Criterion did it again.
>>215501702I'm tired boss. Leave these films the fuck alone.Who is the one that's pushing these steely colored look into every single movie. I can understand doing it in new action thrillers and shit like that but this is actively degrading new remasters to the detriment.
>>215501702bottom looks better
>>215501702The warm colors are the best thing about eyes wide shut please tell me this is fake
Oh baby look at this art design. That's some goood art right there.
low key hyped for the master to be reMASTERED by the masters at criterion
>>215502024
Why do they do this? Why is it so damn hard for them??
>>215502168The highlights in his hair literally turned green lmao. What the hell is this
reminder that this film should be watched in 4:3
>>215501702Is this real?
>>215502237Leon Vitali said it wasnt
>>215502257No I didn't
>>215502210It’s market demand. People got these stupid expensive televisions with HDR and 60 FPS and they expect their movies to look like this
>>215502152I refuse to believe this is real
>>215502295Quiet Leon
>>215502307Get excited, guy.
This movie was absolute dogshit.
>>215502248http://www.dvdbeaver.com/subsite/film1/film8/eyes_wide_shut_4K_UHD.htm#:~:text=Subtitle%20Sample%20%2D-,Criterion,-%2D%20Region%20%27A%27%20%2D
>>215501702Criterion sux
>>215502329isnt this the hdr version?
I'll never forgive them for destroying In the Mood for Love
Is that what the HDR really looks like on an HDR-compatible TV?Screenshots of HDR tend to look all fucked up.
>>215502495It's not. It will look just as vibrant if not more on HDR enabled screens.
>>215502683Needs a massive tutorial push on how to share these screenshots then.
>>215501702The bottom unironically looks a lot better?Top looks flat and cheap.
>>215501702>>215502789Top has that magenta skin tone which is a leftover from the limited color range from old DVD remaster era. Looks terrible, skin does not look like that.
>>215502911lolYou must be brown, poo poo man
>>215503040not him the original is a little pink/magenta, which is not uncommon for the era, and is certainly better-looking than the fuckery Criterion pulledsome minor tweaking could improve it, but it's pleasant as it is
>Americans unironically think the limited DVD color is what the movies were supposed to look likeLook I'm not going to defend every single one of these color gradings (Fuck off Fincher leave Seven alone) but the movies genuinely aren't supposed to look like the shitty early 2000's DVD's that we got and basically should never be used as a reference
>>215503652This. It's retarded how early bluray rips get worshipped when half the time they weren't even native 1080p but just upscaled dvd remasters with a sharpen filter slapped onto them. They were truly bad. Everything looked the same, everything looked like a cheap made for TV movie. And I agree with you, I am not defending modern color grading as a whole because I'm saying this. I just think people are being stupid about early bluray rips.
>>215502152>>215502168absolutely mutilated these films. wtf
>>215502229bUt iT'S MoRe aCcUrAtE SwEaTy
>>215502302And I who thought Criterion was a niche brand for high art appreciators and not the tiktik crowdThey might as well include Steven Seagal films into the Criterion collection then
>>215502911>skin does not look like that.It's cinema and art, you dumb fuck. It's not supposed to be hyper-realistic. That's why they shoot in 24fps. Fucking zoomie.
>>215504049>It's cinema and art, you dumb fuck. It's not supposed to be hyper-realistic.That's more in line of an excuse that would be used for modern color grading, not the "classic" (Top example) that gets worshipped around here for being more natural. So at least be consistent in your arguing. Do you want more flavored and stylized grading (modern color grading) or simple grading of the past?
>>215504049lmaoThat's not the reason they shoot in 24fps you fucking idiot (often actually 23.976fps)
>>215504083>Do you want more flavored and stylized grading (modern color grading)Modern colour grading is flat, you fucking numbskull. It's why people make fun of the modern log style shooting. Poorly re-grading another master auter's work is nothing to do with modern shooting; there's no style in trying to make skin tones 'accurately like some faggot fucking youtuber slop.
Why do they let this retard at Criterion keep destroying the color grading in their releases? It just keep happening
>>215502168This is fucking disgusting. Kubrick would have throttled the people behind this travesty if he were alive.
>>215504139>24fps>23.976fpsKill yourself. 0.024 fps is insignificant you autistic faggot predditor
>>215501761Restoration was overseen by the original DP. Not saying that he can’t make a bad decision, but he did film the movie.
>>215504139>24 fps (frames per second)>Use case: The traditional standard for cinema and film projection, providing a distinct "cinematic look".>23.976 fps>Use case: The broadcast standard for television and web platforms CINEMA. Kill yourself you fucking faggot predditor zoomie.
>>215504208seethe harder faggot
>>215504267You're the one who thinks films are shot in 23.796 you stupid fucking faggot. At least be correct if you're going to gloat.
>>215502462WKW did that shit ass remaster himself. It’s not criterions fault he’s a retard.
>>215504266>>215504293>still seething over not knowing about 23.976fpskeep going, your gay ass temper tantrum is hilarious
>>215504245>overseenLmao. This retard believes this marketing spiel.
>>215504314The zoomie who only knows digital thinks movies are shot in 23.976 lmao. Google it you supposed muh "digital native"
>>215504377>I skimmed wikipedia and everything! stop making fun of me!Do you ever stop and wonder why being called out as a faggot on an anonymous image board makes you so vehemently mad?
>>215504320You’re questioning the integrity of the man who shot Barry Lyndon? Retard.
>>215504293>23.796I work with a lot of video encoding and I have the numbers 976 burned into my skull at this point. This typo never happens unless you're incredibly new to the conversation.
>>215504404Does being anonymous negate your ability to admit being wrong?
>>215504489>I workYou don't work in video encoding. You also don't work at all. You re-encode your gay anime because you can't afford a bigger hard drive because you're a neet.
>>215501702Bottom looks better
>>215504404>>215504514I sincerely hope you are not two grown men bickering like teenage girls
>>215504549>I work with>You don't work inLook he's changing the details again to suit his seethe
>>215504514>call out incorrect reason for shooting 24fps>don't know about 23.976fps>seethe about it relentlessly>"no u"
I operate exclusively in 24.975fpsThat's 25000 over 1001 for the uninitiated
bottom doesn't look humanso unnatural
