Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Blu-Ray Terminator ---> Excessively filtered?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic

#1 of 10 OFFLINE   Johannes S

Johannes S

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 120 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 2005

Posted June 16 2006 - 07:31 AM

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

http://www.upcomingd....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)

#2 of 10 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,517 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted June 16 2006 - 08:08 AM

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.

#3 of 10 OFFLINE   Adam_ME

Adam_ME

    Supporting Actor



  • 930 posts
  • Join Date: May 31 2002

Posted June 16 2006 - 09:16 AM

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.
I should really learn to knock....in case there's a threesome going on in my bedroom. - Sandy Cohen, The O.C., The Countdown

My DVD Collection

#4 of 10 OFFLINE   Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman

    Screenwriter



  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted June 16 2006 - 03:27 PM

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

#5 of 10 OFFLINE   Kelly Grannell

Kelly Grannell

    Second Unit



  • 445 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 10 2004

Posted June 17 2006 - 03:51 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?

#6 of 10 OFFLINE   Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman

    Screenwriter



  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted June 17 2006 - 05:03 AM

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

#7 of 10 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Executive Producer



  • 16,198 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted June 19 2006 - 11:49 AM

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

http://www.amazon.co....v=glance&n=130
facebook.com/whotony

#8 of 10 OFFLINE   Paul.S

Paul.S

    Producer



  • 3,813 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 29 2000
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationHollywood, California

Posted June 21 2006 - 02:36 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.?).

#9 of 10 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted June 27 2006 - 02:10 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.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#10 of 10 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted June 28 2006 - 12:30 PM

Because this review is fake.
This thread should be closed.
People should be directed to the "Fake T2" thread.
Thanks.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!