Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ridley Scott's 'Alien' Will Finally be Released in 4K HDR For Its 40th Anniversary (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinaly dept.

The long wait is over for sci-fi and horror film buffs: the 1979 classic "Alien" will be released in 4K and HDR for the film's 40th anniversary. The remaster will be available on an UltraHD Blu-ray disc. From a report: 20th Century Fox and partners embarked on an effort to remaster the film in 4K last year, under supervision by Pam Dery and Director Ridley Scott. "Alien" was originally shot on 35mm film, and the remaster was made using the original negative. Remastering older films for the UltraHD era has sometimes proven challenging for studios. In many cases, original film masters have degraded, and 4K on a 65-inch TV is adept at revealing graininess and other flaws that result from aged or damaged film.

92 comments

  1. cease fire stand down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    effective communication with all types of so-called aliens is doable?

    1. Re: cease fire stand down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 4K blu-Ray of Alien is just what Putin wants!!!

  2. So what is it? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    What is 35mm film really equivalent to when it comes to 4K, 1080, etc? Can the film pick up the detail to translate to HD?

    1. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The short answer is neither.

      The actual answer becomes a lot more complicated because ultimately film is analog, and the smallest conceptual "pixel" in a 35mm film print is way higher than 4K. (The answer I found on Google is that it's closer to 175MP, while 4K is a "mere" 8MP.)

      However, that ignores the realities of film grain and focus. And these factors can make it so that going all the way to 4K is kind of pointless, because you're no longer getting more details out of the image, you're just getting more noise. Of course, these factors depend on the type of film used and the lighting conditions. Some 35mm shots are probably in quite good focus and have low enough film grain that they'd make excellent 4K transfers.

      Which also leads to a problem where not all shots are created equal - darker shots are more likely to show off far more film grain than brighter shots.

      There is no real answer to this question, but to invent one, I'd say 35mm film usually seems to be better quality than 1080p, but somewhat worse quality than low-noise 4K shot with modern digital equipment. But it depends greatly on how the 35mm was originally shot. (And it's trivially easy to shoot bad digital 4K that will look worse than any 35mm print.)

    2. Re:So what is it? by Misagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      A 35 mm release print of a film, used to project a film in a threatre back in the day, is considered to be roughly equivalent to 2K or 1080p, and those are at least a third generation copy from the original master.

      This UHD release is supposed to be scanned from the original negative, so, however how grainy it is, it should at least be as good as it could be.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (I know nothing about all this, but here's what I found after several Google and Wikipedia searches. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

      "What is 35mm film really equivalent to when it comes to 4K, 1080, etc? Can the film pick up the detail to translate to HD?"

      35mm film can be scanned in at 2,400 (and higher) DPI.
      35mm is 36 × 24 mm.
      At 2,400 DPI, this is means 3,402 × 2,268 pixels.
      That's pretty close to the TV/consumer media 4K UHD, which is 3840×2,160.
      This particular 35 mm print is probably well-preserved, so 4K should pick up the details.

    4. Re:So what is it? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That can never truly be answered as it depends on a large variety of factors including the film, the processing, the recording equipment (sometimes film isn't the limiting factor) and the lighting conditions.

    5. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete bs. Assume, this was possible and we take as little as just 8 bit to represent pixel (this is analog, so it is uncompressed. 8 bit is too small to put color intensity, so this is really low), the film should have been able to hold 4 GB/s of reel. 2 hour real would be 30 TB. I am sure, someone would have been able to demo such large storage capability of film reel (even if it is readonly). Astronomers had modified standard VCR tape around 1979 (the year in which original Alien was released) to store 7 GB of data and they were paying 10k plus for 700 GB tape in 90s. Most likely, the film reel had resoution equal to 2k or at most 3k. So yes, the 4K might help and look better than 2k, it is nowhere closure to 175 MB. Some of the best 6" glass films had close to 100 MB of data (these were used by astronomers and were scanned using really expensive scanners).

    6. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some of the films were recorded on 70 mm as well. However, the motion picture films are not as high resolution as still camera and they don't yield 2400 dpi (some of the best prime lenses used in still photos in those days barely produced 2400 dpi on best shots). So if the original was shot in 35 mm then it is less 4k (but can be higher than 2k, so can still benefit with 4k). If it was shot with 70 mm, then 4k may turned out great.

    7. Re:So what is it? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      35mm film was what film SLR and point and shoot cameras used. From over a decade of scanning the stuff, I can tell you that it can hold about as much info as 4k video. You can get about 3000-4000 horizontal pixels of usable info out of a 36x24mm film frame. More if you used a low-ISO film (smaller grain), Less if you used a faster film (bigger grain, more noise).

      I'm kinda surprised it wasn't shot in 70mm. That's what the bigger blockbuster movies used. But I guess Ridley Scott and Alien weren't household names back when the movie was being made. Some directors also deliberately went for a grainy look (shot with a faster film than necessary), which lowers the resolution.

    8. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh hello. I am the IBM 1360 Photo-Digital Storage System.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I was built in the 1960s to hold a terabit of information on film strips.

      "it is nowhere closure to 175 MB."

      auto correct huh

    9. Re:So what is it? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Film will give enough information for 4K.
      The movie is getting a 4K restoration.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:So what is it? by fafalone · · Score: 4, Informative

      In my experience, the difference between 1080p and 4K for scanned 35mm is like this: Imagine if you took a 1920x1080 image, printed it on a piece of paper, then scanned it at 2400dpi. I'm still only seeing a 1920x1080 picture, but now I'll also get to see every last little detail of the paper fibers.
      Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value.

    11. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 35mm is 36 × 24 mm.

      Less than that.
      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:35mm_film_common_formats.svg
      More like 22 x 17 mm.

    12. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best example in recent times is the original superman movie in 4K. If you are going to watch it on your big screen the 4k version is definitely the way to go. The audio remastering is really good and it squeezes as much quality out of the film as possible. Don't expect it to magically look like a modern 4k film though. There are parts where some of the special effects and costumes may actually will look a little hokier too since they weren't really meant to be scrutinized at high resolution. The key is though, if it's a good enough classic movie, the quality differences are forgivable, it's still a great watch and this is a nice effort to optimize the quality of the film for modern viewing. If there is already a 1080p version of this out there I would argue this might be a worthless upgrade, but otherwise I would get it.

    13. Re:So what is it? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value."

      And also, viewing the "old" 1080P bluray master on a 4K upscaling TV of any reasonable size (50-80"), at any reasonable distance (6-12 feet), is far more resolution/picture quality than probably 99% could ever resolve or notice. So..... "yawn."

    14. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My slides scan at 44MB each and I am not max'd out on resolution. I don't pirate movies so i found a use for all that disk space :)
      It is a patience time limit....it is 15 MINUTES to scan a 1 inch slide at that scale.

      Hopefully their scanner is at least that good and even tho film is usually a little less than slides should be plenty for 4K.

    15. Re:So what is it? by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value.

      An amazing admission that you don't know what causes grain or how it relates to the medium. By its very nature grain would be more like the individual dots the printer printed on your contrived example. If you can see additional grain you have additional details from the film. The only exception would be if that part of the film was out of focus at the time, and with 4K being a measly 8.3mpxl lenses from back in the day easily out resolved this resolution.

      You sound like you've been jaded from dodgy remasters.

    16. Re:So what is it? by p.g.king · · Score: 1

      Would be good if you read the article you point to.

      Data was stored on small 35 by 70 mm cards of stiff film known as chips ... Data was stored on small 35 by 70 mm cards of stiff film known as chips ... This resulted in about 4.7 Mbit of usable space in a 6.6 Mbit chip.

    17. Re:So what is it? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      This UHD release is supposed to be scanned from the original negative, so, however how grainy it is, it should at least be as good as it could be.

      Unless the original negative has degraded, which is a not-uncommon problem with restoration from these 40-year-old film cans. If the original negative wasn't well-stored, a well-preserved working print could be higher quality. So we can sortof gestimate a best-case scenario, but who knows what the quality level will be.

    18. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually even worse. The chip was 35x70. Typical film is 24x36. So it was 3 times the size. Also 4.4 Mbits is about 600 KBytes. So roughly about 200 KBytes for film print. Long shot from 175 MB. However, being able to reliably store is not same as film resolution. The film resolution was measured using lines per mm and the best prime lenses were around 50 lines per mm in 78/79 when the film was made. So that translates to 2400x3600. However, the film cameras use long zooms and other limitations means that real resolution was more like 1200x1800 or about 2k or may be little better. So 4k may help little bit but not too much.

    19. Re:So what is it? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      There is no real answer to this question, but to invent one, I'd say 35mm film usually seems to be better quality than 1080p, but somewhat worse quality than low-noise 4K shot with modern digital equipment. But it depends greatly on how the 35mm was originally shot.

      An important factor is also if you're talking digital equivalent or film-to-digital resolution. The latter requires approximately double to accurately represent the full detail in the analog film. The people who have tested it says:

      Digital 9.8 Mpixels, monochrome: Intensity detail similar to or slightly better than 35mm film detail. Color detail still lacking film. Note the lack of green in the digital image, especially in the closest grass clump just left of center. Also the brown dry grass tip at the lower left corner shows a lack of color in the 9.8 Mpixel digital compared to the 35mm film. The 9.8 mpxel image shows many fine lines which look like grass blades. Many are real, but some are not! Compare with the higher resolution images to see what is real.

      35mm film: 4000 dpi scan is 3760 x 5640 pixels = 21.2 RGB Mpixels (64 MByte tif file).

      Digital 17 Mpixels, monochrome: The intensity detail is now clearly better than the 35mm film, but the color detail is just beginning to be comparable. Note the dry grass in the lower left corner still appears washed out compared to the 35mm film and the 48 Mpixel image below.

      Digital 48 Mpixels, monochrome: Quality similar to small medium format film. Most of the not real grass blades are gone (but not all). Color detail is very good.

      So for photography you're beyond 4K (8MP) somewhere. For video however, though I can't find it right now there was a study that said typical film stock on a typical film camera from negative to release print was like 900 lpm. So a 1080p camera fully resolving 1080 lines would be equivalent or even a little better, but you'd want a 4K scan to get all the detail. But a native 4K video will have more detail than film ever had...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    20. Re:So what is it? by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      4K on 35mm, which has a frame 25mm wide, works out to 80 line pairs per mm. Film and lenses are capable of that (at 50% contrast anyway) but it's challenging, and that's just for the original negative; prints will be worse. Restorations of relatively recent 35mm films have the potential to achieve or slightly better 4K given access to the original negatives. For older films, especially where the negatives aren't available, a digital transfer can struggle to reach 2K, AKA, "Full HD".

      Don't forget, digital cinemas are mostly 2K, i.e., roughly blu-ray quality, unless 4K projectors have overtaken 2K installations recently. Most people (those with 20/20 vision or worse) have to sit closer than 1.5 times the screen diagonal to take advantage of resolution above 2K.

    21. Re:So what is it? by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      35mm is 36 × 24 mm.

      Only for still cameras where it runs horizontally. For motion pictures it runs vertically so it's more like 24 × 18 mm.

    22. Re:So what is it? by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      You can get about 3000-4000 horizontal pixels of usable info out of a 36x24mm film frame

      But 35mm cinema frames are more like 24x18mm.

    23. Re:So what is it? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The answer I found on Google is that it's closer to 175MP, while 4K is a "mere" 8MP."

      Boy Google is just so full of bullshit answers now days. 35mm film is closer to 90MP when you take film grain size and film measurements into account.

      So glad I quit relying upon Google for answers YEARS ago. Why haven't you done the same?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    24. Re:So what is it? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "For video however, though I can't find it right now there was a study that said typical film stock on a typical film camera from negative to release print was like 900 lpm."

      More like 50-100 lines per MILLIMETER, not meter, depending upon the lens you're using.

      "But a native 4K video will have more detail than film ever had..."

      Never. You can make silver halide particles far smaller than any LED or LCD element.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    25. Re:So what is it? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      An amazing admission that you don't know what causes grain or how it relates to the medium.

      How does knowing what causes grain change how it appears? You could write up a 500-page single-spaced report to teach me all the technical details of film grain and 'how it relates to the medium', but unless you go in and rewire my visual system too my newfound knowledge won't change how it looks.
      And the better the transfer is reviewed as by pros, e.g. the stuff made with a true 4k intermediate instead of upscaled 2k and/or with artificial grain, the more my comment applies. I'm just not seeing any additional detail from a 1080p untouched BD to 4k (lower than 1080p or very low bitrate 1080p, yeah) besides grain grain grain; and I'm not one of those '4k is waste can't see difference' guys... I sit close enough to a big enough screen that with newer all-digital+actually shot in 4k+ with a 4k intermediate, I absolutely notice the improvement in picture quality/detail.

    26. Re:So what is it? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      I think folk who've never studied film chemistry don't understand just how it works. Halide crystals are much smaller than any digital element. Smaller than a micrometre.

      How they're used, of course, makes all the difference.

      And *that* brings us back to Alien. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE DETAIL IN THE IMAGE! It's a film with a lot of dark - making it mysterious and terrifying. Upping the visible detail in those shadows is not going to improve the "terror" factor. It'll make it worse. Ridley Scott may have made some stinkers, plot-wise, but his attention to the visual is his strong point. Alien has a "look" and that look is mostly dark, with harsh contrast and de-saturated colours (except for the blood in the chest-burster scene). Fine detail isn't part of the experience. You can be thoroughly entertained by a standard-definition widescreen DVD of Alien on a 40 or 50 inch screen. It *does* look better at 2K, but it's not going to look much better at 4K. If you really want that experience, hire a cinema and pay for a private screening of a 2K DCP version.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    27. Re:So what is it? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      "unless 4K projectors have overtaken 2K installations recently."

      Not in my neck of the woods. Our 2K projector was installed in 2013, but we're starting to see 4K DCPs turn up. It's handy that the projector can just discard 3/4 of the data in a 4K film and show a decent 2K image.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    28. Re:So what is it? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      You can even go one step further. I once performed a test with the 1080P bluray version of Blade Runner where I forced the bluray player to downscale to 720P to my UHD 4k 65" TV and it was very difficult to spot the difference between that and when the player sent the whole 1080P image.

    29. Re:So what is it? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How does knowing what causes grain change how it appears?

      It doesn't change how it appears. It changes the conclusion you just made. Grain is not related to the fibres of the paper. It's more like the dots from the printer you just mentioned. If you see the grain more clearly you literally have the ability to see more of the recorded detail.

      The fibres on the paper stay the same but you just printed in 2100dpi rather than 1800dpi would be a far better example. Now this explaination is not withstanding that your original explanation said you're starting with 1080p content. You're not. The recorded quality available on 35mm film well exceeds the crappy few megapixels a 1080p image has to offer.

      but unless you go in and rewire my visual system too my newfound knowledge won't change how it looks.

      I don't need to rewire your visual system. You just need to see a decent remaster and then you'll understand yourself.

      e.g. the stuff made with a true 4k intermediate instead of upscaled 2k and/or with artificial grain, the more my comment applies.

      As does mine: Let me requote myself "You sound like you've been jaded by dodgy remasters"

      I sit close enough to a big enough screen that with newer all-digital+actually shot in 4k+ with a 4k intermediate, I absolutely notice the improvement in picture quality/detail.

      So you're saying the technical progression to a modern medium with modern all digital work flow is better and therefore this is somehow relevant to the discussion of if we're able to improve the retail visual quality of old 35mm film footage? I have no comeback to this. I think your logic just gave me a stroke.

    30. Re:So what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think folk who've never studied film chemistry don't understand just how it works.
      I think folks who don't understand optics and don't take pictures don't understand how it works either.

      From a practical perspective, when digital full-frame sensors hit 20MP, it outdid what you could get from 35mm full-frame even if you were as careful as hell. There is no advantage to replicating chemical noise, and the proof in the pudding is the need for higher-resolution and expensively-crafted lenses to exploit 30+ MP FF cameras peroperly.

    31. Re:So what is it? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Fine detail isn't part of the experience."

      You very obviously did not watch the Director's Cut, and only paid attention to the theatre and TV releases.

      I say that as a massive xemomorph fan.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  3. HDR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the original have at least 13-stops of contrast? If not itâ(TM)ll be fake HDR with pumped up saturation.

    Just 'coz you can blow out the details in the shadows doesn't mean you should. Film and photography in general is all about light. Much of the HDR out there loses the contrast between light and dark and looks boring and like shit.

  4. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saw it in the theater 40 years ago, it was good but why would I purchase it now?

    1. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saw it in the theater 40 years ago, it was good but why would I torrent it now? FTFY

    2. Re:Big deal by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't. Obviously.

      This is information for people who are interested - collectors, fans of the franchise, sci-fi and horror fans with high end home cinema systems etc. Casual movie fans are not the target audience of a special edition.

  5. Now with added dinosaurs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it is the original theatrical release and not some Frankensteins monster.

  6. Aliens aren't bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a little barbecue sauce. Welcome to Earth!

    1. Re:Aliens aren't bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Reminds me of when I saw "Pitch Black" with a friend...

      "It's an old mining camp, I wonder what happened here?"
      "Hmmm...there's nothing but a pile of bones and empty packets of bbq sauce..."

  7. Obvious by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now the special effects and and rubber alien suit will be very obvious.

    1. Re:Obvious by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Now the special effects and and rubber alien suit will be very obvious.

      Am I the only one not excited about this?

      Part of the brilliance of Aliens is how it didn't use SFX to create atmosphere. Lighting, scripting, cinematography techniques to cover for the fact they had a limited number of animatronic creatures. I think they had 6 or 12, but used cinematic trickery to make the illusion of thousands. No big budget CG, just good production.

      Much like Blade Runner, the original was the best. It doesn't need another version to go along with the 40 already in existence.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. This is Ripley by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 0

    Final report, the commercial star-ship Nostromo. Third officer reporting. The other members of the crew - Kane, Lambert, Parker, Brett, Ash, and Captain Dallas - Are dead. Cargo and ship destroyed. I should reach the frontier within six weeks. With a little luck the network will pick me up.

    This is Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo, signing off.

    I was 12 years old when Alien came out, so I wasn't that dialed into mass media.

    I wonder if back then the '70s version of today's insecure basement-dwelling neckbeard trolls were all complaining about a strong female lead, the way they do today about Rey, Carol Danvers et al.

    1. Re:This is Ripley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, you should have heard all the noise about having a strong female lead -- insert appropriate strong female reference here e.g. not degenerates nor oprah nor judge judy -- until the film got to the part where she had to strip to her skivvies to survive the final battle. I sh*t you not.

         

    2. Re:This is Ripley by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Tough call. Back in the day the ability for "insecure basement-dwelling neckbeard trolls" to actually communicate with each other was pretty limited, mainly to local newspapers and maybe science fiction/fantasy magazines or perhaps one of the horror magazines or movie magazines. And of course they had editors and limited space for letters.

      As someone who saw it when it came out in theaters on post when I was in Germany, having a woman as the strong female lead wasn't even in consideration. It was just a fscking cool movie.

      I will say though, that I don't believe (in my limited and young experience at the time) that there weren't any older TV shows or Movies that were being remade back in the 70's where the original lead was male and the remake had the lead as female like Ghostbusters or Carol Danvers. I do recall when Tony Stark in the Iron Man comics was replaced by a black guy and at least in my circle of friends and in the comics letter pages, no one said a thing about it.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    3. Re:This is Ripley by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I wonder if back then the '70s version of today's insecure basement-dwelling neckbeard trolls were all complaining about a strong female lead, the way they do today about Rey, Carol Danvers et al.

      It was so rare that there was not really a reaction -- just a strange detail in already very unusual movie.

      Keep in mind that even in the late 80s, Star Trek: The Next Generation, as proto-PC as it was, treated strong women as a bit of an anomaly. Yes, they had Yar, but she was a bit of a weirdo from a psychotically violent planet, thus easily explained away as a bizarre outlier that did not matter to the civilized world. Either Crusher and Troi, as Starfleet officers, could easily have had some very modest degree of martial arts competence, yet they basically fell into the standard helpless female role when it came to fisticuffs.

      The first true strong action hero female was Linda Hamilton's jaw-dropping performance as Sara Connor in Terminator 2, released in 1991. Arguably, the character Connor was riding the edge of sanity. And ripped. And hawt. And I am sure the neckbeards found some way to approve of that.

    4. Re:This is Ripley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back then it was not about having a 'strong female role model lead' It was just that the strong lead character happened to be female.

      After you have spent a long long time trying to 'empower' individuals you will come to realize those individuals do not need to be empowered. The fact you spend so much time 'empowering' people means you feel superior to those individuals. Stop feeling you need to or even can help people. Those basement-dwelling neckbeard trolls are really just disgusted with the way middle class white self hating social justice warriors feel soo superior to those so called 'minorities' that they need to spend all day empowering them, and put them in movie roles that are patronizing

    5. Re:This is Ripley by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who saw it when it came out in theaters on post when I was in Germany, having a woman as the strong female lead wasn't even in consideration. It was just a fscking cool movie.

      One of the strangest issues today is the so called "Strong Female Lead". Hollywood brays as if women were not even in films before, and this is some sort of great liberation over evil "white males". I wouldn't have even put that in there, but anyone thinking otherwise needs to research Brie Larson, the racist and sexist female lead in the new Captain Marvel movie.

      If you actually have a strong female lead, you don't have to tell people she's a strong female lead. They can tell by watching the movie. Ripley kicked ass, and you cared about what happened to her. Sarah Conners in the first couple Terminators. Gal Gadot was good in WW, even if feminists were enraged that she shaved her armpits. https://www.maxim.com/entertai... Disclaimer - I do like Linda Carter WW better, but no problem if others differ.

      It is high time that Hollywood stop acting like they are embracing racism and sexism. Just because the object of your hatred and vilification is white males, one does not eliminate racism and sexism by becoming a racist and a sexist. And a stronf female lead isn't whining, and inserting your political views into the movie.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:This is Ripley by fafalone · · Score: 1

      The idea that the computer/sci-fi nerd type guys had or have any issue with strong female leads in principle is just SJW hysteria. The film and/or marketing having a very specific agenda, and/or the film being legitimately terrible, is what causes the backlash against some films. There's a long list of other movies besides the ones you mentioned that have strong female leads and lack the "omg all these sexist fragile men with their toxic masculinity just hate these strong womyn taking their place!!!" bullshit. Even recently: the reaction to Rogue One and its female lead, and Last Jedi and its female lead, were absolutely nothing alike. Because there was one fairly decent Star Wars movie without a ton of 'this is a social justice achievement!' talk, and one pretty poor excuse for one, which also involved people making it clear that if that's how you felt, it was because you were a sexist and racist white man, and white men are terrible; from the Twitter mob up through Kathleen Kennedy.
      The permanently-offended social justice mobs can't tell the difference between when the criticism is 90% 'this movie is bad and promoting your obnoxious ultra-PC agenda made it worse' for some movies, but actually just limited to a few alt-right trolls who really are misogynists writing sexist screeds with other movies, and 90% really enjoyed it. All the same to them. Oh you don't like Last Jedi? Sexist! You only think Black Panther is 'good' instead of 'the biggest cultural moment evar!!!eleventy!'? Racist! Actual reasons for the opinion are irrelevant, something made abundantly clear.

    7. Re:This is Ripley by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Oh you don't like Last Jedi? Sexist! You only think Black Panther is 'good' instead of 'the biggest cultural moment evar!!!eleventy!'? Racist! Actual reasons for the opinion are irrelevant, something made abundantly clear.

      I, for one, never make assumptions for merely disliking or liking any movie.

      But I have seen enough "actual reasons" provided to know with certainty there are quite a few sexists and racists, and then a huge bunch of fellow travelers who enthusiastically agree and are too cowardly to name a reason why.

      Walk like a duck. Talk like a duck. Consequences.

    8. Re:This is Ripley by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      I like how you call her Ellen Degenerates. That's very classy.

    9. Re:This is Ripley by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      Either Crusher and Troi, as Starfleet officers, could easily have had some very modest degree of martial arts competence, yet they basically fell into the standard helpless female role when it came to fisticuffs.

      It's been decades, and I remember Troi being fairly useless (even as an empath!), but I have vague memories of Crusher having a couple ass-kicking moments. Tasha Yar was strong, Ensign Ro as well, but there was a gap of about 5 seasons between the two of them. Then again, I seem to recall Wesley and LaForge being pretty useless in any (non-phaser-related) fight. Worf and Riker were the action guys, and Picard sometimes got in some licks since he's the lead.

      The first true strong action hero female was Linda Hamilton's jaw-dropping performance as Sara Connor in Terminator 2,

      Linda Hamilton was pretty amazing in that film, no doubt. She was the real Terminator.
      But I will certainly give first props to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Aliens(1986). Towards the end of that movie, she is basically a more believable Rambo and a woman whose maternal instincts lead to her physical strengths, not her anti-masculine weakness.

    10. Re:This is Ripley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Back then it was not about having a 'strong female role model lead' It was just that the strong lead character happened to be female.

      I had read that Ripley was originally written to be male, but Dan O'Bannon said that all the characters were intented to be "unisex," i.e. could be played either male or female.

      Ripley was tough in the first film, but she wasn't a badass until the second one.

  9. SO happy the theatrical cut is included by NG+Resonance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I wonder why its soundtrack will only be remastered in 4.1, instead of 5.1 for the 2003 revision?

    1. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      As I heard it back when they release the Bluray version which also uses 4.1 the claim was that early 70mm 6-track mixes where actually 4.2 (3 fronts, mono surround and 2 LFE channels) and since you cannot encode 2 LFE channels into AC3 it became 4.1. Then there are other claims that the 4.1 mix comes from the 4 channel master that where used for the Theatrical Dolby Surround mix since Ridley wanted to correct some sound errors in the 6-channel mix that where not present in the 4 channel mix.

    2. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by NG+Resonance · · Score: 1

      Very interesting. Thank you for shedding some light on this!

    3. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have 5.1 ears... surround is a entirely a dick pull. All that is necessary for 3D sound is stereo when you only have 2 ears. Any 3D sound reproduced by surround 5.1, 7.1, 9.1, 11.1, whatever, is also capable of being transparently reproduced by stereo, i.e. 2.1 if you wish, but it is really only 2 speakers. But companies that sell hifi equipment need you to keep updating your hifi, thus surround exists so that you will keep on buying. Enjoy your superfluous surround system. I will stick with my logically and practically equivalent stereo system.

    4. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stereo headphones can simulate surround sound if you have head tracking/orientation gyro sensors, but the only way you can do it with speakers is if you process the output to simulate early/late reflections and keep your head perfectly still. And then it would only work for 1 person.

      The reason is because the shape of your ears and the orientation of your head gives your brain clues as to which direction a sound is coming from. Just sticking some earbuds in your ears won't do diddly for directionality with a plain stereo track.

    5. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice strawman arguement. I am GP, I never mentioned earbuds. Thus. Your entire argument is a strawman fallacy.

      A proper stereo field is has a volume of space. Many human heads fit within that stereo field. As they turn their heads, there is no off-axis problem. Sounds seem to come from where the producer engineered them to come from. A proper stereo field with 2 speakers in front of audience can absolutely simulate what surround does perfectly. This is because we only have 2 fucking ears and we cannot see sound. If there is a dummy speaker in front of you creating no sound and the real speakers are hidden, you will believe sound is coming from that dummy speaker. If engineered properly, the sound might seem to come from behind you, or from above you, or below. Anything surround can produce can be identically produced with stereo. And experiments in psychoacoustics proves it. Surround is a dick pull. But if you like it, kudos for you. But it is superfluous. Still, I wish you the best, and everything.... be happy... but just understand, you drank the koolaide.

    6. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only mentioned earbuds because they isolate the audio from your surrounding environment, not because they have some special property over other earphones, or speakers.

      And no matter what you say, the orientation of your head absolutely affects the direction you perceive stereo L/R channels to be coming from. Aside from subwoofers which are omnidirectional, you would have to keep your head perfectly still to keep the stereo imaging intact - UNLESS you're using headphones.

      And if you're using headphones, the image stays the same no matter which direction your head is pointed. It's like watching a non-immersive movie on VR goggles wihout head tracking: if you're looking at a 3D scene of the Golden Gate Bridge, you turn your head and the bridge turns with it!

    7. Re:SO happy the theatrical cut is included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surround does not solve the "problem" you describe regarding the orientation of your head any better than stereo. I don't think you understand what a stereo field is. When your head is within the field, a 3D space, you're getting stereo. It does not matter what the orientation of your head is so long as it is within the stereo field, in any orientation whatsoever. And no matter how many channels you run, you're only going to hear in stereo, unless you have more than 2 ears. If when watching a film, you often turn your back to the screen in order to hear something behind you, and this is your complaint with stereo, then I can no longer entertain your bad argument.

  10. Why? by Zorro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not sure what can be gained here, the first one wasn't that high in action.

    ALIENS however should look AWESOME in High Def!

    Alien Queen VS Mech Suit!

    1. Re:Why? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To get ready to sell the rest of the movies in the same way. Start with 1 and move up the series.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Why? by mckwant · · Score: 1

      Better yet: Start with 1, stop there.

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:Why? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      What is the relationship between action and high definition ?

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the relationship between action and high definition ?

      If you look at general 4K title availability, apparently there's a big relationship, in marketing at least. I suspect "young/single men with disposable income" figures large as a demographic. I could see the same person shunning a 4K disc because it doesn't have enough action, also shunning an assuredly great action movie because it's never been released on anything higher-def than DVD.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Action movies SUCK ASS. ESPECIALLY all that gay ass MARVEL trash that's been flooding out theatres for the last FIFTEEN FCKING YEARS.

      This is why shit like ALIEN and ABYSS trumps ALIENS any day, they're less action, more story and drama.

      Now go fucking watch Circle of Friends.
      Or the Duellist.
      Or the Piano.
      Or some shit.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, Aliens 1-3 were all good and certainly worth watching.

      The one after those I do not care about.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are all good, but Aliens is a bit of an outlier.
      Where the others are "Jaws but in space" Aliens pretty much follows the structure of a Vietnam movie.
      In a way Aliens and Predator are very similar movies.

  11. Who cares? by Torodung · · Score: 1, Troll

    Anybody got the 120" TV that will make that 4k worth anything?

    It's like we're gearing up for Ray Bradbury's telewalls. I don't want one. Does anyone? Is that a spider drone at my front door? Excuse me while I... LOST CARRIER

    1. Re:Who cares? by fafalone · · Score: 2

      It would actually be really nice to have a large display with a picture quality so high you couldn't tell the difference between it and an actual window looking out somewhere, even better if it's the whole wall-- like sitting on your porch. Of course pixel count isn't the biggest issue holding us back from realizing that, but really who wouldn't want a wall in their house like that?
      Just a big screen like screen tech today, sure it wouldn't be worth it, but when picture and real life are indistinguishable? Bring it on!

    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. 4k projectors are now affordable. Recommend picking one up and either painting a wall or better yet getting a screen. 4k difference is very much appreciable at 120".

    3. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to get a lot higher than 4K for a window like experience (discounting stereography and depth perception). 8K starts to be interesting though (I've seen 8K which is what UltraHD was originally supposed to be a few times at the International Broadcasting Conference).

      But my eye sight is a lot better than the average person, well when as long as I wear glasses it is at about 150%, without glasses not so much.

      I know my mom looked at the same demo and she said it looked extremely fake, she has normal eye sight and she was experiencing hyper reality (where because the image is projected closer to your eye the image becomes sharper than what you would observe in nature).

      In effect, i guess you need to personalise sharpness of displays, to just below hyper reality.

    4. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blind idiot.

  12. Get offa my lawn by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Just what we need. 4K of Harry Dean Stanton standing there in closeup, greasy and sweaty, as the water drips on his face, or Penny's sister blubbering uncontrollably.

    They better not "touch up" certain parts of someone's anatomy though.

    Anything else?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Get offa my lawn by rv6502 · · Score: 1

      In this 4K remastered edition the face hugger is acting purely in self-defence and they go after the xenomorph with walkie-talkies making noise that shoos it away.

  13. What about Alien: David 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind remasters, we need the concluding part of the Alien: David trilogy! I rather enjoyed the first two David films, but the third film appears to be looking increasingly unlikely to be made :(

    1. Re:What about Alien: David 3? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Alien: engineers could have been good. Unfortunately, we got Prometheus.

  14. Also available here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The remaster will be available on an UltraHD Blu-ray disc

    Will also be available in convenient portable formats from The Pirate Bay.

  15. Troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice meta-troll, mangina.

  16. In this version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Newt shoots first.

  17. Re:Trump by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

    If ever someone asks me "what is Slashdot? How do I get started?" I will send them to this thread to get them caught up with the most important topics.

  18. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the smallest conceptual "pixel" in a 35mm film print is way higher than 4K.

    Yours is a useless observation. The noise floor determines what frequency (level of detail) you can expect. It is easily quantified and compared. Depending on your film stock, len, and lighting conditions you'd expect an equivalent performance of closer to 8MP-16MP for 35mm film. If your 175MP equivalent analog medium can't discern fine details, then it's not really 175MP.

  19. Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right

  20. Re:Film has infinite resolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can actually zoom in to the atom level.

    OK, let's say you can (and that you still get color information at that level). Still sounds pretty finite to me!

  21. I watched enough examples of 4k remasters now... by ffkom · · Score: 1

    ... from old 35mm and 70mm analog film to state from experience that even if this remaster is done with lots of effort from the original negative, it will not reveal any details you could not see on a 1080p remaster.

    Even the better examples like the 35mm "Rambo First Blood" or the 70mm "2001 - A space Odyssey" remasters do not get anywhere near a modern digital 4k camera recording.

  22. Overheard from the audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow the guy in the rubber suit isn't so scary....

    How do you know that it's a guy?

    He had an extra tentacle...