Blu-Ray Terminator ---> Excessively filtered?

Johannes S · 06-16-2006, 02:31 PM

Not having seen the BRD of Terminator myself, I found the following review quite disappointing.

http://www.upcomingdiscs.com/dvd_rev...type=disc_type

"The Special Edition release of this film had a few areas of noticeable grain and some issues with colors. I’m happy to report that the Blu-Ray release is jaw-dropping. Colors are accurate, so accurate that I sometimes wondered if I was watching a brand new release and not a film that is 22 years old. A majority of the grain has been cleared away giving the film’s setting and theme a more horrifying and terrifying feel ...."

The removal of film grain with means of DVNR is the least to be expected from a good HD transfer. I don't want a 22 year old film artificially popped up to "look like watching a brand new release".

Just look how wonderful unfiltered film grain can look on HD releases like "Apollo 13".

Or are they just afraid the MPEG-2 codec used could create compression artifacts when encoding grainy material at given limited bitrates? (BD 25)

RobertR · 06-16-2006, 03:08 PM

If film grain inherent in the source was removed so that MPEG2 could handle it, that’s not good. Video transfers are supposed to give us what is THERE, not more, not less. Don’t watch grainy films if you don’t like grain.

Adam_ME · 06-16-2006, 04:16 PM

Never mind the transfer, that review seems to indicate that the mono track wasn't included. I hated the 5.1 remix on the DVD. If that's all the Blu-Ray version offers, then I'll probably never upgrade.

Dan Hitchman · 06-16-2006, 10:27 PM

Cameron approved the transfer and remix (so as to be more in line with T2), so what are we to do about it?

Kelly Grannell · 06-17-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman

Cameron approved the transfer and remix (so as to be more in line with T2), so what are we to do about it?

Just like we have to accept that George Lucas sliced and diced the original Trilogy?

**HTF Ads**

Dan Hitchman · 06-17-2006, 12:03 PM

It could be the lack of room on these BD-25 discs. PCM audio takes up a bit of space if uncompressed... two PCM tracks might have been too much, so they went with the 5.1 track as that was the one approved by Cameron.

The ONLY thing I don't like about the 5.1 DD-EX remix is the sound of Arnold's gun as it's not "menacing" enough. The rest is a pretty darn good remix of such a low budget film by one of the top sound designers in the industry: Gary Rydstrom, who just so happened to mix T2.

As HD discs make inroads and the technology to compress them improves, perhaps they'll do a re-transfer down the road and not have to filter as much. As is, the master used right now was designed more for the DVD than HD.

Dan

TonyD · 06-19-2006, 06:49 PM

its 11.99 at amazon right now.
wont last long i bet.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130

Paul.S · 06-21-2006, 09:36 PM

Dan re "As is, the master used right now was designed more for the DVD than HD" and "Cameron approved the transfer and remix (so as to be more in line with T2), so what are we to do about it?"

I assume you're referring to the transfer on MGM's 2001 SE, not the BD's transfer yes? And just curious: where'd you read/see word of this approval?

And re "... two PCM tracks might have been too much, so they went with the 5.1 track as that was the one approved by Cameron."

But what if they'd dropped that French 5.1 (but I surmise it's inclusion facilitates a single SKU for Canada and the U.S.?).

DaViD Boulet · 06-27-2006, 09:10 AM

Approving the transfer means the source film-to-digital transcribing. It says nothing about downstream processing.

In any case, we don't know what happened with T1 so I don't want to criticize this disc until we know for sure. Did they get an early-generation print or IP that had less grain? If it was digitally removed, yes, that would be bad.

Ed St. Clair · 06-28-2006, 07:30 PM

Because this review is fake.
This thread should be closed.
People should be directed to the "Fake T2" thread.
Thanks.