Why do studios fuck with color grading so much post theatrical release?
>>219522551They have to, based on the format. Could they do more to color grade it to better resemble the theatrical? Depends.
>>219522551This seems like it should be illegal
>>219522551Difference in displays. A movie theatre is projecting colours onto a white sheet, while a TV is turning on specific pixels on a black screen. This subtle difference changes the way colours are seen. Studios have to export two different versions of the same film, one colour tested for theatres, and one colour tested for home use. Then you have different TVs that output different colours within a certain range. HDR is the most modern example in differences in home release. >why can't they make it look the same as in theatres?Because thats not how the technology works. Theatres are given (essentially) an uncompressed version of a film designed for that specific environment, using a wide gamut that a theatre projector is capable of. For the home release, they have to compress the video to fit into a Netflix stream or 4K Blu-ray, meaning that a 1:1 transfer of what you saw in theatres isn't technically possible. Now why does the Matrix specifically look so different? Blame it on different media transfers. In the image you posted, you can see Neo's darkened side of the face much clearer in the Remaster than the 35mm Film. Obviously, the detail is there, but because the image is being backlit by a display and not being projected, we lose the detail in the face that we would have seen in theatres.
Can't wait for The Matrix: Ultimate Hacker Edition to be released
>>219523315>A movie theatre is projecting colours onto a white sheet - do something with that you freak>I projected some come colors onto a white sheet - like it's premature ejaculation
>>219523705>Hey, quit stealing my moves!
>>219523315>wordsBRO THE COLOR IS OFF
>>219522551top right is the canon appearance
Here we go again >Le 35mm film scan of a fucking DUPE>WHAT DUPE, NOBODY KNOWSIf it isn't the OCN or even interpositive nobody gives a flying fuck what a 35mm scan looks like
>>219523933You had the chance to learn, and yet you stay ignorant...
>>219524267>>219523315So the green hue that got amplified in future movies was just a limitation of the home release format? Hmmmm very interesting.
>>219524660Basically. Not that I have a stat to back it up, but more people have since watched the movie at home than in the theaters (except for whatever re-release they've done), and the version they remember watching would be the one they've seen the most. Then it gets tricky once you start getting into different home releases and transfers, like how much contrast or saturation they need to have to make up for the format it's being intended for. Its also at this point where any creative working on the project has no say in how the home release looks, so its not like the brothers/sisters/whatever the fuck had any choice in how green the movie turned into
>>219522551So which should i watch
>>2195248974K on an OLED.
>>219524897Watch the Nostalgia Critic review where it looks like they edited it on a Gameboy
>>2195248974k isn't perfect, but it's still the best version at the moment.
>>219522551In general, it's because the original directors and editors aren't as hands-on when after it goes to theaters. Generally the first home video releases will match close to the original vision, but again, people might fuck off early and not take as much care in making sure things work fine. This issue gets compounded with newer releases years or decades later, where original elements get rescanned (so they lose all of the original color grading) and then none of the original people are brought back to tweak things, so the color grading tends to not be done well unless it's by a boutique label that's making a more conscious effort to match the original intent.Matrix 1 is it's own special case where the DVD re-issue had filters applied to the real world and Matrix to match the more blatant coloring for the sequels. There were still minor tints of blue/green in the original version of 1, but for the matrix scenes, generally it could only be seen in dark/indoor shots since the green lighting was a lot more subtle. The filter they applied on 1's re-release ended up being overdone since in 2 and 3, they put more effort into the sets, costumes, and lighting, to have tints of green in them, so that they didn't need to put as intense of a filter on everything for the sequels.
>>219522551They probably hired criterion to do colorgrading
>>219534693Nothing wrong with this. It's called Blu-ray for a reason, libtard.
>>219535668>>219534693No this is just a technical limitation of the home media format as per >>219523315
>>219522551Doesn't the BluRay ruin the whole "aesthetic" by having the real (though arguably that's simply the "layer" for malcontents) world have the unnatural green glow as well
>>219523476Cameron is a retard.
Open matte is the best Matrix color.It's green inside Matrix, but it's not LOOK LOOK IT'S GREEN green.It's a subtle green, I like thatI would liked it more if it had crushed blacks like in the 35mm scan
>>219522598The irony is that they made the matrix parts have an intentional green filter because it wasn't the real world. Watch the actual movies. The real world scenes don't have the green filter. Fucking hilarious how retarded these companies are by changing the filters like this.
>>219542623What's ironic about that? In the first edition of the movie the Matrix still has uncanny, unnatural lighting, it's just shown as a harsh blue. In the DVD they made it green because they changed their minds, I suppose, and then they redid it later so that it would match the way the sequels looked.
I think it has to do with modern TVs and how they show color. But that's just something I made up.
I would also like to remind everyone that The Matrix logo was blue until the sequels released. The original poster was also blue. The intent was to have everything look blue, originally.
