What we just saw on the left is the original print. The whole time we thought the quality for older films were bad based on the assumption of videos uploaded when CZcams was born, but no, celluloid film (pixel resolution) is actually 5,600 × 3,620. We are almost there from matching that resolution from 4K to 5K. If we saw a film like this in cinemas back in the day (same with other films), it is great quality (just scratches and dirty as an overlay), but on video, maybe, maybe not because the resolution in a way has been decreased for DVD and Blu-ray.
Watching the open matte version (left side) Spider-Man 1 could’ve been shown on TRUE IMAX screens and it would’ve been perfect. Some cropping could be done to block the boom mic and some lighting but other than that seeing the open matte in IMAX would’ve been great!
That is correct, although if you wanted to it can be enlarged to a 70mm print.There was a time in the 80s and 90s when 65mm and 70mm presentations of 35mm shot films were popular. And there was a very noticeable image benefit if it was shot well and the negative was looked after. Return of the Jedi 1980 had a 70mm release. Team Negative one the guys who restored the original Star Wars 35mm print (4k77) used a 70mm print of Jedi for most of the restoration. The image quality and grain structure is incredible! So sure, technically 35mm is not enough for an IMAX screen however if the film is clean it can be printed on a larger format and work just fine. @@TheStOne1
(mostly conjectural analysis) When a film roll is scanned, [of course] the digital files are acquired. Next thing is to clean up dust and scratches. If applicable, the colors are adjusted to a reference point, often using a ColorChecker for this part of the process.
So thats why the vhs version, even though it was a little cropped, there was more screen on the top and bottom compared to the dvd or blu-ray. I assume they did this to reduce the amount needed to be cropped for the pan and scan. I thought I was going crazy when comparing the two.
It's a longer and more interesting story, but it definitely helped with home video. Films used to all be 4x3 / 1.33:1 (technically 1.37:1, cropping top and bottom slightly to avoid showing the tape and splices used to physically join shots together). As TV became a thing, they wanted to make movies wider as a selling point vs. watching television, and they chose to start filming movies in such a way that they were framed with the intention of cropping them down to 1.85:1 ratio. Theatres would put physical plates over the projector to 'mask' the unwanted extra space on the 4x3 print. That's for 'flat' films at least - 'scope' films of 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 had their own unique method. But yeah, they'd often use as much of the extra dead space as they could on VHS/fullscreen DVDs oftentimes, though CGI was usually only rendered for the 1.85:1 theatrical area, which is why you notice 'hard matted' black bars on CG shots in the print. There are exceptions, though - in Spider-Man the opening credits were rendered for the full area (to avoid having to crop which would cut off the credits) and the 2002 Scooby-Doo film always renders Scooby in the full frame in order to make pan and scan easier, while all other effects were only rendered for 1.85:1.
Fans really need to stop calling it "original 35mm open-matte format." That wasn't the original format at all. They ALWAYS meant to crop it. You can see several special effects shots that don't fill the 35mm frame and boom mics in countless shots even beyond this scene.
@@lolerie the movie wasn't filmed in IMAX. And this it's not IMAX, this is 35mm. IMAX it's 70mm and what I think you mean to say it's that this is Full Frame, that's the name for this.
How are this 35mm or open matte versions poping up on youtube? I would really love to get some of this in home media, as a collector, in addition to the theatrical release of course.
Фанаты 35mm пленок собирают самодельные аппараты для по кадровой оцифровки. Сами фильмокопии приходят из старых кинотеатров. Обычно после основного кинопроката эти копии уходят на полку или выбрасываются, у кинотеатров нет возможности показать эти копии легально после проката. Иногда показ можно лицензировать, но это сложно.
Wao nagyon klassz. Legyen szabadon választható. Ha akarom így nézem, ha akarom úgy. Az első részletgazdag, a második fokuszált. Mindkettőnek van varázsa.
I wanna watch this whole movie on a full 16:9. Clearly it wasn't made for open matte, but 16:9 will crop it enough to hide lights and mics at the top while still filling up the screen and giving you more picture.
Wow. The scan looks significantly better -- if it were cropped, obviously. Even though no alteration is needed aside from the cleaning up of a few scratches etc., the blu-ray has been significantly tinkered with, as if to justify the jobs of those who're re-mastering it.
did you use the "mastered in 4k" version or the actual 4k bluray on the right to make the comparison ? I have seen some images and videos and it doesn't look as good as this!!
It says UHD bluray, so i guess he used the oficial uhd bluray. But tonedmaped for SDR. Maybe that's why it looks better? Well, there are several copies out there, and sometimes the EU version of a bluray it's better than a US version. Or sometimes the Japanese one it's the best.
@@morfx9911 yeah. On the comparisons i have seen for the 4k remaster, the colors and tones are different, and on this video it seems to look pretty much like the normal 1080p bluray. in 2013 Sony made a "4k mastered" version where it was basically the normal bluray but way more bitrates, so maybe that's what he used
@@leonardomaia8412 ooo so thats the thing bro, what you saw where uhd caps that werent tonemaped or were tonemaped badly. This one its tonemaped right, thats why the colores are ok. In order to see the real thing in UHD you need HDR. This movie with HDR its simply fantastic.
I’m looking at the UHD Blu-Ray on the right and it doesn’t look like the one from 2018. Looks more like the regular Blu-Ray from years ago or the mastered in 4K Blu-Ray.
Sort of. The open matte version may have been partially used for "full screen" home release, keeping a few things in mind. All effects shots in the movie were hard matted to 1.85:1, so when they were translated to full screen TV aspect ratio, the sides had to be cropped off. They'd also have to crop any scene that had a boom mic dropping into the top of the frame. Just doing a straight 1:1 transfer of an open matte print's full frame would not yield an acceptable version for most viewing purposes. Too much junk in the picture.
I'd go for an intermediate crop ratio, like √2 : 1 , keep full width, and use the 35mm film version. That would avoid things like the microphone veing visible in 1:17, but also preserve so much more detail. Look at MJ's face on the right, the freckles of the girl in the front, the texture of her sweater. In theory, Full HD from a full frame sensor should preserve more detail than 35mm film, but that's not the case here.
@@SalveMonesvol Sadly no, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Imax states they use a 1.33x lens to strech the dcp ratio to 1.43:1 on their laser projectors, but the math says that should be 1.42:1. Also 15-perf 70mm has a native ratio of 1.33:1 so I dont know why they are marketing 1.43 1.8962962... : 1.333333... = 1.42222... If you ask me thats what the imax ratio should have been. Also you know how Arri makes a super 35 sensor and uses two of them for the LF version. 1.422 ratio being so close to the square root of two would make sure that when you put two sensors like that the aspect ratio would barely change, kind of like puting 2 A4 papers to get A3. And using 1.33x anamorphic lenses on such a sensor in open gate would give you perfect DCP ratio
@@thongquehanoi for your interest Spider-Man 2002 in Ultra Widescreen (21:9): czcams.com/video/KwWT8HCB4f4/video.html (it looks horrible because it loose every information in the image)
The spider man one is grainy as hell, like swarming ants... it looks so bad because of the 4K upscaling which has enhanced the grainy image, your better off watching spider man one on just normal Blu Ray 1080p, unless you want swarming ants distracting you while watching it in 4K.
Shot on film with a spherical lens. Other films were often shot with an anamorphic lens which squeezes a wider picture into the 4:3 frame, and is unsqueezed by another lens in the cinema
The 35mm scan wasn't meant to be seen in the public and the closest you'll get to an uncropped (for the most part) version of Spider-Man 2002 offically and in 4x3 is on the 2002 Fullscreen DVD but still kinda zoomed in in comparison to this
@@valenzuelasstudios1838 Awh... sadness. I wish more movies came out with the option for you to choose which aspect ratio to view the movie in. Like for people who want the image to fill their screen but don't want to lose anymore image
Pretty much all films that weren't shot with anamorphic lenses are, even if they get matted down to widescreen. The benefit is that the open matte could be used for television broadcast instead of a pan and scan, like you would need to do with an anamorphic film. But as you can see, the frame is clearly composed for the 1.85:1 frame, with too much headroom in the open matte. At worst, you get stuff like the mic popping into frame at 1:16.
It's like very easy to see the HD looks better but for some odd reason ignorant people have Said for years on forums 35m looks better No it doesn't it has extra grain/isn't as sharp or clear
@Batsy Arkham99 Se generan sombras innecesarias, todo se ve rojo como un filtro y además se ve más borroso, 4k no sólo es el tamaño de la imagen es también resolución, es decir mayor detalle y como es posible que un hd de 720p nativo de la grabación original se vea mejor que un 4k, es imposible, no debería decir 4k el titulo
@Batsy Arkham99 En realidad la original se ve así porque el rollo de película ya es antiguo y con el tiempo se van perdiendo colores. NO es que se va mal, simplemente se fue desgastando con el tiempo. Originalmente la peli se veía perfecta.
Cropped versions are always better, full frame has too much unnecessary and distracting useless information, remember to frame tight and keep it simple.
@@awesome1ru true facts. Spider-Man 1 in Widescreen i dont like it it feels so horrible and Fullscreen is perfect because is like 35MM cropping the areas when appears mic and bars in 35MM, fixing the colors etc
So "I'm something of a scientist myself" is also available in 35mm.
Nice.
And "You and I are not so different"
Always has been
1:17 the mic
Man, I can't believe that it's almost twenty years since the movie premiered in theaters.
Where to get the whole movie 8n 35mm scan format?
@@hemiltandel2929 It's very hard to find :(
@@comedy_funskull czcams.com/video/ca7t_mBXbr4/video.html ( whole print to dwnld )
Now it's been 20 years.
@@StableDruid130 LOL "Bully Maguire"? 😆
What we just saw on the left is the original print. The whole time we thought the quality for older films were bad based on the assumption of videos uploaded when CZcams was born, but no, celluloid film (pixel resolution) is actually 5,600 × 3,620. We are almost there from matching that resolution from 4K to 5K. If we saw a film like this in cinemas back in the day (same with other films), it is great quality (just scratches and dirty as an overlay), but on video, maybe, maybe not because the resolution in a way has been decreased for DVD and Blu-ray.
>The whole time we thought the quality for older films were bad based on the assumption of videos uploaded when CZcams was born
Who's we?
Some say it is 16K :)
@@sade1212 No, you don’t look cooler or smarter by writing that.
@@perroserio What does it matter if I did? You'll never meet me or even read any of my comments again.
@@sade1212 That makes your pretentious comment even worse.
You know, I'm something of an expert on aspect ratios myself.
35mm always gives me smile and excitement.
HOLY SHIT THIS LOOKS BEAUTIFUL
little color correction and its better than uhd Blu-ray
Where to get the whole movie in 35mm scan format?
No, the theatrical print is lower quality than the original negative, which the 4K is sourced from.
@@hemiltandel2929 the only way is to hope someone uploaded it onto the internet or pay alot of money for a project and the film reel itself.
@@NumaanTahir Btw, I've got the entire movie, it's around 7 to 8gb
@@adriannn3720we're not arguing quality. we're talking about which looks better. those are two different things.
When the girl on the bus told Peter not to think about it, You can clearly see the microphone from the top come down for a second
Good catch
Watching the open matte version (left side) Spider-Man 1 could’ve been shown on TRUE IMAX screens and it would’ve been perfect. Some cropping could be done to block the boom mic and some lighting but other than that seeing the open matte in IMAX would’ve been great!
IMAX needs 70 mm horizontal film. 35 mm wouldn't be enough for an IMAX screen
That is correct, although if you wanted to it can be enlarged to a 70mm print.There was a time in the 80s and 90s when 65mm and 70mm presentations of 35mm shot films were popular. And there was a very noticeable image benefit if it was shot well and the negative was looked after. Return of the Jedi 1980 had a 70mm release. Team Negative one the guys who restored the original Star Wars 35mm print (4k77) used a 70mm print of Jedi for most of the restoration. The image quality and grain structure is incredible! So sure, technically 35mm is not enough for an IMAX screen however if the film is clean it can be printed on a larger format and work just fine. @@TheStOne1
Happy 20 years of this film!
1:17 is that a boom mic?!?
I like the color grading in the open matte one.
Hacia mucho que no aparecías... Buen video.
Can you imagine how many nude scenes we've missed because the movies are cut off at the top and bottom?
Which begs the question why the actors went nude in the first place if we can't see them.
Terminator 3.
@@marcohidalgo1101It's not super drastic in T3 when the T-X arrives but yes you do see more skin for sure.
Left side has more picture, depth, sharper details, and feels like Spider-Man 1970’s documentary edition or Godfather edition lol
(mostly conjectural analysis)
When a film roll is scanned, [of course] the digital files are acquired. Next thing is to clean up dust and scratches. If applicable, the colors are adjusted to a reference point, often using a ColorChecker for this part of the process.
So thats why the vhs version, even though it was a little cropped, there was more screen on the top and bottom compared to the dvd or blu-ray. I assume they did this to reduce the amount needed to be cropped for the pan and scan. I thought I was going crazy when comparing the two.
It's a longer and more interesting story, but it definitely helped with home video. Films used to all be 4x3 / 1.33:1 (technically 1.37:1, cropping top and bottom slightly to avoid showing the tape and splices used to physically join shots together). As TV became a thing, they wanted to make movies wider as a selling point vs. watching television, and they chose to start filming movies in such a way that they were framed with the intention of cropping them down to 1.85:1 ratio. Theatres would put physical plates over the projector to 'mask' the unwanted extra space on the 4x3 print. That's for 'flat' films at least - 'scope' films of 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 had their own unique method. But yeah, they'd often use as much of the extra dead space as they could on VHS/fullscreen DVDs oftentimes, though CGI was usually only rendered for the 1.85:1 theatrical area, which is why you notice 'hard matted' black bars on CG shots in the print. There are exceptions, though - in Spider-Man the opening credits were rendered for the full area (to avoid having to crop which would cut off the credits) and the 2002 Scooby-Doo film always renders Scooby in the full frame in order to make pan and scan easier, while all other effects were only rendered for 1.85:1.
オリジナルプリント版をIMAXで上映して欲しい
Sony really needs to release all of their Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies in its original 35mm open-matte format for home media.
They already have them on 4K Ultra HD Blu ray disc in 2.40.1 Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos no market 35mm print
Fans really need to stop calling it "original 35mm open-matte format." That wasn't the original format at all. They ALWAYS meant to crop it. You can see several special effects shots that don't fill the 35mm frame and boom mics in countless shots even beyond this scene.
@@LorenzoDoesntExist IMAX - ну да, ну да...
So much footage being cut… why though… the colors look perfectly fine in Blu-ray, but if it had the full screen that’d be perfect.
The Blu Ray aspect ratio is right, the 35mm is cropped from 4:3 to 1.85:1 in the projection. The movie was filmed to be shown like this
@@dunke10 Ohhh I see. Thanks for explaining that. :)
@@DragonSword227 Your welcome!
Because this is IMAX, not available for Marvel/Sony.
@@lolerie the movie wasn't filmed in IMAX. And this it's not IMAX, this is 35mm.
IMAX it's 70mm and what I think you mean to say it's that this is Full Frame, that's the name for this.
This is great
How are this 35mm or open matte versions poping up on youtube? I would really love to get some of this in home media, as a collector, in addition to the theatrical release of course.
Фанаты 35mm пленок собирают самодельные аппараты для по кадровой оцифровки. Сами фильмокопии приходят из старых кинотеатров. Обычно после основного кинопроката эти копии уходят на полку или выбрасываются, у кинотеатров нет возможности показать эти копии легально после проката. Иногда показ можно лицензировать, но это сложно.
Even the mic appears
Lol look upside you can see the mic 2:57
Wao nagyon klassz.
Legyen szabadon választható.
Ha akarom így nézem, ha akarom úgy.
Az első részletgazdag, a második fokuszált. Mindkettőnek van varázsa.
1:17 epikus mikrofon a tetején
Soul vs Soulless
CNX, what happened with the Dragon Ball Opening Makafushigi Adveture in 4k? I cant find it on your channel anymore
Is this going to be released?
This video comparison is a tight slap on the faces of those who criticize the aspect ratio of Zack Snyder's Justice League.
I wanna watch this whole movie on a full 16:9. Clearly it wasn't made for open matte, but 16:9 will crop it enough to hide lights and mics at the top while still filling up the screen and giving you more picture.
Where to get the whole movie in 35mm scan format?
Copy from cinema
I've got the google drive link
@Spider Man Trilogy Aspect Ratios cinemas used 35mm to show Spider-Man 1 in 2002.
torrent
Square screen shows more picture than Horizontal Rectangle screen, but need fine details with colors but not too dark .
Where did you get that footage?
DVDs and blu rays
@@hellodigitalworld8224o the 35mm footage isn’t on dvd, that’s the *point* .
where can you get the whole 35mm film?
ah yes Zack Snyder's Spider-Man
Underrated comment
Wow. The scan looks significantly better -- if it were cropped, obviously. Even though no alteration is needed aside from the cleaning up of a few scratches etc., the blu-ray has been significantly tinkered with, as if to justify the jobs of those who're re-mastering it.
2:55 mic on top left
Where can you watch the movie in that format?
did you use the "mastered in 4k" version or the actual 4k bluray on the right to make the comparison ? I have seen some images and videos and it doesn't look as good as this!!
It says UHD bluray, so i guess he used the oficial uhd bluray. But tonedmaped for SDR. Maybe that's why it looks better? Well, there are several copies out there, and sometimes the EU version of a bluray it's better than a US version. Or sometimes the Japanese one it's the best.
@@morfx9911 yeah. On the comparisons i have seen for the 4k remaster, the colors and tones are different, and on this video it seems to look pretty much like the normal 1080p bluray. in 2013 Sony made a "4k mastered" version where it was basically the normal bluray but way more bitrates, so maybe that's what he used
@@leonardomaia8412 ooo so thats the thing bro, what you saw where uhd caps that werent tonemaped or were tonemaped badly. This one its tonemaped right, thats why the colores are ok. In order to see the real thing in UHD you need HDR. This movie with HDR its simply fantastic.
@@morfx9911 ohh ok, yeah i really want to see it!
I’m looking at the UHD Blu-Ray on the right and it doesn’t look like the one from 2018. Looks more like the regular Blu-Ray from years ago or the mastered in 4K Blu-Ray.
where can we find full movie in 35mm??
Probably on eBay for a lot of money
@@thesupermayoreo no as in a digital scan, not an acutal film print, but a video codec where this print has been already scanned and color corrected
@@Ballowax yeah but how to find it?
@@rahulboine9907 I just asked this question
Also want to know
Is this the Snyder cut?
way better than the original aspect ratio, except the colour grading
Woooooow
35mm is better
The color correction is good wym
Link to the full movie like this please
did you find it? if yes, please send it
I think the open matte version is for tv broadcasts & home release since tvs from the early 2000's have a blocky aspect ratio (4:3)
Sort of. The open matte version may have been partially used for "full screen" home release, keeping a few things in mind. All effects shots in the movie were hard matted to 1.85:1, so when they were translated to full screen TV aspect ratio, the sides had to be cropped off. They'd also have to crop any scene that had a boom mic dropping into the top of the frame. Just doing a straight 1:1 transfer of an open matte print's full frame would not yield an acceptable version for most viewing purposes. Too much junk in the picture.
I like the picture size of 35mm, you loose so much from the image in 21:9 aspect ratio.
*1.85:1
@@LukeMM95 I thought it was also called 21:9 😅
@@pietroscarpa2384 21x9 is much wider than 1:851. and 1:85.1 is more comparable to 16x9 (1:78.1)
@@valenzuelasstudios1838 👍🏻
Does anyone have this full version in 4k?
Where did you get this original 35mm film??
Spider-Man Trilogy Aspect Ratio find it in March 2022.
Bro, can you tell me if someday this version will be available for everyone to download?
It already is
This is pretty much “if Zack Snyder filmed Spiderman”
how
@@Fernzahen the 4:3 ratio
cakep gais... manteppp
Where can i get 35mm print of the whole movie ?
haha ask Sony Studios
I'd go for an intermediate crop ratio, like √2 : 1 , keep full width, and use the 35mm film version. That would avoid things like the microphone veing visible in 1:17, but also preserve so much more detail. Look at MJ's face on the right, the freckles of the girl in the front, the texture of her sweater. In theory, Full HD from a full frame sensor should preserve more detail than 35mm film, but that's not the case here.
I propose 1.422:1 (4/3 times higher than the DCI ratio) pretty much right between the 1.43 imax and square root of 2.
@@davidhrzenjak Is that used by anyone else? It could work.
@@SalveMonesvol Sadly no, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Imax states they use a 1.33x lens to strech the dcp ratio to 1.43:1 on their laser projectors, but the math says that should be 1.42:1. Also 15-perf 70mm has a native ratio of 1.33:1 so I dont know why they are marketing 1.43
1.8962962... : 1.333333... = 1.42222...
If you ask me thats what the imax ratio should have been. Also you know how Arri makes a super 35 sensor and uses two of them for the LF version. 1.422 ratio being so close to the square root of two would make sure that when you put two sensors like that the aspect ratio would barely change, kind of like puting 2 A4 papers to get A3. And using 1.33x anamorphic lenses on such a sensor in open gate would give you perfect DCP ratio
Ultra imax? 🥵
based
1:16 the mic is visible lol
seeing this ungraded is so weird
The 35mm print feels like real comic book page ...
35MM looks better.
bluray discs on hd and 4k is better then spiderman on hd and 4k on disney plus
I still like the dvd better I prefer dvd on the older films
Blu ray disc is better than DVD 4K Ultra HD Blu ray disc is best way watch all Spider-Man movies in native 4K Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos
Did they use too much DNR for the UHD release?
nope no DNR UHD :)
@@veranodelsinfin I meant for the 4K Blu-ray
@@Brandon.S.Brooker no grain reduction :)
Where can I watch this version?
torrent
@@MadurangaSirisenaI didn't do the same thing for blade runner 2049s unreleased "imax" format... I didn't
Me gusta más el original.
UHD cropped out about 30% part of the scenes..
would be nice if it was released at 1.78 instead of 1.85 so it didnt have the tiny borders
1:18
Could Spider-Man 2002 be on 21:9
No. Because it wasn’t filmed to be in that format. Spider-Man 2 and 3 are.
@@miguael_ribuera Could do 21:9 format on Spider Man 2002 while terminator 3 will do 21:9 Blu Ray and 16:9 Open Matte
@@thongquehanoi for your interest Spider-Man 2002 in Ultra Widescreen (21:9): czcams.com/video/KwWT8HCB4f4/video.html (it looks horrible because it loose every information in the image)
The spider man one is grainy as hell, like swarming ants... it looks so bad because of the 4K upscaling which has enhanced the grainy image, your better off watching spider man one on just normal Blu Ray 1080p, unless you want swarming ants distracting you while watching it in 4K.
Who just trip tobey 1:32
why the original spiderman is in 4:3?
Shot on film with a spherical lens. Other films were often shot with an anamorphic lens which squeezes a wider picture into the 4:3 frame, and is unsqueezed by another lens in the cinema
First 🕷🕷🕷
SPIDER-MAN WAS SHOT IN 4:3?! Why don't I have this in my life?!
The 35mm scan wasn't meant to be seen in the public and the closest you'll get to an uncropped (for the most part) version of Spider-Man 2002 offically and in 4x3 is on the 2002 Fullscreen DVD but still kinda zoomed in in comparison to this
@@valenzuelasstudios1838 Awh... sadness. I wish more movies came out with the option for you to choose which aspect ratio to view the movie in. Like for people who want the image to fill their screen but don't want to lose anymore image
@@thenoirknight5729 I mean it's kinda happening tomorrow, ironically with 13 selected MCU movies on Disney+ rather than any non-MCU Marvel movies
Pretty much all films that weren't shot with anamorphic lenses are, even if they get matted down to widescreen. The benefit is that the open matte could be used for television broadcast instead of a pan and scan, like you would need to do with an anamorphic film. But as you can see, the frame is clearly composed for the 1.85:1 frame, with too much headroom in the open matte. At worst, you get stuff like the mic popping into frame at 1:16.
@@thenoirknight5729 Justice League might not be the best movie ever but its uncropped 1.33.1 35mm version is out, if you're interested.
Original 35 mm film is better
lol like 40% more footage
Imax 🤣🤣🤣
Wow, the IMAX version is amazing.
Bruh it's 35mm, not imax
@@girieditx But looks like similar. :)
@@gedimangediman No just aspect ratio different the picture not as good as Imax
It's like very easy to see the HD looks better but for some odd reason ignorant people have Said for years on forums 35m looks better
No it doesn't it has extra grain/isn't as sharp or clear
Se ve mejor la original 🙄🙄🙄
@Batsy Arkham99 Se generan sombras innecesarias, todo se ve rojo como un filtro y además se ve más borroso, 4k no sólo es el tamaño de la imagen es también resolución, es decir mayor detalle y como es posible que un hd de 720p nativo de la grabación original se vea mejor que un 4k, es imposible, no debería decir 4k el titulo
@Batsy Arkham99 En realidad la original se ve así porque el rollo de película ya es antiguo y con el tiempo se van perdiendo colores. NO es que se va mal, simplemente se fue desgastando con el tiempo. Originalmente la peli se veía perfecta.
Cropped versions are always better, full frame has too much unnecessary and distracting useless information, remember to frame tight and keep it simple.
Nah it feels cheap
@@awesome1ru true facts. Spider-Man 1 in Widescreen i dont like it it feels so horrible and Fullscreen is perfect because is like 35MM cropping the areas when appears mic and bars in 35MM, fixing the colors etc