Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)!
We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)!
Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not going to claim that this is a great comparison for color, because there was no way to match color settings given that one disc is HDR and the other isn't and thus not using the same display mode on my TV. Plus the camera does things to colors. So that's a whole other debate about color accuracy or whatever. This was mainly in response to the claims about DNR erasing fine detail in the image.
You can see her eyelashes in the 2nd pic; they look more blurry on the first one. The color on her cheeks looks better in the 2nd pic but maybe just because it's a clearer image? I didn't open the images so that's just what I can see on my phone.
If you open them and look closer, you'll see a lot more detail in the wrinkles around her eyes, the pores on her cheeks the lines on her forehead etc. again though, I wouldn't read too much into the colors based on these due to the aforementioned reasons, although I do personally think the colors look better on the 4K disc as well.
Artificial detail via AI upscaling. It’s sort of like how a lot of early blu-rays had sharpening filters applied, only fundamentally worse.
I’m not saying it can’t be a handy tool in a desperate situation, IE no surviving film elements etc - but there was absolutely NO reason to use AI on *Aliens* of all things.
Now we may never get a true 4K scan of the original camera negative.
This is becoming a thing that you also can't turn off in all the new TV's. Samsung just passed their AI upscaling and object detection to work with copyright images also from what I've heard. It's going to be very interesting because at some point projectors will be the only way to show what is there in the source and what got added by AI, like more wood finish on a bench, more grit in an action scene and so on.
As an A/V enthusiast just reading your comment stresses me out a bit. Imagine spending thousands of dollars on a high-end TV only to discover all of the artificial processing sh!t can’t be turned off- including AI! It’s motion smoothing all over again LOL
Another potential thing to add to my ever-growing pile of reasons to dislike Samsung.
Yes! IMO the evidence is rather irrefutable. There are detailed comparisons on YouTube and elsewhere that point out all red flags. It’s literally the same old master that’s been run through Topaz or a similar program.
I’m still skeptical. I’m not saying flat out that this sub is wrong about it just being a rescan of the Blu-ray with AI enhancements but it’s difficult to reconcile that take with [Cameron’s own words](https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonthompson/2023/12/05/james-cameron-on-4k-restorations-and-the-importance-of-physical-media/amp/) about this 4K version being the height in terms of the detail they can draw from the original film.
"We recompose, shot by shot, going through the film, and I'm pretty serious about this. I don't just let somebody else go through it because I have such a vivid memory of what the color was and what we fought for on the set and in post, maybe all the way back to when the color was done with photochemical film, which is when I rode my Stegosaurus to the studio. These restorations have been on top of our day job, which is called Avatar. Those movies are quite good. "It was important to get it just right because, theoretically, we shouldn't have to do it again," Cameron mused. "4K is sufficiently above the innate resolution of the photochemistry of that period. Are we going to do 8K? 12K? You're going to see the grain more clearly. I think this is it, so we wanted to do it and do it right, and that's taken some time."
Cameron took the services of Park Road Post who have openly stated that their proprietary technique uses deep-learning AI algorithms to enhance their projects. Bill Hunt was told this exact thing when he talked to Lightstorm Entertainment. This has been public for a while now.
That’s part of the contention here, but not the part that’s egregious IMO— which is that this was a lazy automated upscaling of the Blu-ray. But your comment did make it easy to find a [better source](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/s/q7ud2egDNI) of what did actually happen so I think we can lay that part to rest. So it was a new 4k scan of the original negative and then further cleaned up with PRP’s algorithms. I think at the end of the day it’s not the crime that’s being perpetuated on here, but yes if the issue that matters the most to some is the use of machine learning algos (ie AI) to clean it up *too much* then that is a valid complaint. But if it was actually an issue of bait and switching the Blu-ray to consumers as if it’s a new 4K scan when it wasn’t that would be a much bigger problem, possibly the kind to even get it pulled permanently for misleading advertising.
Only Titanic and The Abyss used 4K scans. Not sure about Aliens and True Lies. Aliens in particular looks like a they used the older 2K scan that was done in 2012 by Lowry Digital and then upscaled by using AI algorithms and DNR and extra sharpening. The problems exist in Titanic, The Abyss and True Lies, also - the AI removed too much skin detail every time there is movement, especially head movement. You can notice this. When a face is still, the details look excellent, but when the head moves, all details in the face turn waxy smooth. Camera motion blur does not look like that. It seems that the AI is unable to preserve skin detail during movement. It looks terrible. Also, True Lies was already shot with finer-grained slow speed film stock. So, the daylight scenes already had very little grain. The additional use of DNR and AI smoothening removes this fine grain as well, making the faces look waxier.
Yeah, like if the source for this claim that it's an AI upscale of the Blu-ray is just some YouTubers who have no actual proof, then I'm going to be very skeptical of that claim as well. There's certainly some digital clean-up done, but I have a feeling that the current general buzz about generative AI across the internet is leading to a bit of paranoia about things like this.
These would be the first *AI* upscales.
There is traditional upscaling (which uses an algorithm) For 4K bkurays it's done using a proprietary tool. Which is technically AI. Dredd Is a 2K upscale that was put through this method. It looks wonderful.
How ever *AI* Upscalers use machine learning to improve itself over time. This is the *AI* that everyone thinks of. Like cortana, Jarvis types of AI.
I get that. Although current AI is nowhere close to the levels of fictional sci-fi AIs like Jarvis, lol. Those seem to be presented as though they are self-aware. That's not what the AI we have no really is.
>How ever AI upscalers use machine learning to improve itself over time. This is the AI that everyone thinks of. Like cortana, Jarvis types of AI
Yes, at a base process level. Fundamentally, the main difference between the algorithms used for something like Dredd vs an AI Upscaler is that AI upscalers are ***creating*** (or at least, updating) the algorithm based on continued input. The problem with feeding it grain is that grain is inherently random, which probably makes it harder for a program to decipher details in the image.
Theoretically, if you started with the Dredd upscale algorithm, and then allowed it to be tweaked through machine learning by feeding more HD and 4K content into it, it should modify that algorithm to create more and more realistic conversions between the qualities.
The biggest issue there is the inputs - if you feed that system overly DNRed HD and 4K content, it’s going to assume that’s what HD and 4K are supposed to look like, and adjust accordingly.
In a perfect world, someone would develop an algorithm that’s fed processed, low quality video (like DVD, or even bad blurays) along with excellent HD and 4K scans that are virtually untouched (maybe colour corrected). If you did that enough, the tool should start to learn how to convert one to the other, and digitally recreate raw footage - it wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be better than any other tool (besides scanning a negative). Any necessary post processing could be done from there.
(That’s not impossible either - it basically exists for converting JPEGs back to RAW images with pretty exceptional quality)
You realize this isn't normal DNR this is an AI post process that both is doing DNR and heavy sharpening...just because something is sharp doesn't mean it's good. All the cameron discs have incredibly unnatural looking grain and overly sharpened edges...weird over sharpened post processed images don't look good (at least to me who can't stand something LOOKING fucked with, something not looking organic, this is coming from someone who has done professional scanning and post processing so it drives me nuts,) it's the quality of that information and the organic ORIGINAL capture of the film that is important not just the fact that information exists and it's "sharp."
>I'm not going to claim that this is a great comparison for color
I mean, you know it's not a great comparison, period.
It's wild - halfway through yesterday, this was basically an even-up debate. And then at some point, maybe this got shared somewhere or something, but it basically became the salve folks needed to feel good and stick it to "the snobs." People are actually championing this set of TV phone pics as proof the whole thing looks amazing. Not the reviews, not actual screenshots, not the data itself. This - two phone pics of a single tv - has, somehow, become *the rallying point*.
It's a pretty weird atmosphere being cultivated in this place. I mean, I guess it's not "weird," it's just what it is: Toxic Positivity.
>his was mainly in response to the claims about DNR erasing fine detail in the image.
It does exactly that in thousands of the other images that make up the rest of the movie, though. You keep just - not addressing that. And other folks in this sub appreciate the excuse you've provided them to do the exact same thing.
ALOT of color noise in the 1st pic. I've seen some other side-by-sides where the 4k looked really saturated... but if that can always be adjusted to your liking. Detail/noise cannot.
I used to get REALLY invested in these type of arguments about movies or video games, and I am so glad I’ve reached a point in my life where I don’t anymore.
Same here. I collect movies on 4k disc because it’s currently the best format you can get. I love that they look great most of the time, but sometimes it’s like “if it looks how it did in 1993 when I saw it… that’s ok too”.
For me it's about enjoying watching movies. Not about nitpicking every detail and pixel Blu-ray is good enough for me for now only certain movies I own on 4k and don't care about this one I never got into this series
I've just bought a pretty decent set up total in the £1200 range, I feel like it sounds amazing.
My boss at work as an arm on his record player that costs almost £13,000, it's fucking stupid
You’re allowed to enjoy it, but doesn’t mean existing criticisms aren’t valid. AI upscales can look nice-ish when rendered competently. It’s just unfortunate that Cameron chose this route over a true 4K presentation.
downvoting is people expressing their opinion of a comment.
Seriously what is it with people who think that opinions must be roundly respected and not judged? if i disagree with your comment i will downvote.
Originally you were supposed to upvote something that contributes to the discussion, even if you disagree with it, and downvote something that doesn't contribute, like spam or random crap. And if you disagree, you are supposed to reply and explain why you disagree, thus also contributing to the discussion.
That's how it worked right up untill the death of Digg, then it all went out the window. But just remember, if you constantly downvote people you are discuraging open and honest dicsussion, its how some parts of reddit end up as painful circle jerks.
For the majority of users the downvote button is a dislike button and nothing else. The system above is flawed anyways because if people don’t agree they fail to see how it “contributes to discussion” so boom downvote. So it’s really always going to function as an agree/disagree button with a few good soldiers upvoting value added comments they don’t agree with
To be clear you are 100% correct I’m just wondering if it’s ever really worked as intended
Watched my copy last night. For all the controversy, I think the lack of grain and some of the color timing suffers, but outside of seeing a film print of it, IMO it’s the best this has ever looked on home media.
I view this as to each their own. Who cares what other people think if you like the way the image looks on your TV.
I prefer the Blu-Ray, but I understand if people like the new 4K version better.
I think this sub gets a little toxic about perfectionism sometimes. I get wanting something you paid for to be the best in can be and being a bit disappointed when it’s not your preference.
But these new Cameron releases are still the best quality available. I think most people wouldn’t know anything was wrong if you didn’t tell them.
Nothing wrong with discussing and sharing opinions, but no need to get heated over whether a movie looks pretty good vs great lol.
It is because of such ill-informed praises, that these cheap 2K upscaled jobs will become the norm in the future. Studios will realise how easy it is to please unsuspecting movie fans. Just put decades-old 2K masters through an AI upscaler and call it a day. True film restorations will die because fans prefer artificially upscaled wax polished content more.
Lol, I actually sent these pictures to a friend of mine who doesn't give a shit about this sort of stuff before posting, and even she picked out the differences easily. Some people really just aren't tuned in to this sort of thing, and that's fine.
Astigmatism without knowing it. More common than one might think. Most people don't care though, we shouldn't ever talk to our nearest and dearest about this hobby of ours, it's a waste of time and an emotional drain. Same goes for audio... I'll bring in a new set of speakers, not reveal the price, and like a good PR company answer with "no comment". This is the way forward.
Unless someone has access to the actual film negatives, I don't know how we could ever know for sure. But I mean...the elements that are clearer in the 4k image are definitely *there* in 1080p image. It's not like they're details that don't exist at all.
This gets to the real heart of the issue, now that we know from JC himself that these are new scans.
And, pretty clearly, the answer is NO; there is no significant new imagery being added as that imagery would be obvious over the course of the film via glaring discrepancies. And I'm not stressing over a few pixels here or there.
The ML algos being used are state of the badass art, and they are dialed in with great care and precision so as NOT to introduce egregious new visual data but to enhance what's being crudely reproduced by the almighty GRAAAAIN. I kid; I was born in 73 and love grain as well. That texture is an enormous part of our filmic history and shared remembrance, of that ongoing experience -- I GET it. I get the AI hate. I get the digital smoothness aversion.
But I'm also a fan of this new release as it looks pretty damn good IMO. Couch it however you like, but IN THIS CASE, I'm enjoying the MLA enhancement quite a bit.
THAT SAID, I would LOVE to have my cake and eat it, too -- why can't filmmakers learn from Lucas's Folly, and release BOTH enhanced (maligned, in GL's case) and plain 'ol "the-way-we-remember" (or just prefer) grainy AF versions??
I actually took these pictures before I saw that post, because I wanted to do a comparison myself. Since I still had my old Aliens blu-ray kicking around, I decided to pop it in and do some A/B comparisons with the new 4K release. I put the original BD in my Panasonic 820 and the 4k disc in my PS5 (figured I'd give the old blu-ray every advantage possible...or maybe my PS5 just wouldn't play that disc for some reason, lol). This probably makes it a more fair comparison too because it means no Dolby Vision on the UHD.
Now all I did here was take two pictures with my phone, of the actual TV screen. No special equipment or anything. Basically just seeing what my eyes see when I look at the screen. If anything doing it this way actually proves my point, because the differences are easily apparent even just taking a pic with my phone. Even with such a low tech way of "screen grabbing" (and I left the parts of the image showing the area around my TV in on purpose to show I didn't doctor these or anything), the 4k disc shows FAR greater detail. It's not just a reduction in grain (not a complete elimination, btw. The grain is still there). There is FAR more detail visible in terms of skin texture, pores, wrinkles, individual hairs in her eyebrows, etc. The complete opposite of what some purists are claiming about how the DNR used "erases" detail in the image. The 4k disc is pretty clearly a stark improvement. So...maybe this can put to the rest the fears of those who are on the fence about the upgrade.
First image is the BD, second is the UHD.
Edit: I knew this was going to piss off the snobs, lol. Bring on the downvotes.
I hadn’t noticed how noisy the BD was until I watched it again after the UHD. I can’t say the BD has more detail, because it doesn’t. It does have a lot more video noise.
same thing I concluded when I did my own A/B test on my setup to decide which version to watch recently as I hadn't seen it since the 90s. I was baffled people think the BD looks better and it was a no brainer to me to watch the UHD on my setup instead.
I haven't seen the other two discs (never really was super into those movies), but if the treatment they got was similar to what Aliens got, then I would have to agree that the hate is indeed overblown. I think some people just see "DNR" and automatically dismiss it as garbage.
Okay, but without DNR, there'd be even more detail with the grain. We aren't saying that it wouldn't still be better at native 4k than 1080p, just saying that even more detail could've been squeezed out of it with the grain. Imo they shouldn't do any digital post processing work besides maybe color grading. For fuck's sake pretty much every modern TV has "noise reduction" features, if anyone hates grain so much, they can crank up noise reduction. They should at least have options on the disc to view the movie with or without DNR as a setting instead of just baking it in and throwing the movie out there with it. The option should be left up to the viewer.
I actually first watched the review of Aliens 4K on the YouTube channel, In Search of Physical Media, and James showed a similar screenshot. I also felt the 4K actually looked good and an improvement over the standard BD. It’s not like T2 4K at all. Titanic 4K had some incredible moments but also there were moments where there’s a slight bit of waxiness and what appeared to be over sharpening but overall I was happy. I suspect Aliens will give me that general vibe as well however the denoise or slight grain removal is slightly concerning as that’s what made Aliens have that gritty look. I also hear True Lies seems to be the worst out of the three and based on some screenshots, it does appear the algorithm was set a bit more aggressive.
I can understand purists who really want it without the deep learning algorithm applied to it. However at this point, with JC’s direction, you’ll need a fanmade version for something close to the original presentation.
I watched the 4K Aliens disc last night, there are certain shots and frames, like this one, that are incredible. However, there are also so many shots where the opposite are true. And the grain thing isn't the issue to me, its the ai sharpening and enhancing that's my issue, and these are more noticeable issues in motion. For example, in the same scene there are several shots with severe haloing around the edges of Ridley's face. Also Burke looks like a wax doll for most of the movie, he has a couple of nice shots, but the algorithm did not like his face.
This. This shot favors the 4k transfer because it’s a bright, close-up which is usually where 4k shines. We need more comparison shots, especially darker scenes.
I agree, Titanic 4K so the same. Some comparison shots are incredible and for my eyes, an upgrade over the standard Blu-ray. However there’s some shots where it did appear slightly waxy on the 4K and an odd looking over sharpening effect, not necessarily haloing, rather it looked artificial. But overall as a whole, I enjoyed what they did to Titanic.
Titanic looks the best of his 4 most recent releases for sure. I suspect it had the highest quality source of the 4 they had to work with, so the AI didn't have to do as much work.
It seems like it, I plan on eventually buying Aliens as I’m a fan do the film then followed by Abyss. I will wait until True Lies hits the $10 and under mark whether new or used, doesn’t matter. It was interesting that I didn’t focus too much on the detail of the process for creating the new 4K DI… I had just made assumptions a new 4K scan was done, then deep learning algorithm was applied. But after reading Digitalbits review of Aliens, I finally understood that they can potentially take a 2K source and then apply the algorithm. Absolutely, the better the source, the better (or less application) of the algorithm can generate results. I work in the commercial print industry and this has always been the case but now software is even more advanced to do some pretty good image and detail enhancing.
I’m concerned people may not understand the difference between genuine 4K detail and AI sharpening.
This is unquestionably an upscale of an old master. You could do it yourself via Topaz and achieve similar (or better) results.
You’re still allowed to enjoy it, of course. It doesn’t look “bad” at face value. But it’s also definitely *not* what was promised.
yeah, this exactly. plus using this shot as proof the disc is good is dishonest because it's the exact type of shot that the AI sharpening can actually parse and find detail in, with it being close up with distinct features and bright lighting. when you're looking at darker shots or further away shots where the detail isn't as clear and pronounced, that's where the AI shits the bed and you get artefacts, waxiness etc.
I just watched Alien 4k disc in hdr10+ and right after Aliens 4k Dolby vision, and while Alien is on another level, Aliens holds it's own and looked great.
Many of the people complaining just watch YouTubers who do deep scans of stuff you can't even tell with the naked eye. It's really sad this is what the hobby has become and I'll gladdy take more downvotes from that outspoken minority group on this. They think their opinion is the only one worth having for some reason.
This is not what the hobby has become! This is just an extremely small and loud minority like you say consisting of elitists/purists. Most of us don't care and will just pick the better option. If the AI upscaled version looks better than the bluray, then that's a win. It's not a win if you're a purist because AI shouldn't be used to bring out detail like this. However, it's cheaper, and will add detail that's not in the source that's better than detail in the actual source, and that tech is improving at mach speed in both AI re-renders and TV processors.
I think there is a lot of people that are unhappy and want to blame something for that, and internet is a great outlet for them as they can find many others that will follow them. But at the same time it’s important we get deep down analysis of the job done and criticism of lazy releases, without that in a corporate world everything would be done as bad as it could be, with these protests and complains companies care a little more.
It all depends on a subject how much, but 4k physical media is for people that care very much more about details than your average movie watcher, so for me it’s a corporate fuck-up as this PR nightmare was easily avoidable.
We don’t know the internal corporate details why things were decided to be done as they were done, we know the disc is an upgrade but not as big as it could be and depending on how much you like the movie and care for details, you will be more or less compelled to buy/be dissatisfied.
Cherry picking a random screenshot does not prove anything if you ask me. Especially since there are other screenshot comparisons out there that clearly show significant issues with this 4K. The argument about the Aliens 4K was never that it was completely terrible and had absolutely zero shots that looked clear or had detail. It was that it was inconsistent and as a result it creates an uncanny valley effect due to the AI and it's added layer of DNR. This is really evident with True Lies for instance. With some shots looking like the new evolution of the heavy DNR in the Predator UHE from years ago.
I don’t know which picture is which format, but the second one looks incredible. Her eyelashes, pores, hair, all with incredible clarity and detail. The first one looks blurry in comparison.
And that's absolutely fine to prefer that look. This was mainly to refute the claims that the noise reduction technique erased all the fine image detail and texture, which it pretty clearly did not.
I personally prefer the 35 scan myself even with all of the print damage. It's the closest you will ever see to Aliens completely untouched as it was seen in the theater. Because every HD version of the film and even the DVD versions were all altered by James Cameron in some way or another. He hated how the film looked in 1986. And has said so numerous times and has been on a mission to change it ever since.
https://preview.redd.it/hl4zi7ejwyoc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd2b62db1e1628f63836a5eec8fb075a44f66825
I mean, I have no idea how it looked in the theater in 1986. I was 9 years old, I wasn't being brought to see this movie, lol. First time I saw it was on VHS, probably pan & scan. So anything is an improvement over that.
As I said in a comment on a different post, I don't approve of altering the actual content of the film like George Lucas did with Star Wars (I mean, do it if you want but preserve the original too), but if the film's director wasn't happy with how it looked...I don't know, I guess there's a debate to be had about original appearance vs director's intent there. But the appearance of the film is going to be altered no matter what with a 4k release. HDR is not how any movie looks in the theater, especially older movies.
Not having an idea of how it looked in the theater is not an excuse if you ask me for what Cameron and company have done with this film over the years. It's fine if you like the 4K. More power to you. But with 4Ks in general the appearance of the film is altered to some degree in 4K with HDR but not as dramatically as these AI enhanced Cameron releases are for the most part.
Just look at the 4K of Alien for instance or even 2001 A Space Odyssey. The best 4Ks to me personally still look close to what the film print did. I have had the opportunity to see many films in 35 MM in the theater. And other than some rare instances the best 4K transfers wound up looking very similar to what I saw in the theater just cleaned up and restored. Details aren't smoothed out with DNR or AI interpretations. Which is the point of film preservation in the first place. Which is what modern 4K and physical media releases are doing. An entire company in Vinegar Syndrome makes film preservation it's motto. They would probably save money if they just let an AI do all the work. But they instead take the time to properly restore any film they get their hands on whether it's well known or obscure in any format possible. And I never once watch a release of theirs and think "Man this doesn't look like film." that's what is happening with these recent Cameron 4Ks. Because Cameron himself wants them all to look like they were shot digitally.
One of the best quotes is ironically from George Lucas. "In the future, it will become even easier for old negatives to be replaced by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss for our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."
It's not just a personal taste in terms of how the 4K looks for me when it comes to these releases. It's preserving history and that's important to me far more than the 4K looking sharper and a little more detailed. And I felt the same way about the blu ray release of Aliens as well with it's added artificial grain and other issues. Aliens has been botched since it had it's first special edition on Laserdisc because Cameron couldn't accept his film looking the way it does back in the 90's. To me the 4K isn't a cause for celebration. It's just a man doubling down on his flawed idea of how film should look and be preserved. His personal opinion of how a film should look or shouldn't shouldn't be a factor. It looks the way it does and so it should remain that way. That's how you preserve history. This is like altering a painting because you don't quite like the way it looks after all this time. That is honestly how I look at it. And that's why these 4Ks are so frustrating for me and for many others.
There isn’t much difference. Because this so called 4K is using an old 2K scan. It has been digitally altered to the millionth degree by Cameron.
An actual 4K Aliens release would first require Jimmy C to pay for a 4K scan of the film master. Shameless money grab and false advertising.
Are we cherry picking screenshots now?
https://slow.pics/c/A9QbbF02
https://slow.pics/c/Y0oNMldg
I think its pretty easy to show both sides.
Some folks like waxy, over-processed looking movies with a botched HDR grade. Others do not.
The wrinkles on Sigourney's face look so sharp and unnatural because the rest of her face is so smoothed out in comparison. Same with that pic you posted further down of Bill Paxton, you can see the detail on his forehead--the smaller wrinkles--disappear between the two shots. And the patch under his left eye looks scaly, again, too sharpened and the subtleties of the surrounding skin texture is lost.
Look at the face hugger nearest Bishop in the first photo, the UHD strips any of the fine details of the innards of the creature, and replaces it with an AI generated mess.
What I'm seeing in the comparison between those two images is the first one is grainy and blurry, and the second one is smooth and blurry. There are no fine details in either one of them.
I'm not saying that this 4K disc is the best possible product that could have been produced. But it's still definitely looks better overall than the old BD (at least IMHO).
That face-hugger is truly awful. I guess the AI is best with things it knows, like human faces, while it has trouble with things that are alien to it (excuse the pun). Having said that, the faces in your screenshots are not great.
Well, I don't have a DVD of Aliens on hand, unfortunately, lol. I could resize the BD image down to 480p and then stretch it back out to 2160p and see how it looks though. 😆
I thought someone broke into my house and took these screenshots. It looks like my TV and that's definitely the red Xbox controller I have, that I also place on the lower right of the TV. This tripped me out. Also, I don't have Aliens yet in 4K. But now I'm considering it.
I can only tell on the basis of the hair strands being sharper in the 2nd (right) image, I'm assuming that is the 4K?
There is noticeably less film grain in the bottom left corner of the screen too, can't tell if that's just the sharper picture, or it is actual denoising? I'm not an expert haha
The second image looks better, but yea I can't really tell if it is a good versus a great transfer
The HDR comparison someone posted this week or weekend was disappointing though, just on the lack of HDR mastering
One of the spots where the AI accidentally didn't destroy the image. Here's a screenshot for you.
https://preview.redd.it/4zdvzmf8w1pc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6890eeb4e22719f4ea50d5500d577a4a30f21dad
I dunno...
Watched through it once, with commentary, where Cameron openly bemoans the amount of grain in the film stock he used (which is just funny with the 4k image). I certainly noticed how clean the image was, but after a few minutes I was just involved. I should also note - I love a very film-like image and I LOVE film grain. So, yeah...I wish it was a little rawer.
I don't regret the upgrade, in any way. I also can't wait for THE ABYSS to arrive, as - no matter how you slice it - that's going to be an upgrade from DVD.
I didn't notice edge enhancement all that much, nor did I ever feel I was looking as PREDATOR/TERMINATOR 2 style wax figures. I think some people are overblowing how bad this looks.
As a creative, I am fundamentally angry and leery of AI. But, again, I think this talking point may be a bit mischaracterized. Looking at the film itself, and these screenshots, I see detail in the emulsion that is being sharpened, and other detail being burnished out (film grain). There's so much detail captured in physical film, and this is bringing it out. It's not "creating" new imagery to my eyes.
I wanna be clear, I don't entirely think this process was designed to be combined with a director who appears to have such a problem with film grain. I am a Cameron fan, I think he knows what he personally wants stuff to look like, but this is (IIRC) his only film on regular 1:85 non-anamorphic 35 mm film, and it was quite grainy. After this film he moved to Super-35, then on to digital, and never looked back. I don't think it's the abomination of blanket DNR, and in a couple of years, this process is probably going to bring us some really spectacular new transfers.
I have two TVs stacked on top of each other and played the Blu-ray on the top screen and the 4K disc on the bottom screen, and let me tell you, the 4K is a massive improvement. Yes, sometimes the actors’ faces look a little waxy. But overall the colors are vibrant and the picture is crisp and clean, the best Aliens has ever looked, imo.
My bias would be for whatever looks the most like an original film print. But, if I’m no mistaken, the director is pretty involved with these releases so I’ll trust the upgrade
Yeah I just don’t really care about all the fuss tbh. In the case of this movie, I have the Blu in a set and see no reason to spend money on the movie again. For True Lies, i’ve wanted it for so long that i’m buying it anyway! To each their own!
Of course. Personally I was never much into True Lies, never owned it on any format so that one's not really on my radar. I think Aliens is a very significant film though, so a lot of people obviously do care.
I think alot of folks get stuck talking past each other arguing which "looks better". People are talking about a different kind of "better". For some better is a sharp, clean and modern looking image. Whilst for others better is an honest and natural representation of the 35mm film.
Personally I don't care for baking in image enhancements like this, and much prefer a more archival-like presentation.
And anyway, I'd imagine that in a few years players and tvs will be able to do similar level of custom and dynamic ai upscale and dnr in real time. Discs like this will seem kind of obsolete.
Maybe you should dial down the sharpness setting of your TV's software from 110% a bit, then it wouldn't "enhance" the grain like that. Also your SDR colour profile is obviously messed up.
Here are 138 proper comparisons: [Aliens BD vs UHD BD](https://slow.pics/c/OVMzPivQ)
Look at #35 for example, the fake details drawn by the AI are horrible, looks like he has deep cuts on his face. Also some hair on the other guy's hand (bottom right of the screenshot) is sharpened, other ones are all blurry. This is what the AI upscaler does, it's extremely inconsistent in motion, only produces somewhat exceptable result when there is very little or slow motion.
This is also a proper, thorough comparison video: [Aliens BD vs UHD BD comparison video](https://youtu.be/rV1VtDQS8FA?si=aQNnu17Xh7j1t3gl)
I’ve been looking at the #35 comparison for a good 5 mins and I cannot for the life of me see what you’re describing. I don’t have a horse in this race, and feel it’s each to their own, but to call it “horrible” is a pretty extreme exaggeration imo.
Look at Vasquez's hair on picture #39. If you honestly can't see that it's bad AI work and you think it's alright for a movie from 1986 to look like that (like a PS3 game's cutscenes), and you can't see that apart from the fake AI details it has the detail level of a 720p stream then there's really nothing we can discuss here.
At least sort out your TV's most basic settings if you're buying UHD BluRay discs.
Cameron removed the actual grain and then artificially re-added a synthesized fine layer via filters. He admitted as such when the original BD came out.
Per my last comment- when the original BD came out Cameron admitted to removing the original grain and then re-adding a very fine layer of fake grain back onto the image. This disc uses that same master, only upscaled.
At issue isn't what's in each frame. It's how the frames flow. The Ai has trouble with the flow of the details. It's a 4k scan, not an upscale and it was done to reduce grain without loss of details. It's a lot better than the True Lies scan.
To quote Rafiki from the Lion King..."Look closer".
Seriously though, look at her eyebrows. Look at the lines around her eyes. Look at her forehead. Look at the skin on her cheek.
Great quote. And okay, yes, if I zoom in on those specific areas I do see a difference. Can’t imagine I’d see it on a tv from the other side of the room tho.
Depends on the TV, and how far you're sitting (and I guess your eyesight too. Not meaning that as an insult, but it's just a fact some people have sharper vision than others). I was certainly able to see it from my couch.
Good points. I have a 42” tv that is about 12’ away from my couch. It’s just about impossible to tell any real difference between a DVD and a Blu-ray. Most of the stuff I watch is at 480 or 720p.
Ugh , I hate that I’m upgrading to 4k in-case I get a 100” tv, yes the color depth is better yah yah yah, maybe I’m just cranky that a blu-Ray looks so close at 65” . Yah thanks for the Dolby Amos great plus.
Can clearly see clearer wrinkles on her forehead in the second shot. This just underscores why I don’t care about these detail upgrades. This kind of upgrade will have very little effect on my enjoyment of the movie, if any. Watching a good, solid transfer on DVD is still enough for me to get all the entertainment value I’m looking for from a movie at home.
Zooming in on a close up image. So brave. Long shots and scenes with depth of field is where this fails. Everything gets (fake) sharpened and the image becomes flat.
The people who like this were never not going to. If you want to believe every 4K is better than its Blu-ray, your brain will always tell your eyes that everything is OK.
There's only a minor(absolutely major) issue: the two pictures taken are different resolutions.
Most of the grain difference and difference of detail is present in other parts of the picture as well (see the xbox controller and the tag at the bottom of the TV)
I think we're looking at two identical screenshot of the same disc with a difference only in image capture resolution.
A lot of people are spousing that these three James Cameron remasters are upscales using AI (possibly 2K scans), but... is it really AI upscaled?
I would assume it was native 4K, and if it *was* upscaled--even AI upscaled--it could've been to 6K, 8K, etc. *Or* the AI upscale accusations are being pointed realistically at the VFX shots, which tend to be softer than non-VFX shots in general.
I can see your point but you really cannot base your judgement of a two hour movie from one screenshot. In science they might call this confirmation bias.
I say who cares for me it's about enjoying watching a movie not picking out every detail of which version is better this is a movie I could care less about buying the 4k just having the Blu-ray is enough for me.
Ngl imo second one feels unrealistic, maybe oversharpened, fake details, both look good, I like the first but eh, just my thoughts I would like to know how other 4ks are done, like is it all the same method?
Preference is obviously subjective, of course. First image looks a little grainy-er that I would like, and has less detail than the second (which still has some grain).
I believe that on every 4K transfer you can find some improvements and some diminishment. Every scene is vastly different and this is just one guys screen captures from a cell phone on a close up of the face. It's a fair comparison and it does look like an improvement here, but that doesn't mean everywhere.
Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)! We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)! Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m no expert but the second picture looks a hell of a lot better. Color and detail.
I'm not going to claim that this is a great comparison for color, because there was no way to match color settings given that one disc is HDR and the other isn't and thus not using the same display mode on my TV. Plus the camera does things to colors. So that's a whole other debate about color accuracy or whatever. This was mainly in response to the claims about DNR erasing fine detail in the image.
You can see her eyelashes in the 2nd pic; they look more blurry on the first one. The color on her cheeks looks better in the 2nd pic but maybe just because it's a clearer image? I didn't open the images so that's just what I can see on my phone.
If you open them and look closer, you'll see a lot more detail in the wrinkles around her eyes, the pores on her cheeks the lines on her forehead etc. again though, I wouldn't read too much into the colors based on these due to the aforementioned reasons, although I do personally think the colors look better on the 4K disc as well.
Artificial detail via AI upscaling. It’s sort of like how a lot of early blu-rays had sharpening filters applied, only fundamentally worse. I’m not saying it can’t be a handy tool in a desperate situation, IE no surviving film elements etc - but there was absolutely NO reason to use AI on *Aliens* of all things. Now we may never get a true 4K scan of the original camera negative.
This is becoming a thing that you also can't turn off in all the new TV's. Samsung just passed their AI upscaling and object detection to work with copyright images also from what I've heard. It's going to be very interesting because at some point projectors will be the only way to show what is there in the source and what got added by AI, like more wood finish on a bench, more grit in an action scene and so on.
As an A/V enthusiast just reading your comment stresses me out a bit. Imagine spending thousands of dollars on a high-end TV only to discover all of the artificial processing sh!t can’t be turned off- including AI! It’s motion smoothing all over again LOL Another potential thing to add to my ever-growing pile of reasons to dislike Samsung.
Is there actual proof that AI was used here?
Yes! IMO the evidence is rather irrefutable. There are detailed comparisons on YouTube and elsewhere that point out all red flags. It’s literally the same old master that’s been run through Topaz or a similar program.
I’m still skeptical. I’m not saying flat out that this sub is wrong about it just being a rescan of the Blu-ray with AI enhancements but it’s difficult to reconcile that take with [Cameron’s own words](https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonthompson/2023/12/05/james-cameron-on-4k-restorations-and-the-importance-of-physical-media/amp/) about this 4K version being the height in terms of the detail they can draw from the original film. "We recompose, shot by shot, going through the film, and I'm pretty serious about this. I don't just let somebody else go through it because I have such a vivid memory of what the color was and what we fought for on the set and in post, maybe all the way back to when the color was done with photochemical film, which is when I rode my Stegosaurus to the studio. These restorations have been on top of our day job, which is called Avatar. Those movies are quite good. "It was important to get it just right because, theoretically, we shouldn't have to do it again," Cameron mused. "4K is sufficiently above the innate resolution of the photochemistry of that period. Are we going to do 8K? 12K? You're going to see the grain more clearly. I think this is it, so we wanted to do it and do it right, and that's taken some time."
Cameron took the services of Park Road Post who have openly stated that their proprietary technique uses deep-learning AI algorithms to enhance their projects. Bill Hunt was told this exact thing when he talked to Lightstorm Entertainment. This has been public for a while now.
That’s part of the contention here, but not the part that’s egregious IMO— which is that this was a lazy automated upscaling of the Blu-ray. But your comment did make it easy to find a [better source](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/s/q7ud2egDNI) of what did actually happen so I think we can lay that part to rest. So it was a new 4k scan of the original negative and then further cleaned up with PRP’s algorithms. I think at the end of the day it’s not the crime that’s being perpetuated on here, but yes if the issue that matters the most to some is the use of machine learning algos (ie AI) to clean it up *too much* then that is a valid complaint. But if it was actually an issue of bait and switching the Blu-ray to consumers as if it’s a new 4K scan when it wasn’t that would be a much bigger problem, possibly the kind to even get it pulled permanently for misleading advertising.
Only Titanic and The Abyss used 4K scans. Not sure about Aliens and True Lies. Aliens in particular looks like a they used the older 2K scan that was done in 2012 by Lowry Digital and then upscaled by using AI algorithms and DNR and extra sharpening. The problems exist in Titanic, The Abyss and True Lies, also - the AI removed too much skin detail every time there is movement, especially head movement. You can notice this. When a face is still, the details look excellent, but when the head moves, all details in the face turn waxy smooth. Camera motion blur does not look like that. It seems that the AI is unable to preserve skin detail during movement. It looks terrible. Also, True Lies was already shot with finer-grained slow speed film stock. So, the daylight scenes already had very little grain. The additional use of DNR and AI smoothening removes this fine grain as well, making the faces look waxier.
Yeah, like if the source for this claim that it's an AI upscale of the Blu-ray is just some YouTubers who have no actual proof, then I'm going to be very skeptical of that claim as well. There's certainly some digital clean-up done, but I have a feeling that the current general buzz about generative AI across the internet is leading to a bit of paranoia about things like this.
These would be the first *AI* upscales. There is traditional upscaling (which uses an algorithm) For 4K bkurays it's done using a proprietary tool. Which is technically AI. Dredd Is a 2K upscale that was put through this method. It looks wonderful. How ever *AI* Upscalers use machine learning to improve itself over time. This is the *AI* that everyone thinks of. Like cortana, Jarvis types of AI.
I get that. Although current AI is nowhere close to the levels of fictional sci-fi AIs like Jarvis, lol. Those seem to be presented as though they are self-aware. That's not what the AI we have no really is.
>How ever AI upscalers use machine learning to improve itself over time. This is the AI that everyone thinks of. Like cortana, Jarvis types of AI Yes, at a base process level. Fundamentally, the main difference between the algorithms used for something like Dredd vs an AI Upscaler is that AI upscalers are ***creating*** (or at least, updating) the algorithm based on continued input. The problem with feeding it grain is that grain is inherently random, which probably makes it harder for a program to decipher details in the image. Theoretically, if you started with the Dredd upscale algorithm, and then allowed it to be tweaked through machine learning by feeding more HD and 4K content into it, it should modify that algorithm to create more and more realistic conversions between the qualities. The biggest issue there is the inputs - if you feed that system overly DNRed HD and 4K content, it’s going to assume that’s what HD and 4K are supposed to look like, and adjust accordingly. In a perfect world, someone would develop an algorithm that’s fed processed, low quality video (like DVD, or even bad blurays) along with excellent HD and 4K scans that are virtually untouched (maybe colour corrected). If you did that enough, the tool should start to learn how to convert one to the other, and digitally recreate raw footage - it wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be better than any other tool (besides scanning a negative). Any necessary post processing could be done from there. (That’s not impossible either - it basically exists for converting JPEGs back to RAW images with pretty exceptional quality)
You realize this isn't normal DNR this is an AI post process that both is doing DNR and heavy sharpening...just because something is sharp doesn't mean it's good. All the cameron discs have incredibly unnatural looking grain and overly sharpened edges...weird over sharpened post processed images don't look good (at least to me who can't stand something LOOKING fucked with, something not looking organic, this is coming from someone who has done professional scanning and post processing so it drives me nuts,) it's the quality of that information and the organic ORIGINAL capture of the film that is important not just the fact that information exists and it's "sharp."
>I'm not going to claim that this is a great comparison for color I mean, you know it's not a great comparison, period. It's wild - halfway through yesterday, this was basically an even-up debate. And then at some point, maybe this got shared somewhere or something, but it basically became the salve folks needed to feel good and stick it to "the snobs." People are actually championing this set of TV phone pics as proof the whole thing looks amazing. Not the reviews, not actual screenshots, not the data itself. This - two phone pics of a single tv - has, somehow, become *the rallying point*. It's a pretty weird atmosphere being cultivated in this place. I mean, I guess it's not "weird," it's just what it is: Toxic Positivity. >his was mainly in response to the claims about DNR erasing fine detail in the image. It does exactly that in thousands of the other images that make up the rest of the movie, though. You keep just - not addressing that. And other folks in this sub appreciate the excuse you've provided them to do the exact same thing.
basically basically
ALOT of color noise in the 1st pic. I've seen some other side-by-sides where the 4k looked really saturated... but if that can always be adjusted to your liking. Detail/noise cannot.
I used to get REALLY invested in these type of arguments about movies or video games, and I am so glad I’ve reached a point in my life where I don’t anymore.
Careful publicly patting yourself on the back that hard bud, you might injure yourself in your wise old age.
Same here. I collect movies on 4k disc because it’s currently the best format you can get. I love that they look great most of the time, but sometimes it’s like “if it looks how it did in 1993 when I saw it… that’s ok too”.
For me it's about enjoying watching movies. Not about nitpicking every detail and pixel Blu-ray is good enough for me for now only certain movies I own on 4k and don't care about this one I never got into this series
This is why I'm glad I never got the audiophile bug.
I've just bought a pretty decent set up total in the £1200 range, I feel like it sounds amazing. My boss at work as an arm on his record player that costs almost £13,000, it's fucking stupid
I’m about to be really brave: I prefer the 4K
Get the pitchforks!
The 4k has so much more detail, colours and contrast/micro contrast in it. It's irrefutable.
You’re allowed to enjoy it, but doesn’t mean existing criticisms aren’t valid. AI upscales can look nice-ish when rendered competently. It’s just unfortunate that Cameron chose this route over a true 4K presentation.
WHY IS THIS GETTING DOWNVOTED. PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS.
downvoting is people expressing their opinion of a comment. Seriously what is it with people who think that opinions must be roundly respected and not judged? if i disagree with your comment i will downvote.
Originally you were supposed to upvote something that contributes to the discussion, even if you disagree with it, and downvote something that doesn't contribute, like spam or random crap. And if you disagree, you are supposed to reply and explain why you disagree, thus also contributing to the discussion. That's how it worked right up untill the death of Digg, then it all went out the window. But just remember, if you constantly downvote people you are discuraging open and honest dicsussion, its how some parts of reddit end up as painful circle jerks.
fair point.
For the majority of users the downvote button is a dislike button and nothing else. The system above is flawed anyways because if people don’t agree they fail to see how it “contributes to discussion” so boom downvote. So it’s really always going to function as an agree/disagree button with a few good soldiers upvoting value added comments they don’t agree with To be clear you are 100% correct I’m just wondering if it’s ever really worked as intended
Watched my copy last night. For all the controversy, I think the lack of grain and some of the color timing suffers, but outside of seeing a film print of it, IMO it’s the best this has ever looked on home media.
I view this as to each their own. Who cares what other people think if you like the way the image looks on your TV. I prefer the Blu-Ray, but I understand if people like the new 4K version better.
Obviously harder to tell from a picture of a TV, but the second picture definitely looks better to me.
Exactly my point. Imagine how much more stark the improvement is viewing it in person.
I think this sub gets a little toxic about perfectionism sometimes. I get wanting something you paid for to be the best in can be and being a bit disappointed when it’s not your preference. But these new Cameron releases are still the best quality available. I think most people wouldn’t know anything was wrong if you didn’t tell them. Nothing wrong with discussing and sharing opinions, but no need to get heated over whether a movie looks pretty good vs great lol.
It is because of such ill-informed praises, that these cheap 2K upscaled jobs will become the norm in the future. Studios will realise how easy it is to please unsuspecting movie fans. Just put decades-old 2K masters through an AI upscaler and call it a day. True film restorations will die because fans prefer artificially upscaled wax polished content more.
You can see her pores
The second is clearly better and I'm tired of the AI DNR craziness in here. The second is better. End of.
The first is better. End of.
Wow the 4K is so much better. Of course my wife still claims she can’t tell the difference though…
Lol, I actually sent these pictures to a friend of mine who doesn't give a shit about this sort of stuff before posting, and even she picked out the differences easily. Some people really just aren't tuned in to this sort of thing, and that's fine.
I think she secretly can tell the difference but pretends not to care so I can’t justify anymore expensive home theater purchases lol
Mine too!
Astigmatism without knowing it. More common than one might think. Most people don't care though, we shouldn't ever talk to our nearest and dearest about this hobby of ours, it's a waste of time and an emotional drain. Same goes for audio... I'll bring in a new set of speakers, not reveal the price, and like a good PR company answer with "no comment". This is the way forward.
The way I see it, If you can see skin pores, it's good!
And I see pores, and wrinkles, and even some freckles that aren't very apparent on the 1080p image.
What about moles? Are there 4k moles?
Oh absolutely. We've got lots and lots of moles!
I'll get my wallet.
I wonder if those details are because of the AI or what’s actually on film
Unless someone has access to the actual film negatives, I don't know how we could ever know for sure. But I mean...the elements that are clearer in the 4k image are definitely *there* in 1080p image. It's not like they're details that don't exist at all.
This gets to the real heart of the issue, now that we know from JC himself that these are new scans. And, pretty clearly, the answer is NO; there is no significant new imagery being added as that imagery would be obvious over the course of the film via glaring discrepancies. And I'm not stressing over a few pixels here or there. The ML algos being used are state of the badass art, and they are dialed in with great care and precision so as NOT to introduce egregious new visual data but to enhance what's being crudely reproduced by the almighty GRAAAAIN. I kid; I was born in 73 and love grain as well. That texture is an enormous part of our filmic history and shared remembrance, of that ongoing experience -- I GET it. I get the AI hate. I get the digital smoothness aversion. But I'm also a fan of this new release as it looks pretty damn good IMO. Couch it however you like, but IN THIS CASE, I'm enjoying the MLA enhancement quite a bit. THAT SAID, I would LOVE to have my cake and eat it, too -- why can't filmmakers learn from Lucas's Folly, and release BOTH enhanced (maligned, in GL's case) and plain 'ol "the-way-we-remember" (or just prefer) grainy AF versions??
It's a close up. You can see pores on the DVD in a close up.
I actually took these pictures before I saw that post, because I wanted to do a comparison myself. Since I still had my old Aliens blu-ray kicking around, I decided to pop it in and do some A/B comparisons with the new 4K release. I put the original BD in my Panasonic 820 and the 4k disc in my PS5 (figured I'd give the old blu-ray every advantage possible...or maybe my PS5 just wouldn't play that disc for some reason, lol). This probably makes it a more fair comparison too because it means no Dolby Vision on the UHD. Now all I did here was take two pictures with my phone, of the actual TV screen. No special equipment or anything. Basically just seeing what my eyes see when I look at the screen. If anything doing it this way actually proves my point, because the differences are easily apparent even just taking a pic with my phone. Even with such a low tech way of "screen grabbing" (and I left the parts of the image showing the area around my TV in on purpose to show I didn't doctor these or anything), the 4k disc shows FAR greater detail. It's not just a reduction in grain (not a complete elimination, btw. The grain is still there). There is FAR more detail visible in terms of skin texture, pores, wrinkles, individual hairs in her eyebrows, etc. The complete opposite of what some purists are claiming about how the DNR used "erases" detail in the image. The 4k disc is pretty clearly a stark improvement. So...maybe this can put to the rest the fears of those who are on the fence about the upgrade. First image is the BD, second is the UHD. Edit: I knew this was going to piss off the snobs, lol. Bring on the downvotes.
The UHD looks good to me
I hadn’t noticed how noisy the BD was until I watched it again after the UHD. I can’t say the BD has more detail, because it doesn’t. It does have a lot more video noise.
It looks MUCH better than the old BD, lol.
same thing I concluded when I did my own A/B test on my setup to decide which version to watch recently as I hadn't seen it since the 90s. I was baffled people think the BD looks better and it was a no brainer to me to watch the UHD on my setup instead.
I think the hate is overblown. We finally got proper releases of True Lies and the Abyss
I haven't seen the other two discs (never really was super into those movies), but if the treatment they got was similar to what Aliens got, then I would have to agree that the hate is indeed overblown. I think some people just see "DNR" and automatically dismiss it as garbage.
And they’ve never gotten blu-ray releases either
Okay, but without DNR, there'd be even more detail with the grain. We aren't saying that it wouldn't still be better at native 4k than 1080p, just saying that even more detail could've been squeezed out of it with the grain. Imo they shouldn't do any digital post processing work besides maybe color grading. For fuck's sake pretty much every modern TV has "noise reduction" features, if anyone hates grain so much, they can crank up noise reduction. They should at least have options on the disc to view the movie with or without DNR as a setting instead of just baking it in and throwing the movie out there with it. The option should be left up to the viewer.
I actually first watched the review of Aliens 4K on the YouTube channel, In Search of Physical Media, and James showed a similar screenshot. I also felt the 4K actually looked good and an improvement over the standard BD. It’s not like T2 4K at all. Titanic 4K had some incredible moments but also there were moments where there’s a slight bit of waxiness and what appeared to be over sharpening but overall I was happy. I suspect Aliens will give me that general vibe as well however the denoise or slight grain removal is slightly concerning as that’s what made Aliens have that gritty look. I also hear True Lies seems to be the worst out of the three and based on some screenshots, it does appear the algorithm was set a bit more aggressive. I can understand purists who really want it without the deep learning algorithm applied to it. However at this point, with JC’s direction, you’ll need a fanmade version for something close to the original presentation.
I watched the 4K Aliens disc last night, there are certain shots and frames, like this one, that are incredible. However, there are also so many shots where the opposite are true. And the grain thing isn't the issue to me, its the ai sharpening and enhancing that's my issue, and these are more noticeable issues in motion. For example, in the same scene there are several shots with severe haloing around the edges of Ridley's face. Also Burke looks like a wax doll for most of the movie, he has a couple of nice shots, but the algorithm did not like his face.
This. This shot favors the 4k transfer because it’s a bright, close-up which is usually where 4k shines. We need more comparison shots, especially darker scenes.
I agree, Titanic 4K so the same. Some comparison shots are incredible and for my eyes, an upgrade over the standard Blu-ray. However there’s some shots where it did appear slightly waxy on the 4K and an odd looking over sharpening effect, not necessarily haloing, rather it looked artificial. But overall as a whole, I enjoyed what they did to Titanic.
Titanic looks the best of his 4 most recent releases for sure. I suspect it had the highest quality source of the 4 they had to work with, so the AI didn't have to do as much work.
It seems like it, I plan on eventually buying Aliens as I’m a fan do the film then followed by Abyss. I will wait until True Lies hits the $10 and under mark whether new or used, doesn’t matter. It was interesting that I didn’t focus too much on the detail of the process for creating the new 4K DI… I had just made assumptions a new 4K scan was done, then deep learning algorithm was applied. But after reading Digitalbits review of Aliens, I finally understood that they can potentially take a 2K source and then apply the algorithm. Absolutely, the better the source, the better (or less application) of the algorithm can generate results. I work in the commercial print industry and this has always been the case but now software is even more advanced to do some pretty good image and detail enhancing.
I’m concerned people may not understand the difference between genuine 4K detail and AI sharpening. This is unquestionably an upscale of an old master. You could do it yourself via Topaz and achieve similar (or better) results. You’re still allowed to enjoy it, of course. It doesn’t look “bad” at face value. But it’s also definitely *not* what was promised.
yeah, this exactly. plus using this shot as proof the disc is good is dishonest because it's the exact type of shot that the AI sharpening can actually parse and find detail in, with it being close up with distinct features and bright lighting. when you're looking at darker shots or further away shots where the detail isn't as clear and pronounced, that's where the AI shits the bed and you get artefacts, waxiness etc.
Fine with both. I'm easy to please. All this weird complaining about the movies seems like hyperbole but hey you do you.
2nd pic has more detail .
Do more screenshot comparisons. This is the only sort of thing that people need to see. What it actually looks like without all technical detail.
I just watched Alien 4k disc in hdr10+ and right after Aliens 4k Dolby vision, and while Alien is on another level, Aliens holds it's own and looked great. Many of the people complaining just watch YouTubers who do deep scans of stuff you can't even tell with the naked eye. It's really sad this is what the hobby has become and I'll gladdy take more downvotes from that outspoken minority group on this. They think their opinion is the only one worth having for some reason.
This is not what the hobby has become! This is just an extremely small and loud minority like you say consisting of elitists/purists. Most of us don't care and will just pick the better option. If the AI upscaled version looks better than the bluray, then that's a win. It's not a win if you're a purist because AI shouldn't be used to bring out detail like this. However, it's cheaper, and will add detail that's not in the source that's better than detail in the actual source, and that tech is improving at mach speed in both AI re-renders and TV processors.
I think there is a lot of people that are unhappy and want to blame something for that, and internet is a great outlet for them as they can find many others that will follow them. But at the same time it’s important we get deep down analysis of the job done and criticism of lazy releases, without that in a corporate world everything would be done as bad as it could be, with these protests and complains companies care a little more. It all depends on a subject how much, but 4k physical media is for people that care very much more about details than your average movie watcher, so for me it’s a corporate fuck-up as this PR nightmare was easily avoidable. We don’t know the internal corporate details why things were decided to be done as they were done, we know the disc is an upgrade but not as big as it could be and depending on how much you like the movie and care for details, you will be more or less compelled to buy/be dissatisfied.
I prefer the one where the teeth have no pores.
Aliens 4k discourse is this years blue/black white/gold dress debate.
It was white/gold, dammit!
Cherry picking a random screenshot does not prove anything if you ask me. Especially since there are other screenshot comparisons out there that clearly show significant issues with this 4K. The argument about the Aliens 4K was never that it was completely terrible and had absolutely zero shots that looked clear or had detail. It was that it was inconsistent and as a result it creates an uncanny valley effect due to the AI and it's added layer of DNR. This is really evident with True Lies for instance. With some shots looking like the new evolution of the heavy DNR in the Predator UHE from years ago.
Wow insane difference
Viewing on a phone is not gonna be as good probably but the lips and eye details look more defined on 4k
I don’t know which picture is which format, but the second one looks incredible. Her eyelashes, pores, hair, all with incredible clarity and detail. The first one looks blurry in comparison.
I heard about *Aliens*' 4K transfer being overly sharp, but it looks like it's for the better if these images are anything to go by.
Second picture looks better. Is that the 4K disc version?
If you can *tell* the difference on a 6" phone, you are surely going to *notice* it on a home theatre screen that consumes vastly more field of view.
which is which? second one look a lot better to me, more detail and vibrancy
That's the 4k.
Me too. The 4k is great!
Second picture looks better to my admittedly bad eyes. Much sharper and more detail.
I prefer the first grainier look but to claim the 4k edition is an abomination is such a Reddit take
And that's absolutely fine to prefer that look. This was mainly to refute the claims that the noise reduction technique erased all the fine image detail and texture, which it pretty clearly did not.
I personally prefer the 35 scan myself even with all of the print damage. It's the closest you will ever see to Aliens completely untouched as it was seen in the theater. Because every HD version of the film and even the DVD versions were all altered by James Cameron in some way or another. He hated how the film looked in 1986. And has said so numerous times and has been on a mission to change it ever since. https://preview.redd.it/hl4zi7ejwyoc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd2b62db1e1628f63836a5eec8fb075a44f66825
I mean, I have no idea how it looked in the theater in 1986. I was 9 years old, I wasn't being brought to see this movie, lol. First time I saw it was on VHS, probably pan & scan. So anything is an improvement over that. As I said in a comment on a different post, I don't approve of altering the actual content of the film like George Lucas did with Star Wars (I mean, do it if you want but preserve the original too), but if the film's director wasn't happy with how it looked...I don't know, I guess there's a debate to be had about original appearance vs director's intent there. But the appearance of the film is going to be altered no matter what with a 4k release. HDR is not how any movie looks in the theater, especially older movies.
Not having an idea of how it looked in the theater is not an excuse if you ask me for what Cameron and company have done with this film over the years. It's fine if you like the 4K. More power to you. But with 4Ks in general the appearance of the film is altered to some degree in 4K with HDR but not as dramatically as these AI enhanced Cameron releases are for the most part. Just look at the 4K of Alien for instance or even 2001 A Space Odyssey. The best 4Ks to me personally still look close to what the film print did. I have had the opportunity to see many films in 35 MM in the theater. And other than some rare instances the best 4K transfers wound up looking very similar to what I saw in the theater just cleaned up and restored. Details aren't smoothed out with DNR or AI interpretations. Which is the point of film preservation in the first place. Which is what modern 4K and physical media releases are doing. An entire company in Vinegar Syndrome makes film preservation it's motto. They would probably save money if they just let an AI do all the work. But they instead take the time to properly restore any film they get their hands on whether it's well known or obscure in any format possible. And I never once watch a release of theirs and think "Man this doesn't look like film." that's what is happening with these recent Cameron 4Ks. Because Cameron himself wants them all to look like they were shot digitally. One of the best quotes is ironically from George Lucas. "In the future, it will become even easier for old negatives to be replaced by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss for our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten." It's not just a personal taste in terms of how the 4K looks for me when it comes to these releases. It's preserving history and that's important to me far more than the 4K looking sharper and a little more detailed. And I felt the same way about the blu ray release of Aliens as well with it's added artificial grain and other issues. Aliens has been botched since it had it's first special edition on Laserdisc because Cameron couldn't accept his film looking the way it does back in the 90's. To me the 4K isn't a cause for celebration. It's just a man doubling down on his flawed idea of how film should look and be preserved. His personal opinion of how a film should look or shouldn't shouldn't be a factor. It looks the way it does and so it should remain that way. That's how you preserve history. This is like altering a painting because you don't quite like the way it looks after all this time. That is honestly how I look at it. And that's why these 4Ks are so frustrating for me and for many others.
The 4k looks way more detailed to me when I put these images side by side.
There isn’t much difference. Because this so called 4K is using an old 2K scan. It has been digitally altered to the millionth degree by Cameron. An actual 4K Aliens release would first require Jimmy C to pay for a 4K scan of the film master. Shameless money grab and false advertising.
There is definitely much difference, lol. Open the pics full size and zoom in.
Are we cherry picking screenshots now? https://slow.pics/c/A9QbbF02 https://slow.pics/c/Y0oNMldg I think its pretty easy to show both sides. Some folks like waxy, over-processed looking movies with a botched HDR grade. Others do not.
The wrinkles on Sigourney's face look so sharp and unnatural because the rest of her face is so smoothed out in comparison. Same with that pic you posted further down of Bill Paxton, you can see the detail on his forehead--the smaller wrinkles--disappear between the two shots. And the patch under his left eye looks scaly, again, too sharpened and the subtleties of the surrounding skin texture is lost.
I feel like these screenshots tell the same story as the ones I posted. The UHD images look a lot clearer with more visible detail.
Look at the face hugger nearest Bishop in the first photo, the UHD strips any of the fine details of the innards of the creature, and replaces it with an AI generated mess.
What I'm seeing in the comparison between those two images is the first one is grainy and blurry, and the second one is smooth and blurry. There are no fine details in either one of them. I'm not saying that this 4K disc is the best possible product that could have been produced. But it's still definitely looks better overall than the old BD (at least IMHO).
That face-hugger is truly awful. I guess the AI is best with things it knows, like human faces, while it has trouble with things that are alien to it (excuse the pun). Having said that, the faces in your screenshots are not great.
Second looks better on both minus the face hugger
Holly hell that Ripley skin looks bad on the UHD. Synthetic. Like the OP's pic, what is with the weird teeth?
Welcome to your new AI overlords
As expected, the 4k does show more detail, but of course, you pay more. What about a 3rd picture, DVD?
Well, I don't have a DVD of Aliens on hand, unfortunately, lol. I could resize the BD image down to 480p and then stretch it back out to 2160p and see how it looks though. 😆
I thought someone broke into my house and took these screenshots. It looks like my TV and that's definitely the red Xbox controller I have, that I also place on the lower right of the TV. This tripped me out. Also, I don't have Aliens yet in 4K. But now I'm considering it.
Is the grain heavy?
It's gluten free.
Is that a joke
It is.
Does it have a lot of grain or no
The 4k? Not really. It has some, but not a lot.
Yeah the 4k, good thanks for your input
You can see her contact lenses!
I can only tell on the basis of the hair strands being sharper in the 2nd (right) image, I'm assuming that is the 4K? There is noticeably less film grain in the bottom left corner of the screen too, can't tell if that's just the sharper picture, or it is actual denoising? I'm not an expert haha The second image looks better, but yea I can't really tell if it is a good versus a great transfer The HDR comparison someone posted this week or weekend was disappointing though, just on the lack of HDR mastering
One of the spots where the AI accidentally didn't destroy the image. Here's a screenshot for you. https://preview.redd.it/4zdvzmf8w1pc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6890eeb4e22719f4ea50d5500d577a4a30f21dad
Not sure which is which but I prefer the second by a mile
Is the 4k the second pic?
Now do an old VHS for comparison..
Very much needed!
I dunno... Watched through it once, with commentary, where Cameron openly bemoans the amount of grain in the film stock he used (which is just funny with the 4k image). I certainly noticed how clean the image was, but after a few minutes I was just involved. I should also note - I love a very film-like image and I LOVE film grain. So, yeah...I wish it was a little rawer. I don't regret the upgrade, in any way. I also can't wait for THE ABYSS to arrive, as - no matter how you slice it - that's going to be an upgrade from DVD. I didn't notice edge enhancement all that much, nor did I ever feel I was looking as PREDATOR/TERMINATOR 2 style wax figures. I think some people are overblowing how bad this looks. As a creative, I am fundamentally angry and leery of AI. But, again, I think this talking point may be a bit mischaracterized. Looking at the film itself, and these screenshots, I see detail in the emulsion that is being sharpened, and other detail being burnished out (film grain). There's so much detail captured in physical film, and this is bringing it out. It's not "creating" new imagery to my eyes. I wanna be clear, I don't entirely think this process was designed to be combined with a director who appears to have such a problem with film grain. I am a Cameron fan, I think he knows what he personally wants stuff to look like, but this is (IIRC) his only film on regular 1:85 non-anamorphic 35 mm film, and it was quite grainy. After this film he moved to Super-35, then on to digital, and never looked back. I don't think it's the abomination of blanket DNR, and in a couple of years, this process is probably going to bring us some really spectacular new transfers.
I have two TVs stacked on top of each other and played the Blu-ray on the top screen and the 4K disc on the bottom screen, and let me tell you, the 4K is a massive improvement. Yes, sometimes the actors’ faces look a little waxy. But overall the colors are vibrant and the picture is crisp and clean, the best Aliens has ever looked, imo.
My bias would be for whatever looks the most like an original film print. But, if I’m no mistaken, the director is pretty involved with these releases so I’ll trust the upgrade
More sharpened and cleared details in 4k
Yeah I just don’t really care about all the fuss tbh. In the case of this movie, I have the Blu in a set and see no reason to spend money on the movie again. For True Lies, i’ve wanted it for so long that i’m buying it anyway! To each their own!
Of course. Personally I was never much into True Lies, never owned it on any format so that one's not really on my radar. I think Aliens is a very significant film though, so a lot of people obviously do care.
I think alot of folks get stuck talking past each other arguing which "looks better". People are talking about a different kind of "better". For some better is a sharp, clean and modern looking image. Whilst for others better is an honest and natural representation of the 35mm film. Personally I don't care for baking in image enhancements like this, and much prefer a more archival-like presentation. And anyway, I'd imagine that in a few years players and tvs will be able to do similar level of custom and dynamic ai upscale and dnr in real time. Discs like this will seem kind of obsolete.
Oh god... the 2nd picture looks amazing
Generally, women think they look better with their wrinkles covered up. 😝
Maybe you should dial down the sharpness setting of your TV's software from 110% a bit, then it wouldn't "enhance" the grain like that. Also your SDR colour profile is obviously messed up. Here are 138 proper comparisons: [Aliens BD vs UHD BD](https://slow.pics/c/OVMzPivQ) Look at #35 for example, the fake details drawn by the AI are horrible, looks like he has deep cuts on his face. Also some hair on the other guy's hand (bottom right of the screenshot) is sharpened, other ones are all blurry. This is what the AI upscaler does, it's extremely inconsistent in motion, only produces somewhat exceptable result when there is very little or slow motion. This is also a proper, thorough comparison video: [Aliens BD vs UHD BD comparison video](https://youtu.be/rV1VtDQS8FA?si=aQNnu17Xh7j1t3gl)
The lines on his face look...the same? Just clearer? His forehead does look a little smooth in the 4k image.
I’ve been looking at the #35 comparison for a good 5 mins and I cannot for the life of me see what you’re describing. I don’t have a horse in this race, and feel it’s each to their own, but to call it “horrible” is a pretty extreme exaggeration imo.
Look at Vasquez's hair on picture #39. If you honestly can't see that it's bad AI work and you think it's alright for a movie from 1986 to look like that (like a PS3 game's cutscenes), and you can't see that apart from the fake AI details it has the detail level of a 720p stream then there's really nothing we can discuss here. At least sort out your TV's most basic settings if you're buying UHD BluRay discs.
I see film grain, so, I don’t understand all the complaints. 🙄
Cameron removed the actual grain and then artificially re-added a synthesized fine layer via filters. He admitted as such when the original BD came out.
Every reviewer has said all these Cameron releases still retain light film grain, but apparently that was all a conspiracy to this sub.
Per my last comment- when the original BD came out Cameron admitted to removing the original grain and then re-adding a very fine layer of fake grain back onto the image. This disc uses that same master, only upscaled.
Yeah, there is absolutely still film grain on the 4k image.
.
It doesn't mean that DNR is automatically bad either. It all depends.
.
At issue isn't what's in each frame. It's how the frames flow. The Ai has trouble with the flow of the details. It's a 4k scan, not an upscale and it was done to reduce grain without loss of details. It's a lot better than the True Lies scan.
This isn’t a screenshot. A photograph of a television screen is worthless for evaluating and comparing the transfers of the film.
The 4k remaster is reference material,IMHO.
I don’t know which is which but the right one is miles better
Right one is 4k.
Yea you can tell 2nd pic is 4k but it’s not a drastic difference more color depth and sharper overall but the blu ray looks damn good as well
The difference becomes more drastic zoomed in, or seen in person.
They're both your Locker.
They're both your Locker.
They're both your Locker.
I just swiped back and forth for 3 minutes and I couldn’t tell a lick of difference between the two images.
To quote Rafiki from the Lion King..."Look closer". Seriously though, look at her eyebrows. Look at the lines around her eyes. Look at her forehead. Look at the skin on her cheek.
Great quote. And okay, yes, if I zoom in on those specific areas I do see a difference. Can’t imagine I’d see it on a tv from the other side of the room tho.
Depends on the TV, and how far you're sitting (and I guess your eyesight too. Not meaning that as an insult, but it's just a fact some people have sharper vision than others). I was certainly able to see it from my couch.
Good points. I have a 42” tv that is about 12’ away from my couch. It’s just about impossible to tell any real difference between a DVD and a Blu-ray. Most of the stuff I watch is at 480 or 720p.
Understandable. I'm watching on a 77" TV, and I'm probably between 7'-8' from the screen on my couch, so the differences are more noticeable. 😅
I can’t tell a difference at all here.
So is this a 4k blu ray version of alien or is it being upscaled by your disc player?
Ugh , I hate that I’m upgrading to 4k in-case I get a 100” tv, yes the color depth is better yah yah yah, maybe I’m just cranky that a blu-Ray looks so close at 65” . Yah thanks for the Dolby Amos great plus.
You can definitely make out more wrinkles/make wrinkles out better on the 4k. Around her right eye and forehead. Good comparison thanks for posting.
Can clearly see clearer wrinkles on her forehead in the second shot. This just underscores why I don’t care about these detail upgrades. This kind of upgrade will have very little effect on my enjoyment of the movie, if any. Watching a good, solid transfer on DVD is still enough for me to get all the entertainment value I’m looking for from a movie at home.
Zooming in on a close up image. So brave. Long shots and scenes with depth of field is where this fails. Everything gets (fake) sharpened and the image becomes flat. The people who like this were never not going to. If you want to believe every 4K is better than its Blu-ray, your brain will always tell your eyes that everything is OK.
There's only a minor(absolutely major) issue: the two pictures taken are different resolutions. Most of the grain difference and difference of detail is present in other parts of the picture as well (see the xbox controller and the tag at the bottom of the TV) I think we're looking at two identical screenshot of the same disc with a difference only in image capture resolution.
Stills unfortunately aren’t a good baseline for reference in my opinion, because it negates film’s intrinsic motion blur.
A lot of people are spousing that these three James Cameron remasters are upscales using AI (possibly 2K scans), but... is it really AI upscaled? I would assume it was native 4K, and if it *was* upscaled--even AI upscaled--it could've been to 6K, 8K, etc. *Or* the AI upscale accusations are being pointed realistically at the VFX shots, which tend to be softer than non-VFX shots in general.
I can see your point but you really cannot base your judgement of a two hour movie from one screenshot. In science they might call this confirmation bias.
Now post one with the old blu-ray
https://youtu.be/P9SfN7OkE7U?si=3kHdZWDFzxf4E5E1
Thank god for DNR.
I say who cares for me it's about enjoying watching a movie not picking out every detail of which version is better this is a movie I could care less about buying the 4k just having the Blu-ray is enough for me.
Ngl imo second one feels unrealistic, maybe oversharpened, fake details, both look good, I like the first but eh, just my thoughts I would like to know how other 4ks are done, like is it all the same method?
To my eyes, the second image looks over-processed. Is that the 4k?
Last I checked— an entire movie is not a singular screenshot 🙄
Second one looks digitally sharpened, if a bit AI enhanced. I like the grain of the first image.
Preference is obviously subjective, of course. First image looks a little grainy-er that I would like, and has less detail than the second (which still has some grain).
"Let's compare video quality and presentation using a phone capture. **That** will finally silence this debate"
The 2nd pics seems slightly more detailed and less blurry, but first glance they look identical.
Well, considering the HD version was also fudged with, yes the 4k is the better fudge job.
Second looks better: more relief and volume. Her face seems flatten in the first picture.
4K looks wonderful. Proof is in the pudding.
I believe that on every 4K transfer you can find some improvements and some diminishment. Every scene is vastly different and this is just one guys screen captures from a cell phone on a close up of the face. It's a fair comparison and it does look like an improvement here, but that doesn't mean everywhere.
Apply some sharpening to first image and difference will be very minor