jackson’s Hobbit and WWI restoration also look like shit
He does care, he just did something the fans don’t like
back in the day, old films on 4k were the ones with the highest quality and new movies get upscaled to 4k (not true 4k), now it the tables have turned, its the old films getting the bad treatment while new movies are actually rendered at native 4k.
I just like the look of film. 35 mm, 65, 70, 16, 8 grains. It all. Check out Apollo 11 in 4k on a good big screen. I also like 24/25 fps. I also like 60 FPS crystal clear video of Paris Dakar or Blue Planet. Every media has its pros and cons. What clearly doesn’t work is trying to somehow convert one type into another. What a waste of time. A well preserved 35 mm can go almost directly to 4K without any up scaling magic. This is close to see it in the movie theater. Just the 35 mm on a big screen. Anyone seen Bladerunner Final Cut 4K or Alien? Looks good to me.
You glossed over the biggest problem! Characters eyes! Facial expressions are changed, blinks are removed, and sometimes looking in another direction. I don't care as much about the smoothed or over sharpened parts as this. The human element that brings emotion to a scene is being destroyed.
Also, I had already made the mistake of buying T2 before learning about all of this. I feel ripped off
It's a shame that the home media editions of James Cameron's movies have such minor changes. It's giving me "Special Edition" vibes.
Just to make him more money.
I'll just repeat what I heard somewhere else and is a very good point. Filmgrain is information. You are literally erasing information in order to get a cleaner look. And all it does it makes all the actors look like wax puppets. But in times of Orange and Teal color grading and filters maybe not too surprising. Did anyone see Argylle? The actors look like they were animated. The skin has absolutely no texture to it.
Tough. They're Cameron's films, get used to it. And that goes for Lucas as well.
@@EbonyPope Film grain is film grain, nothing more. Film grain is just like tape hiss. Do you like tape hiss?
@@Foebane72 No the grain is what created the image on film. Removing grain also removes detail. Its evident on Aliens 4k
I do seriously wonder if some of it is older filmmakers not willing to admit to themselves their eyesight may be degrading with age; as most of those guilty seem to be over 65 years old.
I agree. You need to move out of your mom's basement
Nearly all home video versions of the Terminator have some of the gun sounds changed. The revolver scene for example. Now sounds like a gun from Star Wars "pew, pew"
Yeah, it used to have that old stock Dirty Harry 44 mag sound.
Why I've never upgraded _The Terminator_ from the Special Edition DVD 📀
@@dnasty312 Is that the correct colour grading, aspect ratio and sounds?
Or you can take the superior BR copy from... like 2008? And you can then take the DVD and transfer the audio from the DVD to the video of the BR and now you get the best of both worlds. In the pirate community this is known as a Hybrid.@dnasty312
Personally, I prefer going back to the older transfers in a lot of cases. Especially with older films. When they're too clean, they don't look like films anymore. Where as when there's some grain and the occasional imperfection, if you're watching with the lights off on a big screen TV then it almost feels like you're at the cinema. That's something that I really like about some of the better laserdisc releases. It may only be 480p but it has that more film like look when compared to the newer versions that have been "fixed". It's great that they can clean things up a bit and restore things to how that they would have looked originally, but I do think that they tend to go too far in an effort to make things appear more modern. Sometimes, the technically superior version isn't always actually better.
Wise words, amen.
Not sure I agree with Super 35 films being predisposed to having a look like Point Break. There are great transfers of Super 35 films in 4K - The Matrix trilogy, the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films, Air Force One... granted there are Cameron films that would have benefitted from better film stock, but I doubt they'd have looked terrible if the digital restoration tech and decisions he made about it were so harsh. Grain is detail, and Cameron (for some weird reason) thinks removing said detail was a good idea, not to mention using so-called AI to guess (often poorly) what made-up detail should go where. He's made some great films and I don't diminish his skills as a director, but he's in over his head when it comes to remastering.
Yes! Grain is information. Also today's movies look horrible. Have you seen Argylle? The actors look like they were animated. No skin texture. Compare that with the old Top Gun trailer. Take a look for yourself. One looks quite natural despite the light filters (Top Gun) the other looks as if it is completely animated. Even the building etc. I can't even watch movies anymore. Especially the orange and teal color grading should be talked about. It's absolutely horrendous. Actors look completely orange in the face. Read the article ORANGE AND TEAL - HOLLYWOOD PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS.
I think Cameron just hate the look of film. If you ever listened to his commentary on Aliens Blu-ray disc, he didn't want to shoot the film with anamorphic lenses because he doesn't like the soft look of it. Which is why Aliens is the only film in the franchise that isn't in 2.39:1 aspect ratio. If digital cinema cameras existed back in the 80s and 90s, I believe Cameron would've shot all of his films digitally.
I do like the 4k version of both Aliens and The Abyss. But Trues Lies and T2 looked awful! I pre-ordered the 4k disc of Terminator, let's see how well that one will turn out.
Cameron had nothing to do with t2 that was studio canal and they accidentally used the 3d print. Far as true lies it’s the best it’s ever looked minus a couple scenes.
@@williamdriver1959 True about T2's 4K disc but that film was also shot on Super35mm film and had Cameron been involved, he probably would've scrubbed away all of the film grains. Hey, glad you think True Lies 4K looks great but there were too many shots that looked way too processed and the characters looks waxy for my taste. The best transfer of the film is the version that was shown on Hulu. I don't know if it's still available but it was a transfer that was meant to be released on Blu-ray several years back but apparently Cameron didn't approve it or something and it never got released. Remember, True Lies never came out on Blu-ray.
@@Bluboy30 I know. But I’ve seen the Spanish blu ray and the dvd and the 4k.
@@Bluboy30It did come out as the Spanish BluRay.
I'm still keeping my 2000 Artisan release of T2 Ultimate Edition DVD. MGM's first DVD release of the original did have the original mono track, for vereran fans.
Amazing dvd. Has so many extras
Same, At least those versions don't insult me for being a basement dweller.
You 3 basement dwellers need to move out of your mom's basements
@@Mia-rk9en At least I can hold a relationship unlike James Cameron who had multiple divorces.
This video does NOT explain Super35 well. Super35 has to do with the width of the film frame. In Super35 the width is the WHOLE film frame. In a regular 35mm frame there is space reserved for the audio track, on one side of the film frame before the films perforations (the physical holes on both sides of a film strip).
In Super35 the camera exposes the whole surface of the film frame (the whole area between the perforations). No gap is left for the audio track.
Normal height for Super35 is 3 perf (three perforations high frame), which is 16:9 aspect ratio. One can also expose a frame in 4 perf , meaning the height of the frame increases to 4 perforations. This creates 4:3 aspect ratio. I think the extra height in True Lies was done by filming 4 perf. This has nothing to do with an oval lens as the narrator claims. An oval lens (Anamorphic lens) is used to squeeze the photons on the whole surface area of the frame, thus creating a widescreen image on a 4 perf Super35 frame. When watching the footage in the 4:3 aspect ratio, the image should look squashed, if an oval anamorphic lens was used.
To me, the open matt footage does not look squashed (like an oval lens was used, as the video claims). When using an oval lens the resulting image needs to be corrected back to wide screen aspect ratio in post production, yet the open matt footage looks like normal unsquashed 4 perf Super35 image in 4:3 aspect ratio.
In my opinion the narrator either explained very poorly the Super35 concept or he is confused about the width/ hight, anamorphic lens and Super35 concepts in general.
This video is NOT talking about Super35, it's talking about how ugly these 4K versions are.
@@ChaseMC215 He said True Lies was filmed using a format called Super35 and then went on explaining how the format uses "an oval lens". He mixed up two compleatly different things, thus confusing his audience.
Super35 discribes the width of the frame. It has nothing to do with a lens.
If Disney wants a sweet payday all they need to do is re-release the THX version of the Star Wars Trilogy that was released in the 90s. It was just a re-scan of the original negative and fixed some audio issues.
If I remember correctly Lucas had in the contract that "You don't f with those old movies ever again, only my new versions" or something like that...
Unfortunately George Lucas had a clause in the contract, back when he sold Star Wars to Disney, that basically said Disney was obliged to only showcase the most recent re-edits. Disney can't re-release the original cuts of Star Wars even if they wanted to, and I guarantee that they want to given how much they like money.
@@HOTD108_Thank God, He Did That.
This video is full of inaccuracies, and the biggest misconception is that cinema lovers want grain 'cause it looks more "authentic", as if it was a simple aestethic choice. Leaving aside the fact that all art should be preserved as well as possible in the form it was first experienced by an audience, the point about grain is that it IS definition. Grain is detail. Grain stores the information, the real "resolution" of a photochemical picture. Any other trick like edge enhancement is just the illusion of a better definition, but AI goes many steps beyond and creates false information to fill the gaps; thus creating a FORGERY of an original movie. And in the ethics of restoration, that's simply unacceptable. But of course we're not talking about an important painting, we're talking about a movie, so a director is allowed to damage movie history forever without anyone lifting a finger.
You people keep making this BS up. Grain is not information. It's texture from the silver particles in the emulsion. It's there before the film was even exposed, so it can't be information.
It's not even detail. It obscures detail and reduces sharpness. It's like looking through a sheer curtain. Why do you think Kodak spend decades making finer and finer grain film stocks.
Stop the bs romanticizing.
Many artists have tweaked paintings after they shown it. Frank Frazetta was notorious for retouching his older work. Kubrick would recut his films even after release.
People like you don't get to decide what filmmakers can do to their own work. Go make your own movies instead.
@@CinemaVFXGeek I am on the fence between both sides of this argument, also what moviemakers can and cannot do, it's simple, we get to vote with our pocketbook, that is power to the people but also power to the artist...
@@CinemaVFXGeek still preferable to have grain as a real organic artifact rather than ai inventing the skin texture that it thinks was there. The amount of people okay with the uncanny valley effect this produces is unnerving.
Every movie so far in 4K from Cameron looks awesome. Just buy his movies on used scratched dvd's if you prefer the authentic shitty quality.
@@thomasstudstrup5028okay, pleb.
I hate AI restorations. There's not a frame of real footage left, everything is just a computer's speculation of what a better quality frame would look like. It's not real anymore.
The irony of James Cameron using A.I. to polish up his Terminator movies for 4K... 🙃
So Cameron and the producer just said 'you'll take what we give you and like it so fuck off cuz it's OURS NOT YOURS!'
They are not wrong though
@@awesomereviews1561 not really, if you put something in the public domain for the public to enjoy and critique it is not only yours. We have the right to not like it and not buy it.
@@nick1635But if you don’t like something and don’t buy it, then how can you say that it is also “yours”?
@@nick1635 it wasn't put in public domain. Public domain is when the work is no longer owned by anyone. Yes, you have the right to not like it and not buy it, but demanding it be done differently is entitlement.
I wouldn't say that. It's not as if he put a gun to your head and said "buy this!"/ You are free not to buy a copy.
First, I'm pleased to say that none of these films interest me beyond already owning Aliens in the Alien Anthology Blu-ray set; I will not be buying any of his other films on any physical media. What worries me, though, is the fact that if all the little digital age kids rush out and buy every copy printed of these smoothed-out films, who's to stop another studio from ruining other films; films I do want to buy? It makes me extremely happy to live in an age where Lawrence of Arabia was restored in 8k and released on 4k disc looking beyond fantastic. Same with 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Spartacus, The Matrix, The Shining, The Wizard of Oz, the Three Colours Trilogy, Werckmeister Harmonies, Nostalghia... you get my drift.
If studios start doing to the films I want to own on 4k disc what Cameron has done to his; I will stop buying physical media.
I heard they added a green tint to alien and the shining isn't in the original aspect ratio, they always have to sabotage everything.
The ALIEN 2010 BD has the horrible teal & orange cast (like ALIENS). The 4K has better grading.
The 4K ALIEN disc is an improvement over the 2010 standard BD.
I've heard that the Matrix 4k release had a terrible color correction? Maybe I'm mixing it up with some other home media version.
Also, should be noted, kids are not rushing to buy copies of his movies. Kids don't give a dick about this old man and his films.
There does exist a true 16:9 HD home video release of True Lies prior to the 4K version. This was on a very short-lived format called D-Theater or D-VHS in the late 90s. These releases were in 720p to 1080i and True Lies had a transfer done for this format. This transfer somehow made its way to Spain where it was released on blu-ray there and across Europe. You can still find these copies floating around Ebay to this day.
I regret selling this bluray before the 4K came out.
Hope there's a copy floating around on the high seas
@@xephyrxero oh there is, pretty much any copy labeled bluray before 2024 is gonna be that copy.
The answer to this is simple - make both versions available in the same quality, The AI special edition and a restored version of the original that presents the original theatrical experience that made these movies popular in the first place. It doesn't matter that the negatives are being preserved if the only version available is the AI enhanced version. The likelihood of anyone going back to the original negatives of these movies at this point is pretty much non existent and so the theatrical versions are really lost to modern audiences.
I remember watching that Peter Jackson Beatle’s doco and it just looked so… off… Like someone went to town on the sharpening tool and smoothening filter. It’s not film restoration at that point. It’s the laziest form of upscaling video footage. I don’t consider slapping an AI enhance tool on a video file “restoration”. Taking the original film elements, cleaning them, re-scanning them, using digital tools to manually remove tears and scratches - these are what I consider “restoration”. Anything else is just laziness.
The problem with CGI and AI is that they will look ridiculous in a few years.
Old movies having grain and noise doesn't bother anyone, especially not those who enjoyed those films back then, so why remove it?
Your picture tells me... You need to move out of your mom's basement
normies notice it and it makes them dislike the film because it looks old
@@kosmas173 i agree. I love Terminator 1 but damn some special special effects look silly. The movie is 40 years old and a visual upgrade doesn't hurt the film. I mean for the purists there should be enough old DVDs on the market. Terminator 1 is a masterpiece but to not update the picture quality would be a pity.
@@Mia-rk9en Too bad it's not an upgrade. That would involve redoing some of the effects, which has been done for some things, original Star Trek for one. Cameron won't ever do that, and AI upscaling is a mess.
@@BryceShamwow I agree 100%.
Films need to be protected from their makers. This is not only about pleasing fans but preserving cultural heritage.
Because we live in our mother's basement.
This! it's the fans fault they look bad.
@@miguelferrazcostaPeople care too much about the preservation of film and their image quality.
What a waste of time, says James Cameron, who’s spent the last twenty years doing nothing but work on digital worlds in Avatar.
Get a job, basement dwellers!
@@STTPMASFTNE so? It made billions. Paid off really
So move to the living room 😆
@@danbh84 I don’t care if it made trillions.
Doesn’t stop James Cameron from being an asshole 👍
Idk, I've always enjoyed the grainy look, I feel like it helps preserve detail, adds grittiness, which for movies like The Terminator and Aliens only add to the atmosphere. Like, there's a reason why a lot video games will introduce film gain despite never actually being filmed. It just help blend everything together.
Super 35 should be less grainy than standard 35 not more. Super 35 is just standard 35 but using the space normally reserved for optical audio. It would have very limited impact on grain.
"Aliens" is notorious, along with others using that film batch, for being grainy. Its part of the movie though. You can't remove it and have the same movie.
In my opinion... You need to move out of your mom's basement
@@Mia-rk9en Yo who let their tranny out of the basement, it's feral and angry at people for having opinions.
"All the Avatar films were done that way. Everything is done this way." Yeah THAT IS WHY IT SUCKS!!!!!!! Jeeeezus, this man is so incredible, the elephant in the room could be literally SITTING on him and he would still ignore it. 🙄
People like Cameron need to f*cking get over themself and realize that after your movies have been around for so long YOU have a goddamn RESPONSIBILITY to preserve them as they were shown originally and over the years and making sure the original experience is preserved. IF you feel like doing a "Modernized" version, at least make it freaking OPTIONAL and not the only version you can buy. Release it with a Vintage version to make everyone happy. It's not that hard and certainly doesn't require you to be a stuck up arrogant a-hole who thinks the audience, who made these movies the cult classics they are today, are all basement dwellers and freaking fools. THAT kind of mindset is a doozy and won't get you any favorable feedback. Without the fan support, these movies would have been long forgotten and there is a reason why these movies are such beloved classics. BECAUSE of their original Look and feel. We want THAT in HD and 4K and no freaking Software Re-Drawing. Because that is effectively speaking NOT the same film anymore. When all the elements have been re-processed. People who hate filmgrain can go pound sand and go back to their sleek CGI movies. You wouldn't wanna remove the brushstrokes of old oil paintings either, would you? 🤨
I don't dislike grain or the filmic look but I hate when the grain is inconsistent as hell between shots and how it's always moving it can be distracting and take you out of the movie, still what guys like Cameron do is certainly not the answer, it's just stupid.
@@Mr.Goodkat Thing is the whole picture is made of grain. So any kind of filtering directly alters the look of the whole picture. Some studios do that in a much more non-destructive way to make sure the look is a lot more even. The Directors Edition of Star Trek the Motion Picture was even done in a way to preserve as much image quality as possible by scanning it at high resolutions and even re-composing the VFX shots digitally so no optical prints of the effects had to be used. That's why the look of the film is very consistent and doesn't get grainier during Effect shots. And that is also why the new shots (that were done in a way Bob Wise wanted them originally fore the 1979 release) go hand in hand in a seamless way with the rest of the movie.
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 I wish they'd do something like that for every movie then and why can't they just take the frames or scenes which are too grainy and apply some very light management only to those parts of the movie? that way you wouldn't be turning the characters into wax monstrosities or even touching most of the film, only the parts with really heavy grain.
@@Mr.Goodkat most studios do some bit of filtering to adjust it. Some movies had their effects shot on 65mm which of course looks a lot finer than the regular 35mm scenes of the movie.That's why those scenes stand out a lot more than the rest of the movie.
I guess the debate is who should have control over art, after it has been released.
I would argue, that the public should be able to whatch movies in the way they where released.
So like a first edition book, it would be nice, if the original movie would get stored by archives, that make that version publicly avaiable, maybe 10 years after lounch, maybe for a fee that gets paid to the studio.
Of course the director should make as many new version as he whants, but the original should be accessable, like it is with books.
Because the collective memory of that piece of art should be preserved.
So people complain, but Cameron instead of addresing the issue calls them basement trolls, and said that he did his best. Pathetic.
My advice is: You need to move out of your mom's basement
@@kennydolby1379 😂
"Super 35 is basically spherical" is the dumbest description and totally inaccurate. Super 35 is what most movies shot on film are shot in, and is a film stock format. Video cameras are loaded from the top, not the side like stills cameras, so there's a 1.6x crop compared to stills cameras. Spherical is a type of lens, as opposed to anamorphic. Cameron filmed in OPEN GATE which is taller than it is wide. Film stock's speed has nothing to do with grain. There's so much terrible misinformation in this video. Super 35 has nothing to do with grain either. So dumb. When they say "restoration," they're applying denoising to get rid of noise from exposure issues, film transfers, and film degrading over time.
Ghostbusters (1984) was shot on the same 35mm Kodak Eastman 5384 film stock as Aliens. Sigourney Weaver is in both films. At least Sigourney Weaver looks fine without AI and the film itself looks great. I saw the 4K restoration in a theater and it looked fine. The image might be a little soft and there's grain, yes. The grain is where the fine detail lives!
I like you, but... You need to move out of your mom's basement
Removing grain means removing detail, and trying to add detail that isn't there with AI is going to lead to bad results.
Because the more "realistic" the image, the easier it is to tell that the practical effects are actually props and your imagination no longer meets the film half way.
It unintentionally kills the illusion, thereby ending suspension of disbelief.
That’s how audiences reacted to watching the first Hobbit movie in HFR 48fps. The artificial world looked like an artificial stage play.
No not really. In fact today's movies look less realistic. It isn't intentional but it definitely let's the CGI stick out less. Film has a resolution of about 4K. Digital IMAX has only a resolution of 2K. Let that sink in. All they are doing is removing film grain. That does NOT make your props stick out more. All it does it removes actual information since filmgrain is information. It's how analog film works. You are left with a waxy look on the actors face. Today's movies are even worse. Look at Argylle. You can't even see skin texture. If anything 80s movies had more details not less. Unless you were using very soft lenses or a more grainy film stock.
@@TalentCaldwell It got nothing to do with 48fps, they just didn't have time to polish the movie, it was a rushed production.... ffs...
Trust me, 24fps wouldn't have changed anything... 48fps was one of their better decisions, they just had to rely on bad CCi work to get the movie out in time due to production hell. If we could successfully convert The fps of Lord of the rings to 48fps, it would look EXACTLY the same, just smoother movements.
@@birdsteak9267 I wasn’t critiquing the quality of the film. I haven’t even seen it. I was only reporting on the VERY REAL outcry people made about seeing the first movie in 48fps. Not an opinion; an actual verifiable fact that happened. Many articles and YT videos made on it in fact.
@TalentCaldwell I know about the outcry back then too, but it's just the same old outcry as always when something new comes; it was the same when color film started to become a thing. Do anyone wish us all to be stuck with black and white because some people have a strong opinion that black and white is the superior format? Probably someone out there still in 2024, but we both know that isn't true. Can you shoot movies and take advantage of the black and white to create something that only black and white can capture, sure... But color adds life, and so do frames.
24 FPS wasn't chosen because it was the best format; it was the cheapest option.
Color early on was expensive; Wizard of Oz isn't even true colors either. So only a few colored movies were made at the time. Now we can finally get perfect smoothness without using "image smoothness" on the TV to fix it and lose image quality in the process. 48 fps will fix that so we can keep image clarity and have smoother transitions. Turn off the smoothness on the TV and you will see a massive improvement in the image, but you will notice the choppyness that these TV features try to blur out to smooth out frame-transition..
24 fps isn't a big problem on projectors, but it's horrible on HD TV. It's time to stop blaming frames for rushed CGI work.
We cannot change old movies to 48fps, but we can try to move with the time and take advantage of the technology that movie-makers wished they had, but they had to settle with the shitty 24fps back then. Movie makers who came later are just trying to be pretentious, failing to realize that 24fps was simply a desperate, costly measure, not an artistic measure. 48 fps was the goal since the Edison Company invented the video camera. Now we finally have it, and people think it ruins the "IMAGE." And have ZERO scientific evidence for it, like the people who fight over different woods on electric guitars 🤣🤣
The Hobbit isn't really that bad either, it was far worse with the Marvel movies because the Hobbits had actual stages full of props, plenty of practical effects, they just ran out of time to get costumes for the orc's and other such things, so they opted for animation, because Jackson was called in after "Pre-Production" and he did a good job saving it.
The problem for me is when the heavy altered versions are the only versions you can get. Look at the original Star Wars trilogy.
blame marcia lucas.
Reminds me of celebs who can't stop getting plastic surgery
^nailed it
My main issue with Al-enhanced films is that they reconstruct the image using a digital mash-up. It's like a bizarre concoction of countless fragmented images and algorithms. The final product reminds me of those homemade gifts from kindergarteners. Imagine getting a Batman doll made from tin foil, marbles, and yarn. It's undeniably endearing, but it's no Michael Keaton.
There is a difference between cleaning up some excess grain for clarity and nuking all grain and adding machine learning based sharpening to "restore/hallucinate" back the detail you lost during the nuclear blast. Even the most avid film restorationist should understand that 100% raw negatives aren't going to be suitable for release, but I think even those would be less jarring than these ugly Instagram filtered looking releases.
Also regarding the movies being the property of James Cameron, sure, but doing such an aggressive transformation does in my opinion alter the movie enough that anyone who bought the movie on digital and were forcefully upgraded to the new release should be given the option for a refund or the ability to stick with the original release they bought.
ps. please stop with all the ai bullshit in movies, it gives negative value.
They're not "4K restorations" they are not new scans. They are regular scans UPSCALED to 4K resolution. Cameron should not be allowed anywhere near his movies for home video. And Park Road should be shut down.
You focus too much on the grain removal controversy and gloss over the AI artifact problem.
The biggest reason we hate the new restorations is that while the upscaling/digital restoration process is impressive in its own right, and is very good at taking bad footage and turning it into an *approximation* of good footage, it winds up making everything look surreal and uncanny.
It makes lines too sharp. Contrasts too stark. It doesn't accurately guess what a light source would look like filtered through a real life camera lens. It removes motion blur but keeps the motion choppy. It especially doesn't get what human skin is supposed to look like, and how facial expressions work.
Sure, Terminator and Aliens could have been shot better had Cameron used IMAX cameras or whatever. But they still look pretty damn fucking beautiful even with the imperfections of Super 35. And I just have a visceral reaction to AI making already beautiful footage into something that looks like bad Marvel CGI.
He should keep the film grain, it added to the atmosphere of the film
I don´t get this obsession with 4k,6k and what ever K.... Sharp digital look kills the softnes and visual poetry. Old films shouldn´t be touched . just preserved as they are the way they look.
I agree 100%. Clean them up is all that's needed and colors boosted perhaps but not changed, kept as they originally look. Basically, 4K sucks always did always will it's for 25 year old silly revisionists who think they know cinema. Give me good old DVD. Seriously, it'll be the one surviving physical disc format in the end anyway. My main gripe with all this mess is criminally ignored in this video, in fact many people suddenly become colorblind and overlook it, guess most become conditioned; the main issue and main problem in all of this mess is, as always the grading. Neither The Terminator, True Lies or Aliens look they way we know them, the former all milky the latter now all blue. The post-production madness craze of this moronic trend, going on two decades now is the longest running bad joke in human history. It goes for Cameron as for Spielberg, they're all guilty of it changing the look of their classics because they can so to cater to new audiences, indoctrinated to the uniformed samey look of current movies. Never did I (naively) think they'd one day mess with classic movies, let them do to modern movies whatever they want I'm not watching those anyway but friggin' lay off the classics and older movies. They haven't, they've gone berserk across the board...
I thought the hole point of upscaling to 4K was to scan every frame - clean it if necessary and fix any slight defect with AI not just use AI to upscale it all .
I respect an artist and his work, and I hope no one messes with it after he's gone, like what happened to Roald Dahl. At the same time, I like the 80s movies look like they were made in, well, the 80s.
The HDTV version had all the grain from Aliens, the Blu-Ray was filtered but still had grain. The 4K was completely scrubbed.
The removal of film grain bothers me but what bothers me way more is when they tint everything blue or green. I do not understand why that is so common
If I had to guess, and I am purely speculating and haven’t got a clue if this is even remotely true or anything, they do it because the vast majority of home video/streaming viewers (that is to say, not actual movie enthusiasts who care about image quality) don’t have their TV’s calibrated, or even adjust the picture settings themselves, they straight up use their TV’s/laptops/phones at factory/showroom settings. Or maybe not, maybe they just like to make their films look worse.
I felt the same about The Crow. I recently watched the 4k and felt strange. It looks great, but it's lost all that grain. The grain was like a personality to that movie. Like it should be there.
I have no problem with filmmakers making adjustments to their films post-release as long as the original versions remain available.
It's available. I can sell you my old VHS tapes for 5 bucks per tape
Should release both the old and new versions. AI isn't even a mature technology yet, so I don't understand why they are releasing AI edits.
I totally agree. Lucas also went back and redid all the analog vfx for THX 1138 and there are no analog versions of it in existance, unless you can find a VHS copy. Im fine with the creators doing revisualizations, but let me decide if i want a straight restoration or their digial restoration.
The BBC, here in the UK, screened the original version of THX 1138 late one night in one of their "cult film" strands, back in the 1990s. It was actually screened in scope, which was a rare thing on television back then. Still got it, albeit only recorded on VHS, but it implies there were high-quality scope prints of the original unmolested version floating around in the 90s.
@@blatherskite3009 this is recent. He did it within the last 10 years.
The people that complain about the smeary look of these 4K scans aren't the same people that would complain the movie is too grainy. Plenty of movies are very grainy. That's the tech of the time. The thing is, I can always make that version myself by ripping the disc and modifying the output or putting the image through an image processor either separate or in my TV. The thing I can't do is get back the flimic look of movies from this time period. If they were grainy, that's what we saw in theaters. It was good enough for theaters on giant screens, it's gonna be good enough for my TV at home.
7:11 this is cope, that special kind of cope when you're just baffled by something you don't understand and take it as an insult. It is, I think, the greatest argument against his "right" to mangle his past works. Were he able to understand the concerns and respond like an adult, that might be a different story.
Super 35 isn’t the problem. You mention that often without explaining why that would be a problem. All the ‘problems’ are post-processing issues. Nothing to do with the original format.
Thank you for bringing more attention to this BS.
I can't remember who, but there's a much better video on this topic out there. This guy sounds like too much of an apologist and skipped over how inhuman the actors can look, how facial expressions are changed and put into the uncanny valley
None of this is true. The super 35 format has amazing clarity and resolution and properly mastered excels far beyond the limits of blu ray’s h.264 encoding by every metric. ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ and ‘Top Gun’ (the first movie shot in the super 35 format) are just two examples of how visually rich that format is and what it has to offer the UHD h.265 encode. It even has enough latitude and color depth to push DolbyVision to its very limits.
The reason why James Cameron’s recent 4K remasters look so poor has absolutely nothing to do with the limitations of his capture media but instead has everything to do with the fact that Cameron has become an undisciplined, heavy handed revisionist of his original work due to his fascination with current technology. This is nothing new, he was doing this over a decade ago when he was remastering ‘Titanic’ and he’s doing it now but with even more powerful and potentially destructive tools to deface his classic works.
Cameron needs to understand that It’s the visual artifacts caused by the AI upscale that are concerning. If these are the definitive 4K versions of the films, these ugly artifacts will be included for all time.
When I left my mother's basement I watched Terminator 2 in 4K and it suddenly had grain and bright colors! 😮
James Caneron's response sounds like we should be grateful for whatever crap version of his films he gives us in 4K. He is entitled to monkey around with the films that made him famous, that does not entitle him to monkey around with his films and tell us that is what we are entitled to get from him. Give us the choice of what version we want to own.
False, I live in the guest room
Personally I don't like recolorcorrection because I just want watch movies with normal natural photorealistic colors but in these restorations they for some reason put this somewhat blue shades😢
The preservation of historically relevant movies is more important than any senile director's feelings.
It will all be destroyed soon, anyways, so it doesn't really matter when all is said and done.
1 John 2:15-17
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
2 Peter 3:3-13
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 *But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.*
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, *and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.*
11 *Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved,* what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, *and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?*
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
It's not simply about the grain. It's about the organic look of film. Extreme digital make up looks bad even in nowadays standard, it looks like plastic. Weird choice he made.
As a long time Film fan, I understand both sides and where they're coming from. Film fans want the films updated but still look the way they did when fans first watched it. To James Cameron's comments, in a way, he's right. Cameron wants to update and modernize the look of his films and some fans have been too obsessed with film grain. I think there is a proper middle-ground...unfortunately there are going to be people criticizing every little thing. I think the worst is, for example, when they updated Donner's Superman the movie. They screwed up the look, the color the audio and music ques. When the cinematographer Geffory Unsworth shot Superman the movie, he deliberately shot it to give it a little halo glow effect, to give it a dream like look and the updated HD versions ruined that, the color, the audio and music ques. These HD UHD4K updates of classic movies, most of the time the 5.1 and 7. surround sound is screwed up and Ruins the film. What's wrong with good old fashion Hi-Fi Stereo sound?! Not everyone wants to or can afford to spend thousands of dollars on 5.1 surround sound audio equipment. Update and modernize films to HD and UHD 4K while still keeping their classic look and quality sound.
que?
I'm team original version. To me, AI upscaling is the equivalent of 4:3 cropping, as in "my new TV is not being fully utilized" is a bad argument to modify the source material.
I want my old films to look old. I want my cheap films to look cheap. I wish we could have a label for "AS SEEN IN THEATERS", I'd be all over those.
changing movies is basically rewriting history
So now not only we have movies ruined by CGI but also movies ruined by AI...
Cameron's arrogance is starting to outweigh his talent.
I remember when "digital restoration" was first becoming a thing. Companies were digitally restoring these classic movies from when color was new to cinema, and they made things look and sound a lot better. I was quite in favor of it back then; it made it easier to watch the movies because it looked better and the sound was clearer.
But I don't really trust these AI powered restorations. Certainly Cameron is using some much better quality ones than what most people have available, but it still leads to some curious artifacts in the video that may be difficult to notice but still impact the quality in a weird way.
I get where 's Cameron's coming from. Film grain wasn't something he wanted in his films, and strictly speaking neither did I. I SHOULD be in favor of cleaning up these movies to make them clearer.
I think the problem has to do with a lot of visual effects. I think the film grain helped conceal them and make them look more natural. But when you remove that grain, the slight errors in the effects stand out more, and they look less-believable.