Terminator 1 & 2 - Page 12

Re: Terminator 1 & 2

Ouch. But thanks for the feedback, which I do appreciate... even when it's, um, diplomatically-put like Martin Henry's... :-(

Even though I have only a modicum of input (meaning I can give recommendations but have no final say) into the transfers and the picture quality, I've personally gotten slammed on every release of this title from someone who did not like the look of the picture or the format of the audio: too much grain, too little grain, too light, too dark, too much edge enhancement, etc. I also get folks who feel it's the best the film has looked, so it runs the gamut. So I can't promise everyone that they'll love it. Only that I can do my best with the time and resources I am provided.

Alex, I'm a bit confused... your reply implies that my specifically asking for there to be no automated digital noise reduction or grain removal is the reason the picture looks DNR'd. Can you explain this? I specifically don't like to see films denuded of their grain and end up looking like videogames, so I am particularly troubled to think that any actions I may have taken to try to steer away from such a look has contributed to it.

The only digital cleanup that I pushed for was to have physical dirt --scratches, hairs, water stains, either on the negative (white) or on the interpositive (black)-- removed by digital artists through a manual painting process. We only did this type of work, as far as I am aware of, and we specifically did not apply any overall (or even area-specific) noise/grain removal that might remove any high-frequency detail. So I kind of take umbrage at the thought that I did this or allowed it to happen. But I'd be the first to at least consider what some of the esteemed posters on this site say they are seeing, and want to get to the bottom of it.

In my experience, there are obvious and not-so-obvious opportunities for artifacts to show up anywhere in the process of getting from the actual film element to your home theatre, and I know it's possible that even if I specifically asked that something not be done, there may be automated processes set up in the chains at the post facilities that are considered "normal" and therefore are not acknowledged when discussing the process of going from a full-height anamorphic transfer master to a 16x9 letterboxed, edited master. Scaling can often soften detail, but then this was done to ALL versions using this same master, so that would technically be consistent across all releases in the last 6 years. That's just the creation of the master; then you get to the actual encoding, and I've seen different encodes from the same master look wildly different. I've seen incremental adjustments in threshold settings completely change the look of a film. And I've seen choices that had to be made between leaving an image grainy and true to the film look (which I know will garner criticism) or doing various processing that will reduce anything that may distract the viewer from the story (but will anger purists). The goal is to find the balance. Equally possible is that some of the artifacts you're seeing at home are the result of the way that the HT hardware in the home is processing the data, be it the BD decoder, any line-doublers or processors, or the display device. As I noted before, I've seen instances where posters have used JPEG stills full of ringing edges as proof of a lousy transfer, with no acknowledgment of the possibility that the "edge enhancement" they complain about was an artifact of the JPEG compression, and not of the transfer. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but when I keep an open mind about where any perceived issues may in fact be occurring, even if it's on "my" end of things, I expect the same courtesy in return from folks who have issues with the projects I work on. I'm more interested in having a useful dialogue that can educate and enlighten all of us in the process (including me) than I am in just maintaining a defensive posture.

The film transfer of T2 seen on the Skynet Edition was originally done in 2003 for the T2 Extreme DVD, and was telecined under the supervision of both Lightstorm and THX. Both approved the transfer. In 2006, we took that same transfer, ran it by Lightstorm again for approval, then encoded it in MPEG2 for the first BD release. MPEG2 was the only viable encoding format at the time for BD, which was also only single-layer, 25Gb. It wasn't definitive, but it was the best we could do at the time. For the current release, we took the SAME approved HD master that we used in 2006, and put it through the manual dirt-cleaning process I detailed above. As far as I know, that was it. We then encoded it in VC-1 and sent it over to Lightstorm for review at Cameron's request. We received back no revisions or objections. THX also reviewed and approved the encode and master. Not sure what else I personally could have done in this regard. I am not necessarily seeing the same things some of you are seeing, and if I had found it objectionable, I would certainly have raised the issue; what I can tell you is that there was no conscious choice to apply DNR to anything. Whether that makes my judgment less respectable in your eyes is of course your own opinion. :-(

While I would have loved to do so, we could not do a brand-new transfer of the film, for several reasons: 1) Cameron has to be involved in and approve all new transfers, and he is a bit busy with Avatar and simply could not devote the time... in fact, a new HD transfer of "The Abyss" has been awaiting his review/approval for three YEARS now; and 2) Studio Canal and Lionsgate wanted to do this release to coincide with the theatrical release of "Terminator: Salvation", which dictated our schedule and the resources given to do such a "maintenance" release. I came aboard to try to do the best I could as the person most familiar with the special features material... but we had no time or budget to do new commentaries or interviews this time around. I kind of feel that the accusation of there being nothing "new" per se is a bit of a testament to the fact that the original content we created for the laserdisc back in 1993(!) was and is still pretty definitive and complete... and frankly still unseen by the majority of the public that never watches the stuff, especially in such detail. Or maybe that's just me trying to find a positive way to look at things.

So I acknowledge the obvious fact that there is no "new" bonus material content on the disc, but nonetheless I tried some new things rearranging the old stuff in untried ways to take advantage of the BD format. If that is not of interest to you (as I know it is not for many of you on this forum), and you feel the feature presentation is not to your liking, I fully respect your right not to purchase the disc. And I have chosen to be here, as a guest on this forum, to listen to you tell me why. ;-)

Bottom line is that you should always vote with your wallets. If you prefer the Optimum version, it's available to you, as are the previous BD, HD and DVD versions, should you individually like one or more of those better. The "definitive" transfer has not yet been done, as that will depend on the technology, the resources, and Cameron's full involvement... and even then, I expect that some folks will object to some aspect of it!

V

Re: Terminator 1 & 2

James, arrow right from the THX trailer button.

V

Re: Terminator 1 & 2

Michel and friends... we did manual hair and dirt cleanup only --we had QC folks spend hours writing up timecode lists of frames with dirt/scratches/etc. on them-- and these are the only frames that get manually painted on in this process. There is not supposed to be any filtering, smoothing or grain reduction of any kind. And to reiterate, I specifically asked that NO automated or intentional filtering of any kind be applied to the master. All that being said, I am baffled that people are saying the image looks over-processed and noise-filtered... I'm not seeing what some folks say they are seeing. But I will be the first to admit that I'm just one person (and not even the final quality arbiter of the film) and everyone has their own opinions of what they think the film should look like... and I'm modest enough to believe that the members of this forum have likely better eyes than I do. As you all know, I still get people telling me they like or dislike one version or another (and not consistently) going back almost two decades, so you can't please everyone, I reckon... but I guess there's something to be said about having choices available as a consumer! ;-)

The Geneon disc was done using a dub of the SAME transfer master we used as the basis for the Skynet Edition, by the way. I don't have a copy of the previous Optimum BD release, and if it's region-coded, I couldn't access it even if I did have it. I also don't know what the source of that master is, but it ostensibly should be from the same master as what we used for the Skynet Edition; that version's source transfer is the only current approved transfer. I wonder if the difference is in the encoding; I think Geneon used MPEG2 while the Skynet Edition was done in VC-1; I don't know how the European discs were encoded. And I'm also open to the possibility that filtering was applied without my knowledge, but I don't think that's the case. But I'm going to look into it. Maybe we can all learn something from the process; I know I have, and will continue to do so.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback, and keep it up... I can't try to do better without your support!

V

PS: regarding Lionsgate, you should understand that as only the North American licensee of the film and NOT the worldwide owner of it (that would be Studio Canal), they do not have the ability to amortize the cost of new transfers across a worldwide market like other studios (Fox, Warner, etc.) who own their titles outright do... and a Cameron-approved transfer costs significantly more, between the wait time, revisions, doing it right, etc. However, it's my hope that Lightstorm will step in and work with Studio Canal to mandate a new transfer or full scanned restoration down the line, where they can have the $$$ to do it right by hitting up all of the worldwide licensees for a portion of the transfer/restoration costs. Right now, though, the way it works is that if Lionsgate wants to do a new transfer and is willing to account for the Cameron factor (as noted before, Fox is STILL waiting for his approval of the "Abyss" HD transfer that was done over two years ago... better just to do a new one with current technology if he is going to take the time at all, IMHO), they have to cover the cost all by themselves... and only have the domestic market from which to recoup. If they ask Studio Canal to chip in as the film rights owner and a potential beneficiary of that transfer (since contractually they own and can use any transfer of T2 that's done), SC says "well, we didn't ask for this new transfer to be done, so... no". And if LG pays to do it anyway (which only reduces their profit margin, because frankly this forum and I may be the only ones who care, and we don't buy enough discs to matter in the scheme of things), then SC swoops in afterwards and says "thanks for the transfer... now we can use it too. Fork it over!" They're not evil, they're just... businessmen.