or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › True Lies + The Abyss in 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

True Lies + The Abyss in 2013 - Page 2

post #31 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Abyss DVD situation with the crappy non-anamorphic transfer.

You are James Cameron. You have undertaken a notorious, monumentally tough shoot to bring your vision to screen for this movie. After it's short run in theaters, the legacy of your work moves to home video, and in fact home video becomes at least as important to a movie's life span and legacy as it's theatrical run.

And you are known for your care for pushing technology and getting the best presentation possible.

And yet...you allow the legacy of this monumental film to languish in the crappiest, worst, out-dated version possible - non-anamorphic DVD! - in fact so substandard and out of date it is practically known as a touch-stone for ridiculous transfers.

All this time.

I just don't get it. If they were my movies representing my blood sweat and tears, I would want home audiences to see them in the best presentation possible.

QFT
+1

That perfectly sums it up. All his films should be perfect, reference (in being true to the theatrical experience) home releases. I can't be sure if he's just too busy wanking it to Dances With Smurfs 2&3 or the Titanic or what, but Abyss, Terminator, T2, True Lies, and Dark Angel all need proper Blu-ray treatment NOW!

I love that Cameron is pushing the boundaries of deep sea exploration and investing so heavily in that science... but don't ditch out on on the people that made you rich enough to do it.
post #32 of 247
Yes yes yes. There are 35mm prints of the film and the extended version that can be used for a transfer. So why not make one for HD broadcast as a stop gap. FOX would be happy to do so.
post #33 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Abyss DVD situation with the crappy non-anamorphic transfer.

You are James Cameron. You have undertaken a notorious, monumentally tough shoot to bring your vision to screen for this movie. After it's short run in theaters, the legacy of your work moves to home video, and in fact home video becomes at least as important to a movie's life span and legacy as it's theatrical run.

And you are known for your care for pushing technology and getting the best presentation possible.

And yet...you allow the legacy of this monumental film to languish in the crappiest, worst, out-dated version possible - non-anamorphic DVD! - in fact so substandard and out of date it is practically known as a touch-stone for ridiculous transfers.

All this time.

I just don't get it. If they were my movies representing my blood sweat and tears, I would want home audiences to see them in the best presentation possible.

Hard to argue with this.
It is a mystery....
post #34 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Abyss DVD situation with the crappy non-anamorphic transfer.

You are James Cameron. You have undertaken a notorious, monumentally tough shoot to bring your vision to screen for this movie. After it's short run in theaters, the legacy of your work moves to home video, and in fact home video becomes at least as important to a movie's life span and legacy as it's theatrical run.

And you are known for your care for pushing technology and getting the best presentation possible.

And yet...you allow the legacy of this monumental film to languish in the crappiest, worst, out-dated version possible - non-anamorphic DVD! - in fact so substandard and out of date it is practically known as a touch-stone for ridiculous transfers.

All this time.

I just don't get it. If they were my movies representing my blood sweat and tears, I would want home audiences to see them in the best presentation possible.

Surprised no one got this. The reason is in the early days of DVD most TV's were still 1.33. The first DVD players did a subpar job of downscaling to the 1.33 TV. So to get a "superior" picture on the 1.33 TV you needed a non anamorphic DVD. At least this was the reason used by Cameron. Even Disney and Fox made all their first DVD's non anamorphic for this reason. Also Spielberg had 1941 released non anamorphic and there are many other examples.
post #35 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

And your point is? When was oink's post submitted? Especially given the that the June 4 date was bogus.

larry

I personally thought the ding ding ding was a bit silly, don't count your chickens...
As to the post I knew about LOA Monday but I didn't make the thread, and after recent events I am not getting involved as any scoop I bring here off my own back is shouted down (see the long dead John Carter thread)

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Hard to argue with this.
It is a mystery....

Not really, he was too busy to sign off on a new transfer.
This has been said time and again by Van Ling and others.
post #36 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Surprised no one got this. The reason is in the early days of DVD most TV's were still 1.33. The first DVD players did a subpar job of downscaling to the 1.33 TV. So to get a "superior" picture on the 1.33 TV you needed a non anamorphic DVD. At least this was the reason used by Cameron. Even Disney and Fox made all their first DVD's non anamorphic for this reason. Also Spielberg had 1941 released non anamorphic and there are many other examples.

We all know the non-anamorphic transfer was due to it's early introduction in the evolution of DVD and TVs.

The point is how someone like Cameron could have allowed his movie to be represented by that sorry state of affairs all this time.
post #37 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

We all know the non-anamorphic transfer was due to it's early introduction in the evolution of DVD and TVs.

The point is how someone like Cameron could have allowed his movie to be represented by that sorry state of affairs all this time.

Not really, he was too busy to sign off on a new transfer.
This has been said time and again by Van Ling and others.
post #38 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post


Not really, he was too busy to sign off on a new transfer.
This has been said time and again by Van Ling and others.

I won't pretend I know the ENTIRE process a filmmaker goes thru to bring a catalog title to BD, but is it really terribly time consuming?

MY GUESS:
1. Call whoever has the negative and tell them you want to see the elements.
2. Wait for the phone call to confirm they are ready to be viewed and make an appt. to do so.
3. Review said elements, with notebook in hand with timing marks of what needs special attention (or a restoration) by those charged with making a master.
4. Review master after it is struck.
5. Approve or make notes for further work.
6. When a master is presented that is acceptable, off to BD manufacturing.
7. OPTIONAL: Proof the first batch of BDs.

As I said, I don't know if this is how the process is basically done.
However, I would be surprised if it is much different.
post #39 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Abyss DVD situation with the crappy non-anamorphic transfer.

You are James Cameron. You have undertaken a notorious, monumentally tough shoot to bring your vision to screen for this movie. After it's short run in theaters, the legacy of your work moves to home video, and in fact home video becomes at least as important to a movie's life span and legacy as it's theatrical run.

And you are known for your care for pushing technology and getting the best presentation possible.

And yet...you allow the legacy of this monumental film to languish in the crappiest, worst, out-dated version possible - non-anamorphic DVD! - in fact so substandard and out of date it is practically known as a touch-stone for ridiculous transfers.

All this time.

I just don't get it. If they were my movies representing my blood sweat and tears, I would want home audiences to see them in the best presentation possible.

All you have too do is checkout JC's pre-release comments on what was done too "Aliens" too know he knows nothing bout video transfers.

The lack of a proper anamorphic transfer* of "The Abyss", which was repackaged three times in R1 alone, proves it.

* even funnier/sadder was the 1st release was THX [Totally Hyped eXpense (TM)] certifiable!!!
post #40 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I won't pretend I know the ENTIRE process a filmmaker goes thru to bring a catalog title to BD, but is it really terribly time consuming?

MY GUESS:
1. Call whoever has the negative and tell them you want to see the elements.
2. Wait for the phone call to confirm they are ready to be viewed and make an appt. to do so.
3. Review said elements, with notebook in hand with timing marks of what needs special attention (or a restoration) by those charged with making a master.
4. Review master after it is struck.
5. Approve or make notes for further work.
6. When a master is presented that is acceptable, off to BD manufacturing.
7. OPTIONAL: Proof the first batch of BDs.

As I said, I don't know if this is how the process is basically done.
However, I would be surprised if it is much different.

Since November 2000

Avatar

Aliens of the Deep (documentary)

Ghosts of the Abyss (documentary short)

Expedition: Bismarck (TV documentary)

Dark Angel (TV series)

Freak Nation (2002)

Earthship.TV (TV movie)


Plus diving, maybe he does not give a crap anymore or maybe he was just actually busy.
I am with Van Ling on this one as he knows the guy, plus new masters for these:

Titanic

True Lies

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

The Abyss

Aliens

The Terminator

And the 3d conversion of Titanic and rumors that T2 was going to be converted if Titanic made bank.
post #41 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Surprised no one got this. The reason is in the early days of DVD most TV's were still 1.33. The first DVD players did a subpar job of downscaling to the 1.33 TV. So to get a "superior" picture on the 1.33 TV you needed a non anamorphic DVD. At least this was the reason used by Cameron. Even Disney and Fox made all their first DVD's non anamorphic for this reason. Also Spielberg had 1941 released non anamorphic and there are many other examples.

add: Criterion Collection
post #42 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Unfortunately, like LoA, the reality of these 2 BD releases fall under the heading of "I'll believe it when I see it."

++

I've been left wanting with these titles for too long to believe they're actually coming out. They'll have to be in my hands before I think otherwise.
post #43 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Make them uncut in the UK and with the original colour timing and I will be happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus® View Post

Mike: He'll revise the color timing for both.

I'm confused with the comments regarding color timing. Is there an easy explanation?
post #44 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobravenomous View Post

I'm confused with the comments regarding color timing. Is there an easy explanation?

He made Aliens all teal and orange
post #45 of 247
2013 now for the Abyss? Seems liek this one is always being pushed back. Next he will decide to do a 3D conversion and make it exclusive to Panasonic 3D TV sets. By the time this ever comes available again I wonder if I will even care. :-)
post #46 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I won't pretend I know the ENTIRE process a filmmaker goes thru to bring a catalog title to BD, but is it really terribly time consuming?

MY GUESS:
1. Call whoever has the negative and tell them you want to see the elements.
2. Wait for the phone call to confirm they are ready to be viewed and make an appt. to do so.
3. Review said elements, with notebook in hand with timing marks of what needs special attention (or a restoration) by those charged with making a master.
4. Review master after it is struck.
5. Approve or make notes for further work.
6. When a master is presented that is acceptable, off to BD manufacturing.
7. OPTIONAL: Proof the first batch of BDs.

As I said, I don't know if this is how the process is basically done.
However, I would be surprised if it is much different.

You missed the most important and time consuming thing to setup, and I kid you not the Catering.
post #47 of 247
I sure hope this one is true, I love both of these movies. The Abyss, in particular, was one of my favorite LDs of all time--it stands in my mind as the quintessential definition of what a "director's cut" can do for a movie. I really disliked The Abyss when I saw it theatrically, because the ending just didn't flow with the rest of the film. The rounding out and character development scenes of the director's cut really transformed that movie into something special.
post #48 of 247
So far, aren't Aliens and Titanic the only brand-new transfers he's supervised? That still leaves these two, plus Terminator and T2. I would hope he finds the time in the next year to tend to these titles, because it's sounding like he's gonna go back into full-blown Avatar mode after that.
post #49 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

You missed the most important and time consuming thing to setup, and I kid you not the Catering.

I thought the local "Coke" dealer provided that???
post #50 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Also Spielberg had 1941 released non anamorphic and there are many other examples.

1941 was derived from the same master as what was used for the laserdisc. Not sure Spielberg intentionally had anything to do with that decision; Universal at that time probably didn't want to spend any more money on 1941 than whatever was sitting on the shelf already.

Regrettably the only HD master of the film is the theatrical version. They'd have to do a whole new scan of the longer cut, and since I believe it was assembled from different sources, I don't know if it'd even be possible.
post #51 of 247
I caught an HD broadcast of True Lies over the weekend. Not sure how long ago that transfer was struck, but it was a teal-and-orange fest. Also open matte to 16:9.
post #52 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I caught an HD broadcast of True Lies over the weekend. Not sure how long ago that transfer was struck, but it was a teal-and-orange fest. Also open matte to 16:9.

please don't make me feel depressed. My dog just died and I don't need any more bad news!!!
post #53 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I caught an HD broadcast of True Lies over the weekend. Not sure how long ago that transfer was struck, but it was a teal-and-orange fest. Also open matte to 16:9.

Caps? I have the D-vhs to compare
post #54 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I caught an HD broadcast of True Lies over the weekend. Not sure how long ago that transfer was struck, but it was a teal-and-orange fest. Also open matte to 16:9.

That's not a revised color transfer. Cyan (Teal) has been with Cameron since T2 and it's certainly in numerous scenes in True Lies. The orange flesh tone shading is apparent in my non-anamorphic DVD copy.
post #55 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus® View Post

That's not a revised color transfer. Cyan (Teal) has been with Cameron since T2 and it's certainly in numerous scenes in True Lies. The orange flesh tone shading is apparent in my non-anamorphic DVD copy.

Tis true. My DVD and DTH copies exhibit quite a bit of those tones. Of course, my DTH copy is 2.35:1... or something very close to scope.

post #56 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus® View Post

That's not a revised color transfer. Cyan (Teal) has been with Cameron since T2 and it's certainly in numerous scenes in True Lies. The orange flesh tone shading is apparent in my non-anamorphic DVD copy.

What? You must be kidding. According to the internet, the first time cyan/teal ever appeared in a film print was sometime around 2005
post #57 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

What? You must be kidding. According to the internet, the first time cyan/teal ever appeared in a film print was sometime around 2005

This is not T+O as we know it, this is just Cameron's trademark steel blue look, the first time was def a Bay movie either Armageddon or to a lesser extent Bad Boys.
post #58 of 247
Call it what you want, using complementary colors in a film is nothing new. "Steel" blue and tan/orange is not really any better than "T&O". All I can say is that, technically wrong or right, it's no surprise that a lot of people point to Cameron as the father of this fad.
post #59 of 247
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Call it what you want, using complementary colors in a film is nothing new. "Steel" blue and tan/orange is not really any better than "T&O". All I can say is that, technically wrong or right, it's no surprise that a lot of people point to Cameron as the father of this fad.

It's the DI T+O that I cannot stand, its just lazy Cameron did his own thing and did it with an actual DP not a computer.
post #60 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

add: Criterion Collection

Even Criterion, which was slow to adopt 16:9-enhanced DVDs, went anamorphic in July 1999 with the release of Insomnia.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › True Lies + The Abyss in 2013