Why are there so many bad blu-ray releases?
Neither look anything like the theatrical 35mm scan.
>>214476750The 35mm scan doesn't account for the film projector bulps of the time
>>214476710did they think it was a Matrix film? What the fuck
>>2144767104k blu-rays use a different color scheme (DCI-P3), but you need a HDR certified television to properly view it, this depends on movie but could be between 1000-4000 nits.except a few OLEDs like LG G5, no TVs today can properly show it, hence all 4k blurays sucking dick.
>>214476791How so? The scanner shines a light through the film as a projector's bulb would, and the illuminated film is then scanned.
>>214476872edit: It differs depending on movie, some movies use Rec2020 4k nits which no fucking TV today can properly show except something from Dolbys lab that was used to master the blu-ray,https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/1em1t4i/4k_blurays_mastered_in_dcip3_vs_bt_2020/
>>214476872>4k blu-rays use a different color scheme (DCI-P3)4K Blu-Rays use P3-D65, which has a slightly different white point compared to DCI-P3. DCI-P3 is for theatrical only.
>>214476928It varies, the container used is Rec2020, it depends on who masters the blu-ray, iirc T2 was mastered by Dolby as it includes Dolby Vision HDR Metadata
>>214476710>called blu-ray >turns film green false advertising
>>214476710>>214476872What is the best version of T2?
>>214476896Projected film from 80s projector looks totally different from film scanner output. Sometimes decisions how to make the movie look were made with what was the standard at the time.There's no way around it. People still debate how movies were supposed to look decades later.
>>214476922That Redditor is a somewhat mistaken. He lists the white point for P3-D65, but still wrongly calls the color space DCI-P3.>>214476961True. Even when using P3 primaries, they're usually placed inside a Rec.2020 container.
>>214476872I've said for years that HDR is basically a form of DRM, since the encoding is done at the device levelI've never seen a pirate rip of HDR content that actually looked like the real thing and not flat over darkened dogshit
>>214477052>I've said for years that HDR is basically a form of DRM, since the encoding is done at the device level>I've never seen a pirate rip of HDR content that actually looked like the real thing and not flat over darkened dogshitWhat about remux?
>>214476750>>214476791also the 35mm scan is old as fuck and not every 35mm film stock is the same.
>>214477000The 4k version given you have the proper TV for it, run it through Dolby Vision mode. you need a OLED that's capable of 1000+ nits.Otherwise standard BR
>>214477052Do you not have an HDR screen? Never had that issue on a high nit screen.
>>214477052This happens because there are two modes of HDR, HDR10 and Dolby Vision (dynamic metadata).There's very few devices that supports dynamic metadata / dolby vision ripped playback, so what happens instead is that it only rips the HDR10 data but not the dynamic metadata.Without it, everything will look washed out and dogshit and not how Dolby intended it to look.
>>214476750Top looks like photohraphic stills from the time so that's what I'll go with
>>214477062that's what I'm referring toand I've compared rips on my Plex server to the official releases on Hulu/P+, and the official version was without fail always brighter and better looking despite using less data on stream than the size of the files I had locally>>214477088I have an OLED>>214477123you're the first person to actually give a legitimate reason instead of being a fag and gaslighting on it so propswhat's the recourse? because as of now the current state of piracy is>HDR washed out dogshit because no one has a proper set up>SDR stuff that the scene groups crush the bitrate on to lower the file size and they then darken it by 20% to hide the black splotchiness
>>214477123In practice Dolby Vision is literally just dynamic tonemapping. Meaning that it darkens highlights if your screen isn't capable of going that bright. DV is designed to dynamically make things darker for screens that can't get bright enough for the base HDR PQ grade. If your screen can go bright enough, DV won't apply any tonemapping and you won't see any effects from it. DV is just a safety belt for shitty low nit screens.
>>214476750All film prints have slightly different looks to them and if you just find and old theater print and scan that you're first of all gonna have to account for things like someone having to physically touch it every so often resulting in scratches, oxidation just from existing on our planet, repeated exposure from the projector bulb and so on. Then you have to actually know how to scan it properly which means figuring out the best exposure time and brightness for that particular print. Its still really cool that people find old prints and scan them but you kinda have to think of them as these vintage items with unique patina patterns rather than as being true to anyone vision.
>>214477052>>214477268It's very possible that whatever video player you're using for those HDR rips just has a dogshit tonemapping solution making everything flat and dark.
>>214476710because generation z and millenials are far less skilled and have a far shittier work ethic then gex x and certainly baby boomers had/werethats why everything costs more these days, and quality has gone so far down
>>214477268Ripped 4k is still a big problem, especially as things are ripped into a mkv container (which can hold both hdr10 and DV dynamic metadata), but the amount of devices supporting the playback of this format is extremely small, it's unlikely Plex supports this as well.You have to rip it into a specific format, if I remember it's some type of MPEG container that is the standard so the device playing back the file gets it in the most original format as possible.My suggestion is that you stop using Plex or a external player as that only complicates things, especially tonemapping. Try your TVs own built in player instead.
>>214477351Of course there's variation, but the original 35mm release of T2 is famously blue as fuck in the indoor and night scenes, and neither Blu-Ray release really captures that anywhere close.
>>214477351>>214477434How many different T2 releases are there?
>>214477268>SDR stuff that the scene groups crush the bitrate on to lower the file size and they then darken it by 20% to hide the black splotchinessI thought I was going fucking crazy with how dark everything is, until I started re-watching shows at my GFs place on her Netflixshows are graded darker now than 15 years ago yes, but EVERYTHING we've re-watched on streaming has looked better than the 2-3GB per episode rips I used to cast to my TV, like Hannibal and The Haunting of Hill Houseabsolutely fucking blackpilled me on piracy, you basically need to have terabytes of space in a power hungry NAS setup to house 10GB per episode and 40GB per movie files to get color and brightness that looks as good as shit you click one fucking button on Netflix forthis shit is why girls get the ick from home media setups
>>214477283There are two Dolby Vision methods, the classic one (metadata) that's used in streaming and can be in .mkv containers (although I've barely seen any player that supports this)then there's actual dolby vision, I've only seen very few devices support this when ripped and it's nearly always via MPEG profile 7.see pic related
>>214476872this but I have a nordmende that actually works pretty wellsme films are worth watching on Blue Ray like Scarface, most are fine at 180p on DVD unless you go above 50 inches but I like to be three to six feet from the screen in my kino couch so I'm ok and use a decent quality rack mouted Pioneer DVD player. Terminator was most popular on VHS and DVD is fine for it at 180p on DVD. Not everything loos food in 4K either. Its actually the minority of stuff that does.
>>214477558>on streamingnow that does suck
>>214476710 It's funny there are better restorations of trashy sex comedies done with more loving care than the biggest action movie in history
>>214477583did a small chatgpt run because I can't be arsed.either way, the way to get proper 4k BluRay Remux kinoplex running is by getting one of these CoreELEC players that have total DV playback, most that support the .mkv mode (which most 4k Remuxes out there tend to be) are chinkplayers.or...test your TVs internal player, although it's highly unlikely it supports these formats, most likely you got to remux all your 4k Blu-rays into MPEG profile 7 which only a giga-autist would bother with.avoid anything else, especially plex if you plan on playing back 4k BR media. I'm rather surprised no one has developed a proper android videoplayer app that supports all formats THOUGH
Dolby Vision is a triumph of marketing, but not much more. DV's dynamic metadata becomes less relevant each year as televisions get brighter. Hell, most HDR releases aren't even being graded to high nit levels (1000+). Seems that most filmmakers prefer setting the cap to around 200-600 nits. So most releases don't even have a need for DV's dynamic tonemapping. HDR10 should've been the only HDR format, and soon enough it will be the only one worth bothering with.>>214477583I hate it that these different methods exist. The 12-bit video of FEL is pointless. Of course, if you try to watch "real" DV video without the FEL, it will look fucked up. But if it's played correctly, it won't look any different from correctly played 10-bit MEL video. 12-bit video and 10-bit video are perceptually identical. No one has a fucking 12-bit screen anyway, so even expecting them to look different is pure stupidity. 12-bit only makes sense for professional-scale video archival where you want to preserve as much data as possible.FEL is just another way for Dolby to leech more money from people ready to pay for the full license.
>>214477268>SDR stuff that the scene groups crush the bitrate on to lower the file size and they then darken it by 20% to hide the black splotchinessDIY SDRs are uncommon. 4K SDR webdls are a common thing and they come directly from the streaming service with no reencoding.
>>214476710It's crazy how comfortable they are disrespecting their consumers. And then have the gall to complain when people pirate stuff.
>>214477867>It's funny there are better restorations of trashy sex comedies done with more loving care than the biggest action movie in historyCaptain Kronos, Vampire Hunter was recently rescanned and remastered in 4K and released on FIVE DISCS (3x 1080p, 2x 4K) with three different aspect ratio versions (UK, US and 1.37:1 full frame) with a ton of new extra materials.
>>214476710Shut up and buy it
>>214478569Unfortunately this retard is dead serious. Obviously, he does want you to buy the re-releases, yes, but he does believe in this. He and his pal Peter Jackson whose studio oversees these remasters.
>>214478569This guy lost his passion. Fuckin' cunt.
>>214477357Millennials can't afford hobbies to build skills even if they are into it. Zoomers don't care about anything to care about a hobby.
Why is taking 4:3 fullscreen (or standard definition) content and cropping the sides to fit a 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio so common?
>>214479032Think, anon. Think.
>>214476710Photoshop should be deleted from existence.
>>214479032Your premise is entirely incorrect.
>>214476710Licensing. Especially James Cameron. He's the king of the this and always has been. Way before bluray. He can make it look normal but no one wants to pay that. If its even for sale. He's saving it for another ten or 20 years for the mega super special edition. He pulled this with The Abyss like 40 years and is still basically going on. Because he's especially pissed about that one being underrated or whatever. At latest he pulled his stunt with the dvds about 30 years ago. James Cameron knew that the old much maligned pan and scan were actually by default enhanced for widescreen tv. Whereas otherwise enhanced dvds wouldn't be prevalent for about another 5 years. So he he seemingly ironically and counter intuitively put the theatrical release on only wudescreen. Which sure may have been great at the time for old crt tvs but he knew what he was doing. He knew it had a much lower resolution. For example if you watch it now on what is now a normal tv, it has black bars on all 4 sides. So the pan and scan is actually what's valuable now. And he knew it. He knows what he's doing. They all do. And its all about licensing. Same exact thing with all those remasters on spotify.
>>214480042>Same exact thing with all those remasters on spotify.This part doesn't follow from the rest of what you wrote at all.
They saw at as a fad which granted them a quick buck so they've hired the cheapest retarded computer geeks and they did a shitty job as they always, do, tech-bros are incompetent in everything they do, they also tend to act and look like spergs without even suffering from autism.
>>214477000The 2015 blu ray is the least bad looking
>>214480819>tech-bros are incompetent in everything they doThese remasters are specifically and solely the fault of Cameron and Jackson. It's them personally who hate grain and love the smudgy DNR look and always expressed these views.
>>214476750>Theatrical 35mm scan>A print>Not the OCN, not even interpositive, but a random 35mm scan a faggot found from his torrentsKek. You faggots are as delusional as retards that complain movies dont look like their shitty vhs tapes or DVDs
>>214480893Almost every bluray from that era was dogshit anon.
>>214478624
>>214476985greenray technology
>>214480911Yes, a print. The final product that people actually watched. OCNs weren't meant to be viewed.
>>214476872Except tons of 4ks look incredible. Cameron's low effort abortions are an exception.
