old transfer looked really bad.
the color grading in the new transfer looks pretty bad to me
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Clip from the Terminator 2 remaster.
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
the color grading in the new transfer looks pretty bad to me
Goddamn the action direction in this sequence is so damn good
Fantastic post. I'm also tired of fucking gifs pointing out the tiniest flaws in movies. Drives me bananas. We don't watch movies like that.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
What if the green tint is to prepare us for the Terminator Future War/Matrix Prequel crossover film? 🤔
You can analyze set pieces from Cameron for days. He truly is one of the best ever.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
More fuel to my theory of a Robocop/Terminator /Matrix shared universe.
Now there are 2 of us!
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
I almost mentioned this last night. I love how loud Arnold's shtogun is, and then the T1000 fires and it is so weak.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
I knew about movies existing on 8mm for home projection. But not so late in the game. How would one have acquired a movie on 8mm in those days? Where did you buy it? What was the cost for a film? That's really cool.
Yes. But that conceit, albeit being really cool, was trashed by the marketing anyways. And the T-1000 looks menacing from the first time you see him.
I can't wrap my head around the in-universe logics of that arrival. I see Cameroons "magic trick" to clearly with him not shapeshifting into that cop.
Oh, Ok. Cool that you finally understood him then.
If I were to analyse it, you could argue that they did it that way to have Arnold be like a loud dangerous Bear, while the T-1000 is more of a silent and effective Cobra.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yes, if only you'd kept reading before you started talking you'd have noticed this.
Mighty Chin
Banned
Sounds like we have the beginning of a Jurassic World like thread explosion.
I don't remember a time where you could get 8MM transfers? Interesting...
There are artefacts. There are always artefacts. It comes part and parcel with lossy compression. The ones on Jaws you'd have to look for. I remember when it was released there were arguments about this on certain enthusiast boards where blown up, slowed down, .gifs were posted to demonstrate just how bad it was. If you have to blow it up and slow it down to see it, it is not a problem. At least to my mind.
We are watching films in a way unlike we ever have before. We can freeze a frame and examine it in unprecedented detail to find fault. We can pore over these frames and see things which never would be noticed at 24 fps and at normal viewing distance. For some it seems more about looking for fault in the presentation rather than enjoying the film.
I watched Alien last weekend at the BFI. It was a vintage 35mm print with optical sound. There were noticeable scratches, appreciable colour instability and the sound was distinctly analogue with plenty of pops and clicks. I'd argue those artefacts are more distracting, if you care to look for them, than anything you'd find on a reasonably well mastered Blu-ray. But because they are 35mm film artefacts and therefore more "authentic" they are given a pass.
But ultimately I was more interested in the experience than looking for fault. It was a great screening and I enjoyed it enormously. If it were a DCP they had shown, I'm sure I'd have enjoyed that too.
Derann Film Services for one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derann
I almost bought a 16mm scope print of Star Wars from them once before sanity prevailed. Not least because I don't have a projector.
supermarioworldE
Banned
True, the later trailers did indeed spoil the reveal, but I think a short bit of mystery was the intent, given the role reversals.
In universe, yeah, it doesnt make as much sense. Imitation is this machine's primary benefit, yet it chooses to stay in the same form for a good chunk of the movie. Though I cant think of many places in the film that further disguises would've helped any more. The T-800 always seemed to be a step ahead.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There is definitely an aspect of competition present that seems more than a little misguided to me, and always has. People tend to take in a piece of entertainment trying to "defeat" it, more or less. Instead of letting the art challenge themselves, they spend a lot of the time challenging the art, and not on artistic merits, but from a monetary value standpoint.
It's almost as if they can dig up enough errors/mistakes/fumbles in the course of their viewing/playing, they get to unlock a level of righteous indignation that will fuel their ensuing discussion and allow them to feel justified in complaining that they didn't really get their money's worth.
"Getting your money's worth" seems to be one of the primary motivations for engaging with games/films in those instances.
So if you can cut a frame in half, gif it, run the loop sans sound/context, and point out a thing 98% of the audience would have never noticed unless specifically looking at it, and make that a focal point of the conversation, you will.
Whereas just watching the movie and letting the movie be what it is, and judging it on those artistic merits isn't as important.
It's part of the pursuit of the perfect filmgoing experience where the hypothetical experience itself (which is almost completely unattainable at the level being fetishized) is more important than actually experiencing the work.
No doubt. Some of my best theatrical experiences came with big fat mistakes in presentation included, or noticeable production errors pressed into the celluloid. And if I was more concerned with the presentation than I was the content, they probably wouldn't have been as enjoyable.
For example: Despite what appears to be a transfer that pushes way too green for my liking, if I went to a theater showing this in 2D (which won't be happening) and sat down, I'm going to enjoy the film anyway. Not to say the presentation doesn't matter, it very much does. But the quality of the film AS A FILM is much more important to me than dissecting the finest details of its presentation. I'm not going to leave the screening because everything's tinted too teal, yunno?
Brian_FETO
Banned
I don't have a problem with the color change
I've seen it a million times so it'll be interesting seeing it in a different light
Not thrilled about the theater showings being 3D only but I'll catch one for sure
I've seen it a million times so it'll be interesting seeing it in a different light
Not thrilled about the theater showings being 3D only but I'll catch one for sure
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Get the disc. It will always look and sound better. And likely include an iTunes copy anyways.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Always get the disc, yes.
If the 3D treatment is anything like Titanic it should be pretty good.
Noisepurge
Member
Yeah im happy with the original Bluray release. Has the proper cover art too.
It's not just you. The sound is totally off. I've never seen the movie undubbed so I wasn't sure if that's how it was supposed to sound. In the first clip (in the OP) the 'smashing into wall' sounds are awful and makes it feel like there is no real impact.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
This is remastered, and remastered by Cameron himself. Former BDs are based off old masters.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
It's a trend that was heavy in the 00s. You seen it with a LOT of movies, not just sci-fi. We seem to have mainly pulled out of that, though, and you see a lot more movies that utilize a full range of HD color. Cameron hasn't gotten the memo, though.
Is this still being financed by China? I thought the whole purpose of this is they are jonsin for Cameron movies.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
That 8mm print could have been stored badly.
That is the point where you cease to be a film fan and become a fan of the technology.
Where you are a videophile rather than a cinephile. Where the worst aspects of that tendency which has long since tainted the term "audiophile" - the elitist snobbery and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo which have become inextricably linked to it - is brought to bear on cinema.
It is more prevalent with the hardcore home cinema crowd, at least in my experience. Especially those who rarely, if ever, go to a commercial cinema. Those who would rather watch a 60 inch screen than a 60 foot screen.
And why would they? A 4K OLED HDR TV with the right software gives an objectively better image, by any criterion save size, than pretty much any commercial screen. The only ones which compare are the IMAX laser screens. The 70mm IMAX screens might have a slight resolution advantage but they lose out on black levels by a long shot.
A good surround set up can get close to a really well set up commercial screen and be much better than your average multiplex flea-pit.
But still I go to the cinema. Why do I do this?
There is something about the scale of a screen which fills most of your peripheral vision that I love. And sitting closer to a smaller screen to give a similar viewing angle is not the same. Even at the ridiculous price they charge for a ticket I find the experience worthwhile.
To do so would be missing the woods for the trees.
DJ Lushious
Member
I am beside myself this is getting released on UHD Blu! I saw this in the theaters at age 10, like another GAFfer posted earlier, and that experience of this film has never left me.
I'm not too keen on picking out color timing changes, and I don't think it really bothers me, but heavy use/poor use of DNR will always get to me.
I'm not too keen on picking out color timing changes, and I don't think it really bothers me, but heavy use/poor use of DNR will always get to me.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I don't mind it. They pushed the sliders towards Cyan/Blue instead of Red/Yellow in the Color Balance adjustment. Usually watching on a calibrated TV alleviates the extra blue that I get from looking at movie screencaps on my phone or bare minimum settings PC monitor.
On my phone with the Adaptive display setting on it look very matrix like, but if I put it on the Basic setting, which is much closer to how it looks on my TV, it looks fine.
Sapiens
Member
That's Ray Liotas standard look though.
I don't really react to the mask. I react to the tiny unshaven man in fake-Arnold's lap.
Yeah updating stuff can go wrong so easily, better just leave it as it is.
pantsattack
Member
old transfer looked really bad.
Aww, I have distinct memories of that scene as a kid and the yellowish color making me almost feel how extremely hot it was out there.
So outside of setting and costuming it looks modern? But, that would be true of nearly any film.
He saying the film holds up today. Not every film does.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
If the present looks blue like that I wonder how the future sequences look.
I was actually going to post that, but I didn't have link to it. There are a number of good threads on the OT forum that discuss other films and their color differences among releases. It's an invaluable resource for these sorts of discussions. They also show that you can't always trust your memory, past video releases, or even modern DCPs for an accurate reference.Guys, you'd be surprised by how teal older movies were. Here are some pictures of a projected 8mm print:
In a thread on originaltrilogy.com a member went to see T2 on 35mm and said that there was a teal "blanket" and cyberdyne arm was purple.
That thread is here:
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Look-of-Terminator-2/id/17850/page/1
I've also seen pics of 8mm and 35mm prints for the first Terminator and Aliens elsewhere in addition to the ones in posted on the Original Trilogy. They all had a bit of a green tint similar to the recent Blu-ray versions. I also have the teaser trailer for Aliens on 8mm and it also closely resembles the Blu-ray. I can't vouch for all films with green-tinted, modern remasters, but it seems at least some films should have that green tint to it. It's not all modern revisionism (the Matrix aside).
I think part of the problem with the Jaws remaster is it seems to exhibit DNR artifacting. Particularly, the Blu-ray has what looks to me like still grain. It's not noticeable in screen caps, but when the film's in motion, the grain just stays there in place. It's almost like it's part of the surface of the background, objects, or actors. In severe cases, you can even notice warping of the grain structure around objects as they move on screen. It's really bizarre to see. I'm also able to notice this under normal viewing condition on my 65" plasma, so I'm not going to any strange lengths to find it. On the other hand, I also know what to look for.
I could be wrong, but I suspect it's a byproduct of trying to remove a large amount of grain while simultaneously trying to preserve a significant amount of fine detail. I've noticed a few other modern remasters that exhibit this too (Alien and Aliens come to mind). Some films have mitigated this a bit by adding a new layer of fake grain on top of it after the DNR. It's part of why this is more noticeable on Alien than Aliens.
I'm still looking for a Derann 8mm print of Aliens myself (if anybody has one for sale, PM me). There were actually two versions of the Derann Aliens print. One was tinted a lighter blue, and had additional errors in the print like softness, poor contrast, etc (IIRC). The other had the teal/greenish tint much like the Blu-ray. This also resembles the color timing of the 8mm trailer.
It doesn't sound like a noise reduction artefact. Bad DNR results in too little grain and/or an overly soft image: not static grain. It sounds like a compression artefact. Especially if the grain is warping around objects in motion. Lossy compression looks for differences between frames and stores them. That way it needs to store far fewer complete frames thus saving space. If it is misapplied it could easily result in static grain and warping grain. It is more likely a authoring issue than a mastering issue. I wonder if the DCP has the same issue?
I can't say I noticed it last time I watched Jaws. But then again I don't look for it and Jaws is one of those films where I get so caught up in it I probably wouldn't notice if the shark turned purple.
For all the talk of grain reduction, the funny thing is we see more grain on many Blu-rays than we ever would have from 35mm prints. Because they (usually) come from scans of the negative or interpositive you miss generations of information loss inherent in striking release prints: thus you get sharper grain. You are also miss out the effects of film projection which reduces the spatial resolution even more through jitter and optical issues. A study found 35mm release prints, when projected under ideal conditions, had significantly less viewable resolution than a 2K DCP, or even a Blu-ray.
I adore film and will go and see film prints as often as I can. But objectively digital has reached a point where, at least for presentation, it has eclipsed 35mm significantly.
re: T1000 not taking the police officer's form. I think the intent there is they were saving the "can imitate" reveal for when he invades Connor's foster home. It's the exact scene where they reveal the 800 can imitate voices, too. Drives home that John and his Terminator can't go to anyone for help but themselves.
Cameron's also pretty open on the commentary that each morph on screen was very expensive. It's why there's a few times where the camera looks to the side and you hear the morph sound instead.
Cameron's also pretty open on the commentary that each morph on screen was very expensive. It's why there's a few times where the camera looks to the side and you hear the morph sound instead.
Gnome Scat
Member
Damn, that clip reminded me I haven't seen this movie in too long.
I can't say for certain on Jaws, so it definitely could be a compression issues. In regards to Aliens, however, I'm quite positive the grain has been scrubbed. Not only did James Cameron mention this explicitly in an interview around the BD release (I remember it caused quite a shitstorm at the time when he said that), the restoration was also done by Lowry Digital (I think they're called Reliance now). IIRC, a part of their restoration process involved completely scrubbing the film of grain with their own special DNR process as standard practice. This would usually have the odd artifacts like I had mentioned. You can see it with their work on some of the Bond Blu-rays.
For Aliens, the artifacts aren't as obvious since there's still a fair amount of grain that was added on top of it, thereby masking everything. Even still, there are a couple of shots that show static grain. In this case the grain is actually fairly sharp and well defined, which is also why in this case I'm not so sure is due to the compression. I would think compression issues would also result in a loss of resolution for some of these problem areas. Then again, I don't know if modern encoding process handle certain issues differently. The BD for Aliens (and Alien) also doesn't have much else on the disc other than the movie and a few soundtracks, so I wouldn't think they'd be pressed for space. Further, the other two movies in the BD set (3 and Resurrection) have lots of grain and comparable features, but don't have this problem.
I've noticed a lot of Lowry/Reliance restorations exhibit similar issues too. For example, if you watch some the Kurosawa BDs Criterion released, Rashomon stands out from the other by a similarly strange grain structure. Rashomon, unlike the others, also happened to do the restoration work for it.
As far as the DCP is concerned, I haven't seen the DCP of Jaws, but I did for Aliens last year (coincidentally, the same theater actually showed Jaws this past year, but I didn't know about it until after the fact). The color and gamma were in line with the Blu-ray, but I strangely wasn't able to notice much, if any, grain in the image. This could have been due to a multitude of reasons though, including my seating distance.
I hear with the different HDR formats for UHD, film grain is even more noticeable still. Even with the (at times, dramatically) higher resoution, some older movies still look phenomenal. Even the special effects heavy ones can look great. I enjoy the sharpness and clarity (and graininess) that modern digital scanning and restoration can bring to older films, but like you said, it's also a bit of a different experience--especially for older movies. It's a shame there aren't any theaters near me that show 35mm or 70mm film anymore.