SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
DoF has been racked focus since its later in the shot.
-
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
That's not DNR. When grading the shots they took the raw footage from the scan and set a different peak white point than they did for the previous master. Thus the details in the window are clipped in the new master. That was probably a conscious choice made during the new grade.
Motion picture negative has anything up to 20 stops of dynamic range depending on stock and exposure (although in the real world you are unlikely to ever get more than 12-15, if you are very good or very lucky). Blu-ray video has 8 at best. Even if they wanted to retain as much information from the negative as possible they have to throw a lot of it away. This often means sacrificing peak white or shadow detail. You have to clip the whites or crush the blacks.
Or they can just compress the dynamic range to give a more contrasty look.
It's important to keep in mind you can't rely on your memory of what something looked like years ago (especially over a quarter of a century ago) to be an accurate reference. Human memory just isn't reliable to enough to use it as good evidence.
The Fan Restoration Forum has a thread like the one on Original Trilogy about T2's color. The 35mm film scans posted there look a lot closer to the new remaster than the old Blu-ray. Even if the new version is a bit too green, it's still more accurate than the current Blu-ray. Even the Special Edition LaserDisc looks closer than the old BD.
That screen cap isn't very flattering to the '95 LD (it actually looks better on my home setup), but it isn't too far off. The thing about old consumer CRTs is that they could be a bit more flattering to the old formats. LD picture quality was also somewhat dependent on the quality of the player and the comb filter in the TV or video processor. There can also be a slight difference in quality between CLV or CAV format LDs, with CAV being better (the '95 disc is CLV for the first two sides).
I don't have the original '87 release, so I can't be certain how it looked, though I do have the '91 Special Edition. Not sure if it's similar to the '87 release, but I can attest to the '91 looking much worse than the '95. It's very noisy, has thick ringing, and a generally smudgy, blurry look--especially when in motion. It's pretty terrible even in comparison to the screen cap above.
The Fan Restoration Forum has a thread like the one on Original Trilogy about T2's color. The 35mm film scans posted there look a lot closer to the new remaster than the old Blu-ray. Even if the new version is a bit too green, it's still more accurate than the current Blu-ray. Even the Special Edition LaserDisc looks closer than the old BD.
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.
That screen cap isn't very flattering to the '95 LD (it actually looks better on my home setup), but it isn't too far off. The thing about old consumer CRTs is that they could be a bit more flattering to the old formats. LD picture quality was also somewhat dependent on the quality of the player and the comb filter in the TV or video processor. There can also be a slight difference in quality between CLV or CAV format LDs, with CAV being better (the '95 disc is CLV for the first two sides).
I don't have the original '87 release, so I can't be certain how it looked, though I do have the '91 Special Edition. Not sure if it's similar to the '87 release, but I can attest to the '91 looking much worse than the '95. It's very noisy, has thick ringing, and a generally smudgy, blurry look--especially when in motion. It's pretty terrible even in comparison to the screen cap above.
Yeah I need to watch the first two movies again. It's always in my mind though for how many times I saw it in the 90's.
But it has the same issue with the desert shot. The clouds are completely washed out and the mountains in the back are almost completely gone.
Overall I think the remaster looks really nice in terms of details but the colors are taking away a lot in certain shots.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Plus the focus on the right side of the frame is essentially the same in both caps.
It looks like later in the thread someone mentions that using the 35mm scans as reference the colors seem to vary reel to reel, with some 35mm colors looking more like the old blu, and some looking like this new remaster (?)
I think I'm reading that right, the information isn't arranged very neatly/cleanly.
It looks like later in the thread someone mentions that using the 35mm scans as reference the colors seem to vary reel to reel, with some 35mm colors looking more like the old blu, and some looking like this new remaster (?)
I think I'm reading that right, the information isn't arranged very neatly/cleanly.
eso76
Member
Yeah, the color of something on film can vary quite about due to a number of factors. There can be a difference in terms of what film stock is used too--though I think this is less of an issue with newer films. There's also the fact that the type and age of bulb in the projector can affect the white point of the projected image. There's even the color of the screen. This is partly why relying on people's impressions of what a movie looked like in the theater isn't always a good reference since it can vary so much--even more so when it was 25 years ago.
Even still, this doesn't mean those 35mm frames aren't representative of the movie's intended look. It's always great to verify it with other examples on film, past home format releases, and publicity images that are sourced from the film. From what I've seen of those, they all tend to indicate at the very least the 2003 master had the wrong color to a certain degree.
BTW, there was a 35mm trailer that sold on eBay a few months ago. There are some example frames from the scene with Sarah in the camp. The color on it looks closer to new master to me: http://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-Trailer-TERMINATOR-2-1991-Arnold-Schwarenegger-/292102837752?hash=item4402af95f8%3Ag%3AV4gAAOSwuMZZB0q3&nma=true&si=pBq9tS%252F2i3GER9UElHe9kFDFt5w%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
Robot Pants
Member
Which is old which is new?Shopped some of the stills from Studio Canal to compare with the blu ray. Not accurate framing but its close enough.
I'm assuming top is new? Looks better
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I just looked at that shot on Vudu on my phone.
The old version never gets close to as bad as the new one even on the last frame.
The focus shift is almost complete in that old screenshot anyway.
Oh god, chromatic aberration is just the worst!
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't think I'd call that specific example a good one. That's a bad photo in general, much less as an example to match for color timing purposes.
I didn't bring up the people in the thread noticing the variances in color from reel to reel as a means to suggest checking against 35mm release prints is a bad idea. It's a very good one. But it has its own set of problems. It's a thing I remember reading a lot about when the first 35mm fan restorations of Star Wars were seriously getting underway - people suddenly realizing how much of these endeavors, even in best case scenarios, come down to personal aesthetic judgment calls.
Which is apparently what's playing a part with this remaster that Cameron's supervising. And his personal aesthetic judgment call appears to be increasing the contrast, slightly crushing the blacks, and tinting things teal.
BTW: I really like how this thread turned out, although it probably wasn't how the thread was intended to turn out. There's a ton of really good info in here, a couple interesting stories, and even a link to a blu-ray release that omits the DNR pass from the Skynet edition, which is I THINK the one I have.
GrayFoxPL
Member
Melon Husk
Member
Oh yeah, I've lost count. Raiders wasn't too bad but this one's dynamic range is borked. Could be that the HDR remaster isn't blow out at all, and they simply didn't care about the SDR master. Looks super sharp though vs. Studio Canal BD. Not interested in the digital look one bit...
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I haven't personally looked at the 4K version of it, only the remastered BD, but I've heard that happened with Independence Day.
What device are you viewing these images on though? A calibrated monitor? Because if you're viewing on your uncalibrated PC monitor, phone or tablet then the colour temp will be too cold.
I realize I might be playing the role of George Lucas here, but I feel like theres a lot of room for improvement in the sound effects.
Specifically with the m9. we should know by now thats not what an unsuppressed m9 sounds like. maybe thats the charm and im out of touch, idk.
Specifically with the m9. we should know by now thats not what an unsuppressed m9 sounds like. maybe thats the charm and im out of touch, idk.
Hope they dont fuck it up like they did the first Terminator movie.
The re-done weapon sounds are horrible. Almost makes the movie unwatchable.
Shootout Original Sound
shooutout re-done sounds
SapphiCine
Member
I think the second clip sounds better overall but both aren't great. The AR-18 sounds like a damn laser gun during some shots in the original.
Superblatt
Member
I want to preorder this. Is it the 4k disc that releases in October on Amazon?
Hmmm. Kinda hate these shots. Feels unlikely the golden hue on these shots was THAT off from the original. Seems like they've been altered, and my memory of those scenes the the color is very vivid and integral to them. Especially getting out of LA, and into Mexico
That said, some of the shots on youtube look quite great, kind of a mixed bag. Oh well. I've got the older blu-rays/dvd. Will be interesting to see the newer one's improved resolution, and hold onto both of them. The Terminator remaster (and new color timing) was pretty great to watch, as I'd never seen it in such clarity. A little bit of a shame though these changes. I'll have to catch a 35mm screening of T2 sometime
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
The color stuff doesn't really bug me. But, I always wonder why. What is the thought process, and how do you reach the conclusion that totally changing the way it looks is the way to go?
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
So is detail in the highlights of her hair. Yep, the new version of that shot, yet again shows worse dynamic range. Highlights are completely burned out, much like in the desert shot. Amateurish work tbh.
Yeah, I can't argue with that. Film restoration is still more art than science. There's definitely a degree of personal judgement that guides these sorts of projects. Hopefully, Cameron's making the right choices here.
BTW, there were actually three releases of T2 on Blu-ray in the US. The first one came out in 2006 and fortunately wasn't DNR'd. It was mostly devoid of extras, only had lossy soundtracks, and was just of the theatrical cut though. The second one was the Skynet Edition (released in 2009), which was the one starring Madame Tussauds statues. It at least had all three cuts, lossless audio, and some of the DVD extras, so it wasn't a complete loss. The third version came out in 2015 and has the best picture quality (so far). Not only is the DNR issue plaguing the Skynet Edition absent, it's also given a higher bitrate AVC encode. Lossless audio, both main cuts, and some of the DVD extras are included as well.
With the new 4k remaster bringing it to four, there will finally be more editions of T2 on Blu-ray than DVD, but it will still lag behind LaserDisc (I think there were eight or nine releases on LD).
Yes. As far as I know, this new remaster will be releasing on both 4k Blu-ray and regular Blu-ray in October (the 4k version should come with both discs).
I'm getting fed up of older movies getting teal'd the fuck up when they get remastered. This is the (edit: FOURTH) time James Cameron has done this to one of his own movies.
I figure The Abyss is next.
Is he embarrassed of the old, more natural color grade of his movies? What's his deal?
Agree 100%. looks like the same, typical, teal Magic Bullet garbage as so much other stuff made today and loses the atmosphere that made the original so unique and classy. Too much green, not enough blue or warmth just doesn't feel like Terminator. That increased contrast with the blown whites and crushed blacks... bleh.
KDash31987
Member
I wish all remasters looked as good as The Terminator remastered release.
Anyway, all of this talk has reminded me that I've been wanting to do a Blu-ray/DVD/4K UHD community thread for months now, where we can talk about different releases and help people find the best ones, show our picks up, and other such things. Thoughts?
Here's the DVD version of The Terminator.
Here's the original Blu-ray release:
And here's the remastered version Blu-ray:
Images sourced from https://caps-a-holic.com
Anyway, all of this talk has reminded me that I've been wanting to do a Blu-ray/DVD/4K UHD community thread for months now, where we can talk about different releases and help people find the best ones, show our picks up, and other such things. Thoughts?
If I remember correctly, there was similar controversy over the colour grade of that remaster too.
mavericktopgun
Member
What if Cameron always wanted the films to look like that but he couldn't because color grading wasn't available back then?
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
I only have this, not sure which version though.
That's the poor mans (European/swedish(?)) version of this Region 1 (the first DVD I ever bought/imported, before owning a DVD player):
Metal slip trumps glossy foil digipack
mavericktopgun
Member
I have the old DVD (or Blu Ray) with the Endo Head.
I want the arm!
I want the arm!
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
That's an example though when the new one is similar to the theatrical prints. When watching The Terminator on 35mm I picked up on the colors being more subdued/less garish then I remembered from home video. And with a touch of teal.
(But with Aliens I feel the teal was overdone compared to the 35mm print.)
But as someone said, maybe you(?), the colors in the theatre depends on a lot of factors and homevideo releases have shaped our view of colors for films and it's hard to remember what a movie looked like 25 years ago in the theater. But to me, Terminator 2 just looks wrong (Especially the mall scene and the desert).
And something that haven't been discussed in here - I'm not a fan of it being the SE version that's returning to theaters. Should have been the original version.
Lynd7
Member
Glad you guys liked it. Check out his Jurassic Park one as well, explains well why World falls short.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
I don't think they should redo the effects. I think films should be preserved as a historic document and not a living, endless project to forever tweak and change (Lucas). Or if you want to change and play around with it, have the original version also be available (like Spielberg with ET).
But - they have actually redone some special effects for this release. Like the window on T-1000's truck and the stuntmans face in the storm drain action sequence. So just like with Aliens and Titanic Cameron have some things that disturbed him enough to tweak.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
You can see the bars a few seconds before this shot actually. The camera lens then puts the focus on Sarah's face. This is unrelated to the remastering work.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Maybe they decided to adjust the levels to make the image pop more and feel less "bland"?
Also not the same frame.
EDIT: See the comment above.
I would wait for pics from the disc before making a judgment on the image quality and not trust a clip on youtube. Who knows if they adjusted it for youtube, or if changes happened somewhere in converting the video.
dl77
Member
Nah, that's his body splattering whenever he gets shot. Arnie even describes him as a mimetic poly alloy. His wounds heal just before he gets back up, bullets are just normal metal and wouldn't do that. Bearing in mind he's made from liquid metal that's the kind of effect I'd expect to see. It's like when you drop something into liquid and it 'flowers' out, for want of a better word.
Fallout-NL
Member
Yeah, that washed out sky looks like crap. I want the old colors with the new level of crispness/detail.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Here's hoping the official release has this color grade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFEUeDqN66I
The teal is there but its far less pronounced
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFEUeDqN66I
The teal is there but its far less pronounced
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
-What about basing most of the trailer on the last act on the film?
- Sound swell. And add some teal.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Quick "fix" for fun
Colours in the theatre are variable but so are colours when viewing them as video at home. Ask yourself if the screen you are looking at is calibrated to the same reference point the monitor was when the video was mastered? Does it use the same colour space? Are you watching in the same ambient lighting conditions as it was in the mastering suite? How bright is your monitor?
All of these things affect how we perceive colour. The last two are particularly interesting. We use different cells in our eyes in low light conditions than we do in normal ambient light. We have less colour acuity in low light situations and also notice flicker far less: important for crossing the flicker fusion threshold and maintaining persistence of vision at relatively low frame rates.
Add to that, our vision, even under the best conditions, is really not very good at remembering absolute colour value. We might have a general memory that something looked blue or green or red, and a rough idea of the tone, but an exact recollection of an exact colour value? I really doubt it. I'm sceptical of anyone who claims they can remember how a film print looked even a week ago with any accuracy. Personally I couldn't objectively recall exact colour values at the point of my walking out of the cinema.
We are pretty good at differentiating between colours in front of us, which is how we can look at the different masters and see the glaring differences between them. Which is why, ideally, good known reference is used when grading a restoration. Was it used here? No-one who wasn't involved with the mastering really knows.
Even the images from vintage 35mm prints are of limited value unless all the elements in the image chain are calibrated consistently. There is a reason that the equipment used in professional studios is many times more expensive than the stuff enthusiasts use. It adheres to standards, and can be calibrated to match those standards, precisely in a manner consumer, or even high end prosumer gear cannot.
None of this really answers the question of whether the new colour palette is reflective of the final timing in 1991. But I know when I watch this new master, in a darkened room, on a reasonably well calibrated monitor, that my eyes will adjust and it will all be fine. Then I'll get caught up in the film and none of this will matter.