That's Ray Liotas standard look though.
No I mean it looks like CG, did they apply some smoothing filter to this "remaster" like those early Predator blu-ray transfers?
That's Ray Liotas standard look though.
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.
One known example is Lowrys scrubbing of Citizen Kane which caused details like rain to disappear.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. .
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.
Yes, I get the reason for it from a filmmaking perspective. But I still don't get the in-universe reason for it, the mathematics doesn't add up. To me its a (small) flaw of the film. Something Cameron couldn't solve.
Yessss, looks great. Those practical effects on the "liquid" metal pinned to his chest tho
Frozen grain and smearing are usually a temporal noise reduction artefact. Temporal noise reduction basically works by averaging between frames.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?
Shame, because Aliens looks unreal on blu.Not a fan of the color grading. I don't see why Cameron insists on changing the look of his films so drastically lately. I skipped Aliens on Blu-ray because of that, looks like I'll be skipping this one, too. And suddenly I'm afraid for The Abyss... how much bluer do you think he'll make that one?
old transfer looked really bad.
Shame, because Aliens looks unreal on blu.
I assume top pic is the remaster? Looks much better to me than the bottom pic.
old transfer looked really bad.
That's relative. From the metric "details/resolution" sure.
But growing up, going to the cinema was special because it was a format you couldn't achieve at home. It was special. It wasn't just "better" then the TV/VHS -- it was something different. Something else.
When Tarantino called todays cinema "TV in public" it may sound pretentious. But it's also fitting.
Even the "Culture cinema" here in Sweden who only shows older films, and long had the principle of showing films on their original showing-format is moving over to DCP. Which is quite sad. But happy to have seen a lot of classics there through the years on 35mm Like The Terminator and Aliens for example. Not Terminator 2 though.
How commonplace is it to insert digital grain after scrubbing the picture with DNR? Goddamn first I hear of this.
Why would you even do this.
Frozen grain and smearing are usually a temporal noise reduction artefact. Temporal noise reduction basically works by averaging between frames.
Following along the theme of the movie, the bottom picture is what you want.I assume top pic is the remaster? Looks much better to me than the bottom pic.
I really, really hope that one day Cameron releases a book that compiles all of the artwork and sketches he makes for his films - he's an extremely talented artist on top of being a great filmmaker.
Also as far as I know they didn't just blindly do anything to this movie. I believe Cameron claims they went frame by frame for remastering.
Oh god it's just so easy to spot the mask now.
Who the fuck is this guy?
Not a fan of the color grading. I don't see why Cameron insists on changing the look of his films so drastically lately. I skipped Aliens on Blu-ray because of that, looks like I'll be skipping this one, too. And suddenly I'm afraid for The Abyss... how much bluer do you think he'll make that one?
It has been done as long as film has been digitised. Initially it was done when scanning for effects shot. It is easier to pull clean mattes without grain. After the final image was composited grain was added back to fit in with the surrounding footage. It also has a happy side effect of adding the illusion of extra detail to soft footage.
This thread also reminded me of this great analysis of T2 plus what makes a really great thoughtful blockbuster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YWeJ22mIlE
Check it out, its pretty great.
This thread also reminded me of this great analysis of T2 plus what makes a really great thoughtful blockbuster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YWeJ22mIlE
Check it out, its pretty great.
there is legit loss of detail in the blacksFor comparison
For comparison
there is legit loss of detail in the blacks
It's a pic from youtube...
Metal flowers glued to the suit.
How commonplace is it to insert digital grain after scrubbing the picture with DNR? Goddamn first I hear of this.
Why would you even do this.
This shot makes him look like he has a big ass beer belly. Dude was lean as shit in this movie but laying down he just expands.
wait there's a remaster? Where do I buy?
Not a fan of the color grading. I don't see why Cameron insists on changing the look of his films so drastically lately. I skipped Aliens on Blu-ray because of that, looks like I'll be skipping this one, too. And suddenly I'm afraid for The Abyss... how much bluer do you think he'll make that one?
It has been done as long as film has been digitised. Initially it was done when scanning for effects shot. It is easier to pull clean mattes without grain. After the final image was composited grain was added back to fit in with the surrounding footage. It also has a happy side effect of adding the illusion of extra detail to soft footage.
Now it can be done when restoring film or added to digital footage to give it a "film" quality. When done well no-one would ever be the wiser. It is only when it draws attention to itself people take note. And even then only a very few people who obsess over such things (mea culpa) will ever worry about it.
Fairly common, Fox was especially bad during Blu Ray's early years some of the most egregious examples were Patton, The Longest Day, My Fair Lady and Predator. The earlier T2 releases also had some iffy she work done but not nearly as bad as this looks. This is Predator bad, where the actors look so easy you would think they are from Madame Tussand's. Whoever Lionsgate has doing their recent scans sucks. It's a shame because Artisan/Live Entertainment use to be one of the best in terms of quality releases.
I'm also one of those film enthusiasts that strongly believe that Blu Ray releases should take advantage of sir specs to provide the best experiences that approximates the experience of the original release with proper grain structure, very conservative digital noise reduction and proper theatrical colour timing.
Damn, that is the nicest I've ever seen the movie look and this is from compressed 1080p Youtube video, that blu-ray is going to be hot.
Ol Ridley at least had the good graces of offering the older cuts with the original color timing, remastered just as well as the final cut too.
The current BD releases of T2 escaped Cameron's revisionist clutches. It doesn't look anything like this trailer. T2 only really looks blue at night. This is teal. In mid-day.
Aliens looks nice and all, but these sweeping changes just bother me. And almost nobody cares, I think that annoys me even more.
I've danced around getting the Jaws Blu-Ray so many times over the years but goddamn you just sold me on it. Is the iTunes HD version the same or should I get the actual disc?
what are you talking about, Jaws is widely held as one of the best transfers of an old film.Yep. This needs to be repeated.
Nope, Jaws is not really a good example because of all the degraining. There are even some motion artifacts caused by DNR.
yea top looks better in this specific scene with regards to the color timing, however i could see it being a problem in other scenes.
old transfer looked really bad.
cause they're not historical documents?Detail wise, yes.
Color wise. The new one looks off to me.
Gives me anxiety that filmmakers don't see the point in preserving the movie as a historic document.
As in Aliens, the cold blue and the "original look" I'm guessing is lost for all eternity and all home released will be tinted teal. Unless it changes again ofc.
Hoping the grain is "intact" for the home release. It was shot on Super35 so should have some great grain in it.
no they're not.do you really think digital download movies weight as much as the disc version ?
nowadays, movies are around 35gb and more
Why would there be a 8mm print of a film from 1991?
First time I've hard about that.
To clarify:
We've been talking about T2 and the Abyss and most of the previous home video releases of Cameron's looking different than what these new remasters (overseen by Cameron) now look like.
But I'm pretty sure those old masters were also overseen by Cameron. In fact, Cameron has always been one of the most hands-on directors when it comes to tailoring his movies for home consumption, right?
Didn't Terminator 2 on laserdisc, and then DVD, and then its first HD iterations, look pretty much exactly like he wanted it to? He oversaw those transfers, he chose the color timing, right?
So what's changed between the versions he's been presenting to us the past 20+ years and now that the "original vision" suddenly has a black-crushed green cast to it?