Terminator 1 & 2 (1 Viewer)

[EnricoE]

These movies were created on FILM, and that's exactly what they should look like as much as the format can possibly achieve --a high quality theatrical print, NOT grainless "HD video". This is as least as important as preserving the original FX and sound.

100% agreed!!!

 

[Oliver_A]

This really can't be stressed often enough until EVERYONE working in the industry gets it.

 

[Lord Dalek]

, don't allow grainophobia or heavy handed high frequency filtering (followed by "sharpening" to try to get back the killed detail) to mar the transfers. These movies were created on FILM, and that's exactly what they should look like as much as the format can possibly achieve --a high quality theatrical print, NOT grainless "HD video". This is as least as important as preserving the original FX and sound. Transfers such as Close Encounters or How the West Was Won are a joy. Transfers such as Patton are not. Please follow the example of transfers done right.

After reading the... let us say "uninformed" comments of David@ earlier on this page, something like this warms my heart.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Originally Posted by RobertR

I'm glad the "new FX" idea went nowhere. I'm also glad to see so many requests for the original mono in lossless on the first film. I'd be fine with the extras from the UE edition and lossless 5.1 or 7.1 on T2. But what doesn't seem to have been mentioned enough is

NO EDGE "ENHANCEMENT" OR EXCESSIVE DNR!

Please, don't allow grainophobia or heavy handed high frequency filtering (followed by "sharpening" to try to get back the killed detail) to mar the transfers. These movies were created on FILM, and that's exactly what they should look like as much as the format can possibly achieve --a high quality theatrical print, NOT grainless "HD video". This is as least as important as preserving the original FX and sound. Transfers such as Close Encounters or How the West Was Won are a joy. Transfers such as Patton are not. Please follow the example of transfers done right.

I agree 100%

 

[Van Ling]

I totally agree with you folks regarding edge enhancement... that said, the ultimate approval for transfers comes from Lightstorm, so I can only hope they understand this as well, since I'm no longer there.
My experience is also that in some cases, the "edge enhancement" folks complain about is NOT in the transfer or even on the disc, but caused by filters in the player. Or even when someone screencaps the image and posts it as a JPEG online! I recall one time on Episode I where I compared a frame of the original transfer to what someone had posted online as an example of how "LFL had screwed it up with too much EE" and found that the original looked a lot better than this screencap (no big surprise there).
I'm not saying there aren't folks who do use EE and DNR, and often excessively, but one needs to look at the entire chain of how the image gets from the celluloid to the home theatre and be honest in assessing your own equipment as well. The tendency is of course to want to assume your expensive gear is perfect and that the problem is all someone else's problem.
Just my two cents,
V

 

[RickardL]

I totally agree with you folks regarding edge enhancement... that said, the ultimate approval for transfers comes from Lightstorm, so I can only hope they understand this as well, since I'm no longer there.
My experience is also that in some cases, the "edge enhancement" folks complain about is NOT in the transfer or even on the disc, but caused by filters in the player. Or even when someone screencaps the image and posts it as a JPEG online! I recall one time on Episode I where I compared a frame of the original transfer to what someone had posted online as an example of how "LFL had screwed it up with too much EE" and found that the original looked a lot better than this screencap (no big surprise there).
I'm not saying there aren't folks who do use EE and DNR, and often excessively, but one needs to look at the entire chain of how the image gets from the celluloid to the home theatre and be honest in assessing your own equipment as well. The tendency is of course to want to assume your expensive gear is perfect and that the problem is all someone else's problem.
Just my two cents,
V

Re Episode 1, looking at this page, 'Star Wars: The Phantom Manace' R1,
the screenshots shows a lot of EE on the movie vs the trailer on the same disc, that can't be attributed to any filters in the player, could it?

 

[Van Ling]

Here's a question for you:
For older films like this, where all of the original special features are only in standard def... IF the studio can't/won't spring for the cost of additional dics, and IF there is enough bandwidth via BD-Live... would you folks consider downoads or streaming of old SD bonus content via BD-Live a viable alternative? If such features were on the menus as normal and you have the connection for it to be relatively seamless in playback (which is happening more and more, since many settop boxes are now adding Netflix and YouTube functionality and access), would you use it as such?
Obviously, having it in hand on an actual disc is preferable (if you're a collector and/or like actual tactile things), but if the alternatives are either to not have those features at all or to have them accessible online, would the latter be a legit way to include them?
Thoughts?
V

 

[RobertR]

Re Episode 1, looking at this page, 'Star Wars: The Phantom Manace' R1,
the screenshots shows a lot of EE on the movie vs the trailer on the same disc, that can't be attributed to any filters in the player, could it?

No it can't. It's beyond dispute that the DVD of TPM has excessive EE. We know that transfers can be done without EE and excessive DNR, in fact it's easier to leave those things out than put them in, since it involves less processing of the image. The people doing the transfers just need to change their "ugh, I hate that grainy film look" and "now that I've smeared away the detail with the grain, I need to jack up the sharpness" attitudes.

 

[RobertR]

Here's a question for you:
For older films like this, where all of the original special features are only in standard def... IF the studio can't/won't spring for the cost of additional dics, and IF there is enough bandwidth via BD-Live... would you folks consider downoads or streaming of old SD bonus content via BD-Live a viable alternative? If such features were on the menus as normal and you have the connection for it to be relatively seamless in playback (which is happening more and more, since many settop boxes are now adding Netflix and YouTube functionality and access), would you use it as such?
Obviously, having it in hand on an actual disc is preferable (if you're a collector and/or like actual tactile things), but if the alternatives are either to not have those features at all or to have them accessible online, would the latter be a legit way to include them?
Thoughts?
V

Van,
I guess the response would be "something is better than nothing", but I have a hard time believing the studios would be saving that much money by putting them online. Isn't the cost of making DVDs very cheap these days?

 

[RickardL]

Here's a question for you:
For older films like this, where all of the original special features are only in standard def... IF the studio can't/won't spring for the cost of additional dics, and IF there is enough bandwidth via BD-Live... would you folks consider downoads or streaming of old SD bonus content via BD-Live a viable alternative? If such features were on the menus as normal and you have the connection for it to be relatively seamless in playback (which is happening more and more, since many settop boxes are now adding Netflix and YouTube functionality and access), would you use it as such?
Obviously, having it in hand on an actual disc is preferable (if you're a collector and/or like actual tactile things), but if the alternatives are either to not have those features at all or to have them accessible online, would the latter be a legit way to include them?
Thoughts?
V

As soon as I have I good ethernet connection to the player, yes, that would
an alternative to not having them at all or excessively high priced BDs.
One issue is that the content would have to be accessible and online for many years to come.

 

[Scott D S]

Here's a question for you:
For older films like this, where all of the original special features are only in standard def... IF the studio can't/won't spring for the cost of additional dics, and IF there is enough bandwidth via BD-Live... would you folks consider downoads or streaming of old SD bonus content via BD-Live a viable alternative? If such features were on the menus as normal and you have the connection for it to be relatively seamless in playback (which is happening more and more, since many settop boxes are now adding Netflix and YouTube functionality and access), would you use it as such?
Obviously, having it in hand on an actual disc is preferable (if you're a collector and/or like actual tactile things), but if the alternatives are either to not have those features at all or to have them accessible online, would the latter be a legit way to include them?
Thoughts?
V

I agree with the posters above. Something is indeed better than nothing and the material would have to be online for a long time but I assume the old material would be pushed off for new material in its place? (Could the old material be put on DVD instead to save on Blu-Ray authoring? Or even included as some kind of a Best Buy exclusive bonus disc?)
The T2: Ultimate Edition was a DVD-18, then repressed as a 2-disc set. The Extreme Edition was a 2-disc set. So I have to ask (with a smile), "Why stop now?"

(My 666th post. Too bad we're not talking about The Omen.)

 

[Dave Moritz]

Obviously, having it in hand on an actual disc is preferable (if you're a collector and/or like actual tactile things), but if the alternatives are either to not have those features at all or to have them accessible online, would the latter be a legit way to include them?

I would definantly prefer to have the content on the disc. I do not like the idea of having to have BD-Live in order to watch the bonus features. Or being forced to have the internet or I can not see them. Granted I would get the internet anyway but for me BD-Live is not a big deal. Another reason is that the studio could flat out stop offering the content or change it when ever they wanted. I would hate to have bonus features totallly messed up because the studio decided to be pollitically correct because it didn't want to offend someone for some stupid reason. Or the ability for the studio to find a way to seemless branch a new scene into the movie. Not actually sure if that can be done now but just think if they could do it soon. I like having the content on the disc as it keeps the conent in its original form and it does not keep it from people just because they do not have an internet connection. Bascically I just like having the content on the disc.
Another thing I was just thinking about is why offering the bonus content online would be that much cheaper or desireable verses a disc? The studio would have to produce the content anyway and then they would have to provide enough bandwidth for people to access the features. They would also have to gaurd against there serves being hacked and content being stollen as well, just a thought. Not everyone has internet so this would only benafit those with a internet connection.

 

[Van Ling]

Rickard, I checked the site you referenced and I think that IS the site whose screencaps I checked the original transfer against. The fact that he is pointing out that the PAL looks better than the NTSC, when I know both were made from the exact same HD transfer, whose imagery I could look at directly (since I had requested uncompressed HD footage from the approved transfer to do my menus), tells me that the EE issues were likely introduced downstream from the original transfer. This means it could be anywhere from the compression on down to the player or even the JPEGs he uploaded.
Please note that I'm NOT trying to deny that there's a problem with the images as displayed on the site --they suck. But the images from the original transfer I saw had nowhere near the severity of artifacts and ringing that the web JPEGs show. And I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to look at ALL the possibilities for the source of the problems. They are not always all at the feet of "studio idiots" who don't care about the image. Bear in mind that this was a Lucasfilm-approved transfer as well as THX (I was not involved in the transfer at all, so it's wrong for me to take brickbats or credit for it), so I would encourage everyone to examine and understand the entire process downstream from the transfer, as well as how the transfers were done. And in fact THX did do just that about a year after the TPM DVD came out, where HTF had come out for their annual Hollywood sojourn and THX walked everyone through the process and then had lunch at a Brazilian restaurant. As I recall, it went over rather well with the HTF folk in attendance.
V

 

[Van Ling]

Dave, you bring up good points... but also consider the flip side of the portentous censorship scenario you laid out: you could get additional related bonus content entirely to augment existing ones, like trailers for sequels, etc.; you could get fixes and revisions that correct authoring glitches (like a menu that was misprogrammed) just like with software patches; you could see a special feature that wasn't rushed and done poorly just to make it onto the disc, or dropped entirely because we had to wait past our delivery deadlines to get a legal clearance; and you could download new easter eggs, commentaries, and other features to make the disc's longevity and interest extend further than just watching it all once and putting it on the shelf forever.
None of this changes the fact that it's always nicer to have something in hand. And if you can download it rather than stream it, you can still have it in a form where it can't be replaced and resides in your possession on local storage. The glass half-empty versus half-full argument applies here: some folks lambaste me for adding Easter Eggs to my discs where I can, because I'm depriving them of easy access to something they feel entitled to. The way I see it, I'm trying to add more value to the product often after they've already locked the content of the disc and the menus, and I'm trying to squeeze in some additional stuff by cajoling the authors to put stuff in that the studio often didn't even pay for me to create.
In a scenario like BD-Live, I may get told that they want to focus the physical disc on new features or HD stuff only, so anything else I want to add can and should be done via BD-Live, since most studios are building that streaming/download functionality and capacity anyway. Usually, the alternative in the studios' view is not "well, we should put it on a second disc" if it's legacy content... it's usually "let's not do it at all".
So if we struggle to make it possible to get the content out to you in some way at all, you can understand how it can be disappointing to hear folks complaining about why it's not on the disc they way they want it.
Sorry about the rant ;-)
V

 

[RickardL]

Rickard, I checked the site you referenced and I think that IS the site whose screencaps I checked the original transfer against. The fact that he is pointing out that the PAL looks better than the NTSC, when I know both were made from the exact same HD transfer, whose imagery I could look at directly (since I had requested uncompressed HD footage from the approved transfer to do my menus), tells me that the EE issues were likely introduced downstream from the original transfer. This means it could be anywhere from the compression on down to the player or even the JPEGs he uploaded.
Please note that I'm NOT trying to deny that there's a problem with the images as displayed on the site --they suck. But the images from the original transfer I saw had nowhere near the severity of artifacts and ringing that the web JPEGs show. And I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to look at ALL the possibilities for the source of the problems. They are not always all at the feet of "studio idiots" who don't care about the image. Bear in mind that this was a Lucasfilm-approved transfer as well as THX (I was not involved in the transfer at all, so it's wrong for me to take brickbats or credit for it), so I would encourage everyone to examine and understand the entire process downstream from the transfer, as well as how the transfers were done. And in fact THX did do just that about a year after the TPM DVD came out, where HTF had come out for their annual Hollywood sojourn and THX walked everyone through the process and then had lunch at a Brazilian restaurant. As I recall, it went over rather well with the HTF folk in attendance.
V

Actually, I held off the R1 and bought the PAL version, actually imported R4, just because of
the severe EE on that R1 release. And yes, the EE I have seen on that R4
disc with my last 3 DVD players pretty much look like the PAL screen caps
on that site. So I don't think this particular issue has to do with the players and
if the trailer looks great, then it must be something else down the line that
went wrong.
Mistakes can happen, remember the framing errors on the "Back to the Future"-trilogy?
Very galant of Universal to admit the mistake and send out replacement discs.
But I agree, players and display settings and even cables can introduce EE/ringing
but I don't think so in this case.
Edit: sorry to have gotten off topic so much...

 

[DVDvision]

Hi Van,

Regarding the bonuses on Blu-Ray, here's my humble take : we already, for most of us, own the original T1 and T2 DVDs. I have all editions and i'm keeping them, including the original Image T1 disc because somehow they put the T1 soundtrack in 2.1 (which is the reason some people say it's "better" than the one in the final T1 DVD, they "remastered" it with extra bottom for more hmmmpfff on home-theater sets even if a message was included that no tampering was done).

I myself don't really care about SD supplements included on BR discs, I think they have no place there, plus we can't uspcale them on the PS3 so they are viewed in lower resolution than if you put it your old DVD.

BR are supposed to be High-Def, so they should be 100% High-Def in my opinion.

However, I don't mind if anyone put in an extra DVD disc in the package, with all the supplements as they previously appeared on regular DVD, region free in the case of region ABC discs.

I think the focus should be on offering the best options for image and sound on the Blu-Rays (including for T1 the mono soundtrack, and for T2 perhaps a couple of different mixes if the difference warrant it), and that any bonus on the BR should be either an old bonus redone in high-def (ala recent 007 bonuses on BR), or a new one also in HD. Of course it depends on budget, but I think it could be the right time for setting up a huge restrospective documentary on the Terminator saga, using both old and new footage, spread between T1 and T2 blu reissues.

All the old material can be, if they are really needed, included as a regular SD DVD (I'm not sure you would want to redo all those old T2 cards again now in high-def !) or just left as is on the old discs, which most of the fans own already anyway.

Regarding a 5.1 remix of T1, I think really that there's no need to completely remix again, however I think all the faults of the recent remix should be corrected, much in the same way the Lowry team corrected all that was noted wrong on the UE Bond discs for the BR versions. I assume they just printed out all the complaints that were on this site (there was what, 78 pages ?), and corrected each of them accordingly, including sound fixes on Thunderball etc.

As for T1 and T2 HD scans, I have a question, were the last one done from IPs, or from the negatives ? I know negs are harder to rescan as they have to be handled with caution and can break in places, but if the recent scans were from IPs, and are older than 5-7 years, they would look much better if redone again with the brand new Spirits.

Also no Mpeg2, both recent T1 and T2 american discs are mpeg2 and they look to me marginally better than the DVDs upscaled, of course they offer more definition, but it's nowhere near as good as what current AVC or VC-1 can offer.

Just my two cents... Can't wait !

 

[EnricoE]

btw, another feature request for t2
terminator 2 3d: battle across time
please, make this film finally available outside universal studio tours.
i know that the ride has real actor's to make the ride more fun. but it should be possible to include it in some way ... in hd of course.
this would make the t2 extras truly complete.

 

[JediFonger]

i agree with dvdivision. audiovisual quality trumps all else. i'd even buy a bare-bones if it was very well done. i already bought these T1&2 on BD, just saying if they remastered it again for next BD release.

 

[Van Ling]

Enrico, I've been trying to get Act Two of T23D onto a disc for over five years now... the fact that it is owned by yet ANOTHER different studio (this time MCA/Universal) makes it an expensive proposition... not to mention the fact that there is concern that putting some of the show onto a commercially available disc would hurt sales to the theme parks. I tried to argue that it might RAISE sales to the parks by whetting folks' appetites to go after seeing a part of the show (the most filmlike part), but they didn't go for it. And that was just a 2D version of the piece, as there is still no practical/economical way to bring 3D into the home theater yet (although some may beg to differ, the general cost for the average consumer is still too high). Still, with 3D now officially on the horizon for home video, I will keep trying.
V
PS: I'm pushing for AVC and DTS-HD Master Audio lossless on T2... ;-)

 

[EnricoE]

thank you van for the exploantion. but maybe, just maybe, universal and lionsgate see that it would help both parties to include battle across time.
as for the dts ma, please let it be 5.1 and not one those weird 7.1 upmixes ; )