(2026-05-09, 03:33 AM)Beber Wrote: ..."Fight Club" never was about beauty. ...

Wasn't it even more about calling out this model like, overnatural artifical beauty, like on the advertisements? And calling out or destroying superficial norms of society?

So.. the digital face- and skinlifts are just representing the complete opposite of what the movie was on..

(2026-05-09, 07:38 AM)MrBrown Wrote:

(2026-05-09, 03:33 AM)Beber Wrote: ..."Fight Club" never was about beauty. ...

Wasn't it even more about calling out this model like, overnatural artifical beauty, like on the advertisements? And calling out or destroying superficial norms of society?

So.. the digital face- and skinlifts are just representing the complete opposite of what the movie was on..

Exactly. That's my point.

(2026-05-09, 07:40 AM)Beber Wrote:

(2026-05-09, 07:38 AM)MrBrown Wrote:

(2026-05-09, 03:33 AM)Beber Wrote: ..."Fight Club" never was about beauty. ...

Wasn't it even more about calling out this model like, overnatural artifical beauty, like on the advertisements? And calling out or destroying superficial norms of society?

So.. the digital face- and skinlifts are just representing the complete opposite of what the movie was on..

Exactly. That's my point.

Ah, okay.. 
I didn't read your point as the movie being that harsh against the beauty, as it was forumulated quite soft. So many movies are not "about beauty", but they are not that harshly against it, as Fight Club.

I watched the UHD a bit and I like they cleaned up Marla, she's much more glowing now vs the ugly guys. I'm guessing this goes beyond cleaning up the lady. It's a new brushstroke to update the movie.

(2026-05-04, 05:07 PM)Beber Wrote: Most people don't care.

The almost philosophical question being if they ever did. However, I would modify and refine the "don't care" to rather a "care for the wrong" things. For instance, the marketing for more or less audio/video voodoo still works. A movie nowdays "only" featuring 5.1 audio or even (Dolby) Stereo matching the original cinematic mix back then? God forbid, it has to come at least in some 7.1 upmix, Atmos and whatnot despite being more and more played back on crappy soundbars at best, with which one can't even remotely utilize good old AC3 from 1992.

No lossless track? Oh no! That most of the time, one can't distinguish any halfway decent AC3 or DTS from the PCM master doesn't count. Quite some UHD BD have weaker audio tracks, but presented in the latest lossless audiophile format and all is good. Recent example: Dante's Peak on UHD BD with one of the most lame-assed, dynamic compressed shit Atmos tracks since quite a while. And virtually noone cares as hey, it's in a great container format.

If someone only offers HDR in the HDR10-container and not the hopelessly overcomplicated Dolby Vision format, hell also breaks loose for some although one hardly finds solid information what the FEL of DV really, concretely improves now, given all the compromises one has in practise by tons of tonemapping going on anyway.

The list is long. In short: the broad mass doesn't care for anything much I guess, quite a few for the wrong things and very little about what really counts, I'd say.

(2026-05-04, 05:07 PM)Beber Wrote: How many times have I read "no Atmos, no sale" in the comments on blu-ray.com for movies released before 2012?

Well, postings like this there pretty much reflect the overall preference order in that forum which apparently tends to be cluttered by more or less retarded meme spam in the postings anyway.

Not that there isn't valuable information burried here and there, but it isn't exactly the place where intellectual and differentiated discussions take place.

(2026-05-04, 05:07 PM)Beber Wrote: These idiots are in the "it's better" wagon.

I lost track of how many postings there are like "instant buy", "day 1" on announced stuff which hasn't even been released (and thus not examined) yet. Only flavored with worrying whether xy steelbook will keep cover art z. *sigh*

(2026-05-04, 05:07 PM)Beber Wrote: And I just read the other day that, when asked about Zodiac, he says he would make it very differently today but that movies belong to the time of their creation and thus must not be changed. A perfect PR statement. The problem is he does in fact the opposite of what he says. Same BS statement as when he ruined Seven. Fincher has become the worst.

Haven't there been similar statements of George Lucas with no traces of irony that such works shall be kept as they are with no alterations? I suppose it calls for a professional like a psychiatrist, but it would be really interesting to learn what is going with them and how it can be that there are so few other people involved not saying "no" to such nonsense.

(2026-05-09, 03:33 AM)Beber Wrote: Yeah, nowadays they’re so afraid of being called out on black crush by online reviewers that there's no contrast anymore. Who cares if we can see irrelevant stuff on the stove in the background? We're not looking there anyway. Now the whole movie is too bright, too polished and Marla is a fashion model.

Regarding the contrast and black crush topic in general, I have somewhat mixed feelings which probably is justified given that of course it also depends on the movie just like with the color grading.

I admit that the lower contrast style for some may look a bit "video-like". The Canadian Blu-ray of Se7en certainly going a bit in that direction. But to me, the later releases and re-releases of quite some movies now for instance look vice-versa too contrast-boosted and crushing details.

The Insider, a thread you thankfully started yourself being a prime example for me. The Open Matte one here to some probably look too "video/afternoon-TVish", but I prefer that over that heavy, contrasty, tinted somewhat enforced cinematic look of the later versions. Which you seem to do as well so I'm interested in your general opinion about this as your statement here might have been especially aiming at the presentation of Fight Club which is a totally different style for sure.

Another example where they definitely went too far and crushed details for no reason, was the recently release of The Ninth Gate on UHD, which is also partly too saturated.

Yes, the resolution is much better and the Blu-ray too flat, but when in doubt I'd rather take the BD's contrast curve and only add the higher spatial resolution of the UHD BD (which, by the way, might be yet another nice project for this forum).

(2026-05-09, 03:33 AM)Beber Wrote: WTF! "Fight Club" never was about beauty.

Not only that, but who really was bothered by any of these actors minor skin imperfections or mismatching dose statements in milligrams? Or always wanted to have more lensflare? Most chances are so ridiculous and unnecessary that it's painful.

Yes, my take on contrast was specifically regarding "Fight Club" here, as Shane Lee's screen captures were tonemapped way too bright which would have you believe there's a drastic difference between BD and UHD. But no, the UHD is still quite dark and the mood still intact. But in general, I do think that black crush is not necessarily always a bad thing when it's designed to create contrast and guide your eyes towards something else in a brighter area of the frame. But nowadays, with the emphasis on HDR and the fear of being called out on black crush, they tend to brighten areas so you can see irrelevant details that you're not even looking at. Or maybe now you will indeed look at them when originally the contrast guided your eyes towards something else. How many viewings of "Seven" did it take you to notice the sloth victim had 3 arms? Originally the grading was so dark that you didn't notice it and your eyes were guided by the flashlight towards the cut hand. It's the same thing with bright areas with HDR: now you often see a bright white piece of paper or a bright white collar on a shirt that attract your eyes as if they were the main focus in a scene when it's in fact irrelevant and you should be looking at something else. It can be very jarring.

(2026-05-08, 10:35 PM)PDB Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq9G0mLmX5M

I think I’m just going to watch my upscale. After all this is why I did that project in the first place.

Yeah, that's not looking so good. It's annoying that Fincher was moaning about how much time it takes and the cost of 're-mastering' a movie, but doesn't actually use the time or the money to do something worthwhile. So disappointing.

And while Marla got restorated on UHD, the old house got.. Digitally an even more used look:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&...41&i=6&l=0

(Yesterday, 05:48 PM)MrBrown Wrote: And while Marla got restorated on UHD, the old house got.. Digitally an even more used look:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&...41&i=6&l=0

Oh wow, that clearly had effort put into it. I'm amazed they even bothered. idk how it looks in motion but it does have a digital look to it in the screenshots.

At least Lucas was open about adding CG changes to his movies.

Oh, yeah. He also changed stuff like that inside the house, like shreds of paper on the walls. He remodelled the house just like he did with "Panic Room". I'm more and more sure he never actually wanted to make movies. He must have always wanted to work in construction. Just like Lucas who was more interested in architecture.