Warm Machine
Member
Did it need an anamorphic lens for the projector?
-
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
Did it need an anamorphic lens for the projector?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not really an implication, I'm wondering why previous transfers are being described as inaccurate or incorrectly done when, if I'm remembering correctly, Cameron was in charge of those, too.
Basically, a lot of the conversation regarding the differences seems to be operating on the assumption the previous ones were just done wrong, and this is the one that accurately reflects Cameron's original vision.
But if Cameron was in charge of the presentation of his movies on home video all this time, then either he fucked up then, or he's fucking up now, right? Because I don't think there are many versions of T2 on home video where the film didn't look like he wanted it to (and there are versions where I'm pretty sure he included either video introductions or full on essays in the packaging that explain why/how he made those decisions)
I see where you are going with this. Dunno? Probably has reasons and I happened to think it looks great. I'll wait until it's released and see it to really judge it.
Perhaps since it's in 3D it's color corrected to present best with that ver?
Don't get me wrong. The restoration isn't bad, but it also happens to be flawed and it certainly doesn't deserve all the praise when there are many better film restorations out there. Jaws has been degrained to the point where the grain field is nearly non-existent and there are temporal degraining artifacts such as frozen grain and smearing. The result looks more like video than film IMO. Some grain management isn't a bad thing, but I think Universal went a little bit overboard.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Were the latest Aliens and The Terminator discs crushed? If not, I wouldn't worry to much after seeing a clip on youtube.
The previous master comes from 2003, at least that was when it was first released. It was primarily for home video use and that means it catered for DVD and CRT screens and was designed to look good on them.
While it may have been state of the art at the time, it is now decidedly long in the tooth. Older transfers made for DVD tend to be brighter than newer ones and colour accuracy has only relatively recently become an issue taken particularly seriously. When the Godfather films were restored, and were much darker than the previous masters there was a lot of talk about why this was. It was because the films were always intended to be dark, but that did not play well with the average CRT of the time. So when technology allowed a more authentic home release one was made. It didn't stop complaints of crushed blacks coming to the fore and there are those who prefer the previous red shifted, over-bright master. But with Francis Coppola and Gordon Willis on board and Robert Harris leading the project you can be as sure as you ever can be that this was done right.
The vintage of the master might explain why the new one looks so different. Or it might be revisionism. Only those on the inside can know for sure.
As an aside, there is a 70mm screening of T2 in Germany later this month:
http://www.schauburg.de/in70mm.php
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
At least the teal is restrictively added here, unlike LOTR where they've just color shifted the whole damn thing towards green, including even the credits roll, where the text was greenish instead of white, lol. Here they actually seem to be doing actual color grading, adding teal to daytime scenes, but not really to night time ones I think.
Yeah, there's absolutely no way that someone who's so much into tech like Cameron isn't fully aware of this. So yes, he must be unhappy with the older, more natural look. I kinda get it, he's making a film, not a nature documentary, but still I wish they'd offer the cut with all the new high quality scanning detail, but original colors.
In terms of detail, old transfer does look bad, it's too soft and fuzzy. But colors look more natural, and also, dynamic range is better in the old version of that scene. Look how you can see more detail in every single white highlight of the old version of the scene. In the new one, everything is slightly more burned, which should have never happened with the new high quality scan.
old transfer looked really bad.
Isn't it the other way around, that the so-called Coppola Restoration has been accused of being brightened? Certainly in some scenes at least.
DVD
BD
Yeah I've no doubt Cameron is doing these changes on purpose. It's not a mistake, and even less "the way it was meant to be." His sensibilities have changed and he no longer cares for what his movies used to look like. This is an attempt to "modernize" them.
FOTR was just fucked up. The worst part is that it's the only movie that was altered, so the other two look completely different.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Yeah, I think the new restoration brightened the movie. It overbrightneed it slightly, as you can see some more detail in white highlights of the old release, but it pulled a ton more detail that was black-crushed in the old release, for an overall much better dynamic range.
It's nice listening to Spielberg treating Jaws as a historically relevant document, rather than just an artifact of pop culture, and willing to preserve the exact look of the original. I wish Cameron would take note.
One nice thing about how FOTR was treated is that if you have a TV which allows you to tweak R/G/B individually, you can 'fix' the movie easily, by just dialing the green down a bit. It immediately makes it look a ton better, and since the green is applied uniformly from beginning to the end, one color tweak fixes it altogether. If you're willing to invest some time, there's an AVISynth color curve tweak script that you can process the bluray rip with, for an even better looking result that matches the theatrical color timing exactly: https://www.howtogeek.com/238725/ho...lowship-of-the-ring-extended-edition-blu-ray/
It's possible I've got it arse about face. It has been a while. The whites are certainly more clipped in the image you posted.
The point still stands that the newer master is undoubtedly more correct. It was graded against archival technicolor prints on a shot by shot basis. But that didn't stop the speculation as to which master is better.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Damn. If it would have been in Berlin, and in english, I might have had flown down for that.
It is in English.
It probably is the more correct version, honestly hard to say with some of these old remasters. Sometimes they just do the best they can with what they have available. GF1 is a pretty complicated situation all around.
That is crazy, is it really a uniform green filter across the entire movie? What the hell is wrong with Peter Jackson.
And I agree 100% with Spielberg's assessment. It's nice to see he's come a long way since his walkie talkie days.
Cameron fucking up is a possibility. Back in the LaserDisc days, Cameron supervised the transfer for one of the early releases of Aliens. In order to ensure it "looked right", Cameron brought in his own personal TV set to use for mastering instead of using the studio's monitors, much to the chagrin of the engineers. As you would expect, this did not go well. First he complained about how noisy and grainy everything was so he had them DNR the hell out of it. This resulted in the image looking blurry and dull, so he had them jack up the edge enhancement. This made the movie look noisy (again), so they tried to DNR it (again). The final version released on LD looked quite terrible, but it was how he wanted it to look. Fortunately for the THX rerelease in '95, they either talked some sense into him or ignored him because that transfer turned out much better. EDIT: I found a link talking about it: http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/aliens-dnr-paranoia/
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Hah! Wow, I never heard that story before. Thanks for sharing it.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Jesus. That Cameron story.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Haha. What's up with the grain haters in the comments.
The Albatross
Member
People who get bent out of shape about the practical affects like...
Guys you know that this is a movie and that the cyborg killer robot isn't actually real and he's not being shot with real bullets and Arnold is actually an actor and doesn't have a metal exoskeleton under his skin right?
It's like watching wrestling and free framing when a guy does a punch and LOLing that he doesn't actually make contact with his arch enemy.
Guys you know that this is a movie and that the cyborg killer robot isn't actually real and he's not being shot with real bullets and Arnold is actually an actor and doesn't have a metal exoskeleton under his skin right?
It's like watching wrestling and free framing when a guy does a punch and LOLing that he doesn't actually make contact with his arch enemy.
Insane Metal
Member
One of the best movies EVER gets even better. I can't state how much I love this film. Jesus Christ.
I'd kill to be able to enjoy this at the movies at its original release
I'd kill to be able to enjoy this at the movies at its original release
Woof, I didn't even consider that. Well, that's a whole other level of considerable expense!
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Shopped some of the stills from Studio Canal to compare with the blu ray. Not accurate framing but its close enough.
HeisenbergLannister
Member
How's the knee, Dr. Silberman?
Yeah... I'm pondering the same thing.
Maybe James's excuse will be "If I had digital color correction available in 1991..." or some bogus argument, but didn't he have some of this tech available for the DVD release?
Daffy Duck
Member
Fine, Sarah. She stabbed me in the kneecap with my pen a few weeks ago
I really need to know what that LD looked like. I found some pictures of the remastered release that's supposed to be much better:
http://imgur.com/gallery/18Sm2
How much worse can it look? I really would like to see it.
It's almost hard to believe how awful movies looked at home in the 80's and 90's. And they no doubt looked even worse on broadcast TV and VHS, but I didn't even notice back then.I'd be in love with this edition if it was an open matte with the sharpness of this transfer... but without this teal mess.
I'm not usually one to complain about color grading. I do a lot of it and understand the appeal in 2017... but going back and taking a scene set in the desert that was original a warm orange and just dipping it teal...
C'mon, Cameron.
I'm not usually one to complain about color grading. I do a lot of it and understand the appeal in 2017... but going back and taking a scene set in the desert that was original a warm orange and just dipping it teal...
C'mon, Cameron.
MemoryHumanity
Member
This is how it always looked in my mind.
SapphiCine
Member
DNR has to be one of the worst things to happen to film preservation.
PeterLegend
Member
John Doggett reporting for duty lol
Even the shots of Sarah working out at the hospital?
No way. It always looked warm as hell.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
You prefer the 1.33 framing? (Or what do you refer to with Open Matte?)
Shopped some of the stills from Studio Canal to compare with the blu ray. Not accurate framing but its close enough.
That looks amazing. Much, much better. Holy crap Hamilton look more nuts with the color correction. Loving the look of it.
If Cameron is going to play around with the movie to this degree for the sake of making it look different, I'd rather get that as an optional bonus on the Blu-Ray, yeah. It would make for an awesome theatrical experience, too.
old transfer looked really bad.
If the top is the remaster, no, the old transfer was correct and the new one loses all the color temperature from the original shot. I saw T2 in theaters in 1991 five times, it didn't look like that top shot. Everything shown of this remaster is incredibly disappointing.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The new version of "How's the knee?" is absolutely disgusting. Look at all of that destroyed detail in her hair because of how hot the new version is.
I'm starting to turn on this project.
I'm starting to turn on this project.
I mean, the color was obviously altered, for better or worse, but the remaster shot looks far better overall.
If original color is a must for you then yeah, it becomes an issue. I prefer the considerable improvement in detail.
Edit: I'm only going only by that shot though.
I watched my blu-ray two months back and the IQ was definitely more than passable, but I'm always up for higher fidelity if it's offered...
But color influences so much of what a shot can convey. Tone, mood, hostility, vacancy, even basic things like temperature.
Yeah, I can see where y'all coming from. Would need see the end result, but color grading usually doesn't really affect me much, if at all.
Still, I can understand those who can't deal with it for the reasons you provided, among other things.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The absolute worst Disney animation BDs came out about five years after their first.
And a little off-topic but but I tried watching the first episode of The Simpsons in HD yesterday and it got the Sword In The Stone treatment from Fox.
dsp
Member
old transfer looked really bad.
That top one looks wrong.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
I think it should be as close to 1:1 as the original presentation, and not be affected by modern ideals or whatnot.
Has the image been to warm on earlier home releases – sure fix it. Did the blues originally had some green in them – sure fix it.
But don't change it because you in 2017 suddenly dig a cooler or greener look.
The crosshatching in the window is almost completely gone in the new transfer.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Maybe he brought his favorite TV back into the studio
I have it here, but I don't have any capture equipment to get a clean shot from the LD. It'd have to be off-screen photography w/ my phone.
I have it here, but I don't have any capture equipment to get a clean shot from the LD. It'd have to be off-screen photography w/ my phone.
CloudyTuba
Member
I can only hope the HDR version on 4k avoids the blown out highlights I'm seeing from this new transfer.
The version I currently watch is the 2015 release that came with the Mondo Steelbook, which is from the same transfer done previously but this time without the Skynet Edition's DNR applied. There's a noticeable different in detail.
That particular release was Mondo canada exclusive but the same version without DNR can still be acquired in the US for cheap.
I imagine things will turn out alright with the 4k version but I'll still hold on to my old faithful for whenever I want those warm tones.
The version I currently watch is the 2015 release that came with the Mondo Steelbook, which is from the same transfer done previously but this time without the Skynet Edition's DNR applied. There's a noticeable different in detail.
That particular release was Mondo canada exclusive but the same version without DNR can still be acquired in the US for cheap.
I imagine things will turn out alright with the 4k version but I'll still hold on to my old faithful for whenever I want those warm tones.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
The VHS I grew up watching. One of the most iconic posters ever, and it's just a clean shot of Arnold. To bad they don't trust in keeping it for the new release.
I would like to see a Netflix doucmentary on why movie studios keep insisting on photoshopping together messy new art for home video releases. (or go in the other direction and do like Criterion Collection). Just keep the poster art.
I would like to see a Netflix doucmentary on why movie studios keep insisting on photoshopping together messy new art for home video releases. (or go in the other direction and do like Criterion Collection). Just keep the poster art.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
That's Gladiator missing arrows level of detail scrubbed by DNR.
old manatee
Banned
Shopped some of the stills from Studio Canal to compare with the blu ray. Not accurate framing but its close enough.
I hope that's not accurate. look at the window in the bottom photos. How is there less dynamic range.
It's not an exact screenshot. Of the same scene. Obviously.