post #421 of 654
5/27/09 at 12:05pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Oliver_A
I'll bet that a new master of The Terminator will end up looking better than the 2003 HD master of T2.
|
|
Originally Posted by dvdvision
Hi Van got the french steelbook on street day, and I am currently delving into it. Takes days to check everything of the disc
I connected to the UK BD Live mainframe, alas all the text was in german once I accessed the content. Hopefully, they will update soon with translations (or original english text) of all the stuff there. No documentary extra to download yet thought. French mainframe doesn't load. Regarding the PQ debate, here's my 2cents : it's indeed softer than the japanese steelbook discs, but contrast and color timing are more in sync with how the film always looked. Most pleasurable to the eye presentation yet, thought those wanting the extra 5% more detail and grain (or is that noise ?) will probably stick to the japanese one, or original UK disc. For those who own the xtreme DVD, and think it looks fine upscaled : this new release present a major difference in the colors and contrast, the original xtreme DVD encoding in mpeg2 having somehow a yellow shift on all the movie, resulting in the colors looking off in many scenes. Check the DVDbeaver comparison, to see how HD presentation improves the coloring : T2 - Skynet Edition Blu-ray - Arnold Linda Hamilton Notice how the sky is more natural behind Sarah, as well as her skin tone. The Skynet Blu-Ray is more in sync with how the film always looked, whereas the xtreme DVD encoding had too much yellow, making it look a bit off. |
|
Originally Posted by Van Ling
Craig, I did in fact rebuild/morph the missing frames for T2, as David mentioned.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
It's oversmoothed and not what the IP looks like.
|
|
Originally Posted by Geoff_D
You've, ah, seen "the IP" then, Michel?
|
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
I have seen the different HD versions of the IP. That's my conclusion. If someone has an uncompressed version of this still from the original HD master I'm all eyes to compare to the released versions.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
Still my favorite exchange in all the discussions of the Skynet edition:
Translating that last entry from the Evasive: "No, I haven't seen the IP. I've seen the same discs available to everyone else." Thanks for asking the question, Geoff. The answer was informative, both in substance and in form. |
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
Informative?
|
|
Originally Posted by RickER
Ahhh, who cares how it looks, if it takes 5 minutes to load.
|
|
Originally Posted by Van Ling
Well, Michael and RickER, you know the Old West saying: "You can identify the pioneers by the arrows in their backs." ;-)
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
Thanks for asking the question, Geoff. The answer was informative, both in substance and in form.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
Yes, indeed. Informative about you and the credibility of your assertions ("not what the IP looks like" -- which you don't know, because you've never seen it).
|
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
I haven't seen the IP of Patton either and still I know it does not look like the HD transfer. What's so hard to understand here?
|
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
If you have any evidence to prove me wrong please present it. If you don't why do you question my credibility?
|
| Especially in a case that, as you admit, is not "clear cut", Van's word is a lot better evidence than some intuited IP. |
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
So while we may lack access to the IP or reference print as you say, when the same master from the same film transfer reveals such visible differences in several production Blu-ray Disc releases, and we can directly compare and contrast them, it's not unreasonable suggest that the version that appears to be lacking the most detail might have experienced some form of DNR or high-frequency filtering by some means or another, whether by intent via an unintended byproduct of some other process (like low bit-rate VC-1).
|
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Now, were Van saying "I've seen the IP and/or reference print and when projecting this Blu-ray Disc side-by-side, they appear identical, and in fact the other Blu-ray Disc releases deviate from the film source", that would be a different discussion.
|
|
Originally Posted by Van Ling
Jonathon, that Australian version accesses the Imagion BD-Live feature, which is different from the US BD-Live application I worked on with Sofatronic, so I can't really comment on it since I was not involved in that part of the international discs; Studio Canal did the European BD-Live stuff on their end. Also, this Australian version is technically not region-free, as Studio Canal made a big to-do about wanting all versions to be region-coded; however, since it has to serve both the South American and European markets, it's coded for both Region A and B, which I guess makes it pretty much region-free except for the folks in Region C (mainly China and Russia). Only the US domestic version has the original DD5.1EX and the TheatreVision track... there was no room on the Universal disc due to all of the languages.
|


