A few words about…™ Terminator 2 — in 4k UHD Blu-ray

Upgrade from Blu-ray - No 4 Stars

Terminator 2, directed by James Cameron is a Carolco film, which may, or may not, have something to do with what I’m seeing.

An important film for fans, and something that should be important to the overall lay of 4k turf.

Problem is, whether by design or error, and it really doesn’t matter which, the Lionsgate release is in some ways the 2017 version of the original Patton Blu-ray, and has no reason to exist on 4k media.

Any original film grain is gone. The image is slightly sharpened, made all the more obvious by 4k, and any highly resolved information that might have been on the original work, is gone.

The overall aura is one of being slightly plasticized.

Not nearly as problematic as Patton 1, but the same idea.

This is a pity, as it’s an entertaining film.

What crossed my mind, was that this may be the same old HD master used for the DVDs and older Blu-rays, but I have trouble believing that.

Image – 3

Audio – 5

4k – 2

Pass / Fail – Fail

Upgrade from Blu-ray – No

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

70 Comments

  1. It's a new master that was created with the intention of being the basis of a 3D conversion. The grain was eliminated with the apparent goal of having a better 3D presentation, and was done with the enthusiastic participation of director James Cameron.

    However, I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that this master was ever intended by Cameron to be used for anything other than a 3D conversion.

    It seems that this would not be the appropriate master to use for a UHD release.

  2. Josh Steinberg

    It's a new master that was created with the intention of being the basis of a 3D conversion. The grain was eliminated with the apparent goal of having a better 3D presentation, and was done with the enthusiastic participation of director James Cameron.

    However, I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that this master was ever intended by Cameron to be used for anything other than a 3D conversion.

    It seems that this would not be the appropriate master to use for a UHD release.

    Why would there be a need, or desire, to reduce grain toward 3D exhibition. Problem is that there isn’t 4k information in the image.

    That said, this master would probably be a superb basis for a DVD, or lower rez streaming.

  3. I'm glad Mr. Harris that you don't support this release!
    It's a shame such a highly popular film gets a bluray like this, and other unknown B-movies get wonderful filmic restorations!

    it seems the 2015 release is the "definite" for now release, although by no means I mean it's great!

  4. Scott Merryfield

    Thanks for the review, Robert. Your observations are similar to others on the 'net, so I decided to cancel my pre-order. Hopefully the next UHD release of this film will correct the issues.

    One gets into some interesting turf, if & when a filmmaker chooses to modify their work – if that’s what has occurred here.

    Does a filmmaker have the aesthetic right to modify their work?

    Yes.

    Does the audience have to like, or approve of such modification?

    No.

    I’m generally for originality. Others may not be.

    Possibly, a dual release – original & modified.

    Again — if that’s the case here, and I have no direct information telling me that it is.

  5. Thanks Robert, it also crossed my mind that the weird plastic look might be due to the scan being the old 2002 scan only "improved" and upscaled. Nonetheless, despite the kinks, this new version beats all past releases.

  6. Robert Harris

    One gets into some interesting turf, if & when a filmmaker chooses to modify their work – if that’s what has occurred here.

    Does a filmmaker have the aesthetic right to modify their work?

    Yes.

    Does the audience have to like, or approve of such modification?

    No.

    I’m generally for originality. Others may not be.

    Possibly, a dual release – original & modified.

    Again — if that’s the case here, and I have no direct information telling me that it is.

    Lets see what happens when the first 3 Star Wars films or THX 1138 gets released in 4K. Like to see both original or modified as a option.

  7. I thought I read a new 4K scan was done for 3D. As bad as the DNR is, there is a lot more detail, different color, and different framing pointing to a new scan. However, I'll probably just stick with the 2015 Lionsgate BD as I prefer films to look like film and the BD even with its flaws comes closer to that.

  8. I read elsewhere that there was "fake grain" added back in to make the picture look more like…well, "film." Isn't the point of a restoration to make "X" look as close to original as possible? I can't believe (if it is the case) that Cameron signed off on this nonsense…I've read accounts of flaws, "private parts," and a number of other items digitally removed…hell, I saw screencaps elsewhere that the "purple looking" lasers during the opening have been changed to blue? What an absolute travesty. I do not understand why this film, arguably one of the greatest action films of all time, no matter what format…laserdisc, DVD, bluray, and now 4K continues to receive subpar releases on home video. Disappointment doesn't even begin to describe my feelings on this release.

  9. Robert Harris

    Why would there be a need, or desire, to reduce grain toward 3D exhibition. Problem is that there isn’t 4k information in the image.

    That said, this master would probably be a superb basis for a DVD, or lower rez streaming.

    It's easier for the conversion company (Stereo D) to convert the 2-D image to 3-D by eliminating the film grain. However, normally artificial grain is added back into the image to make it look less like plastic and more like film like they did with Titanic 3-D. This didn't happen on the T2 master for some reason. The T2 3-D conversion was done on a smaller budget than Titanic, so that may explain why.

    Lionsgate and StudioCanal should have went back to the original 4k scan before grain removal was performed for the 3-D conversion. I'm sure Cameron has that original scan stored somewhere.

  10. I sold my SkyNet version, but still cancelled this order. I don't care how inexpensive it is — I'd rather not have a de-grained, overly plastic-looking film on my shelf, because I will never want to watch it. I cancelled my order of the first BD release of Spartacus for the same reason, but I did own the first BD release of Patton, and it wasn't pretty.

    I'm okay with getting rid of the SkyNet version despite this. That release had to be the most poorly authored BD I ever owned. It took forever to load. I would get annoyed whenever I put it in a player. I can wait for a better version to be released — we all know this will not be the last T2 released.

  11. Robert Harris

    One gets into some interesting turf, if & when a filmmaker chooses to modify their work – if that’s what has occurred here.

    Does a filmmaker have the aesthetic right to modify their work?

    Yes.

    Does the audience have to like, or approve of such modification?

    No.

    I’m generally for originality. Others may not be.

    Possibly, a dual release – original & modified.

    Again — if that’s the case here, and I have no direct information telling me that it is.

    Maybe this will end up being like "The French Connection"; as it wasn't too long before Friedkin's modifications disc was replaced by the audience's favored and original version.

  12. Josh Steinberg

    It's a new master that was created with the intention of being the basis of a 3D conversion. The grain was eliminated with the apparent goal of having a better 3D presentation, and was done with the enthusiastic participation of director James Cameron.

    However, I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that this master was ever intended by Cameron to be used for anything other than a 3D conversion.

    It seems that this would not be the appropriate master to use for a UHD release.

    I watched this tonight and must admit I was more bothered by the change in colors than the "degraining".

    Yeah, the image does have that "plastic" look to a degree, but not as badly as with the Skynet BD or some of the other usual DNR culprits.

    The colors are really different than in the past, though. The movie always leaned blue, but it had other hues as well – and now they're GONE.

    When I flipped between the 4K and the 2015 BD, I was shocked at just how different the colors looked – and having seen "T2" on 87-skillion different formats over the last 26 years, I'm pretty sure the "old colors" were correct…

  13. I'm pretty sure I read a quote from Cameron while the conversion was still in progress about how they were making some changes to the film to make it look more like if he had shot it today using digital technology, so I think the intent here (for better or worse) was to create a new version of the film. Since I'm satisfied with how it looked in 1991, I don't see the need for this, but I guess Cameron did.

    I have mixed feelings on the 3D conversion (I don't have the UHD version). The presentation I saw in theaters in August looked incredibly flat, to the point I thought there was a technical issue affecting the presentation in that specific theater. The theater looked into my questions but ultimately stated that there was no issue with the presentation I attended. I did just get the 3D disc and I sampled a few minutes here and there, and the 3D effect was indeed far more pronounced than what I saw in the theaters.

    So ok, great, the 3D is finally in 3D. But then I'm still left with the fact that it's not the version of the film that I'd prefer to watch. There are very few times where I'll opt to watch a 2D version over a 3D version of a movie, but this will probably be one of those rare exceptions. As cool as the 3D potentially is, I'm not sure how often I'll watch it if the feeling I'm left with at the end is "I feel like I'm missing part of the movie."

  14. I am under the impression that they found the video quality to be unacceptable and that is why the release date was changed for the 4K UHD Blu-ray release. I had seen part of an interview where Cameron said the only change he made was a fix to the scene where the window pops out of the truck as it impacts the flood control channel and then is back in. I will not be happy if when my 4K UHD disc arrives and it looks horrible, hope this release has been fixed and the video quality has been repaired! At this time Amazon is telling me it is scheduled to arrive around Jan 2-4, 2018 and I really hope I am not going to end up totally disappointed in the transfer!

    View attachment 42714

  15. The included Blu-ray is an oddball mix of the 2017 re-master and the 2015 version (which people seem to think is the best of all the Blu-ray releases.

    The scenes from the theatrical portion are from the brand new re-master (with little grain) and the extended portions are from the 2015 release. The exception to this is when a scene is extended (rather than being a completely new scene.)
    Rather than an even more jarring change in the middle of a scene they decided to use the 2015 version for any scenes that were extended. I think an example of this is the scene where John and the terminator are getting weapons from the bunker. That scene had a couple of added lines about whether the terminator feels fear. That entire scene is from the 2015 rather than a mix.

    This will actually be a fun watch because of all the odd choices they made. And probably they will re-release it in a couple of years in a superior release.

  16. Credit oddity about the Blu-ray included with the 4K:

    It includes the laserdisc commentary hosted by Van Ling, one that had 26 participants (including Ling).

    However, the credits for the BD state it has 23 participants.

    I haven't had a chance to relisten to the track, so I'm wondering if 3 people got edited out of the track on the new BD!

  17. Camper

    This will actually be a fun watch because of all the odd choices they made. And probably they will re-release it in a couple of years in a superior release.

    Sorry to be a downer, but this is starting to have a checkered history. We may see a perfectly mastered edition of T2 when we see a blu of Halloween with the 1999 DVD color timing. I take a love-the-one-you're-with attitude and will be picking this up anyway.

    I watched this in 3D in the theater with my 8 year old. His eyes light up when talking about it because he got to watch a rated R movie. Now he is at 2 with the Matrix.

  18. Colin Jacobson

    I watched this tonight and must admit I was more bothered by the change in colors than the "degraining".

    Yeah, the image does have that "plastic" look to a degree, but not as badly as with the Skynet BD or some of the other usual DNR culprits.

    The colors are really different than in the past, though. The movie always leaned blue, but it had other hues as well – and now they're GONE.

    When I flipped between the 4K and the 2015 BD, I was shocked at just how different the colors looked – and having seen "T2" on 87-skillion different formats over the last 26 years, I'm pretty sure the "old colors" were correct…

    It looks like they even completely changed the color of the lasers.

    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11116&d2=11117&s1=109100&s2=109125&i=0&l=0

  19. Have been enjoying T2 for oh what is it now 26 years or so and was over the moon when this got the intended 3D clean up and makeover. Having now watched it at the cinema in 3D and also on our home 8ft screen so many times it was nice to spot a few small specs of dirt still being retained in transfer for the new release retaining its film authenticity.

    I don’t know anyone in my area who has a 4K player but as the film was recreated for 3D we are really enjoying the Blu-Ray.

    Well done Mr Cameron and Co.

  20. When one looks at the still-frame comparisons from the above link, the UHD frames actually look okay, especially in terms of detail when compared with the BD.

    As someone who owns the UHD however, I can confirm that the uptick in detail is marred by the rest of the transfer's problems. For a proper upgrade to my Skynet version I bought years ago, I've just ordered the 2015 BD from Amazon for $10…

  21. Disappointing to read of this release’s quality. T2 is like my movie version of the “guess I’ll have to buy the White Album again” in Men In Black. I own so many versions of this film but will, for now, pass on the 4K until they do it justice.

  22. Luckily I haven't opened my copy yet, so back to Best Buy it goes. Why is it that some films are just cursed as far as home video releases go? The rights issues with T2 over the years read like the Hatfields and the McCoys. What a shame.

  23. Is James Cameron so short on money to can't hire Lowry Digital services to reduce grain without turn character's skin texture looking like plastic ?
    Or was it a decision to avoit that the scenes with CGI compsition looking quite worse than the scenes without digital intermediation ???
    Back then the digital intermediation was used only in FX scenes which required computer work, and the quality wasn't really good as today.

    They can turn the original footage (film)m great, but can't turn the digital files (or digital files from 90's that was recored back to film) looking great. And I must remamber this movie was shot in super 35mm

  24. Another reason why I have never upgraded from the LD boxsets. It's apparently too much to ask for a proper transfer of the original film with its groundbreaking CDS mix intact and the extended special edition as a branchable option.
    It's also apparently too much to ask for a properly transferred Terminator with the mono as lossless, or The Abyss done right or True Lies…anyone noticing a pattern? Funny how I have to hang onto all my LDs…

  25. Thank you for your review Robert very much appreciated. I did how ever end up keeping my copy of Terminator 2 that just arrived today. There where some things I was not happy about and the absent of film grain was one of them. But at the end of the day I felt it still looked better than the 1st blu-ray release and with the added bonus of lossless audio I kept it. Lionsgate should have done a better job at this release given that it is Terminator 2 and that the studio is not doing 4K any favors by not releasing a perfect or near perfect release of Terminator 2. But it looked just good enough to keep and not go through the mess of returning knowing that there is no reissue coming anytime soon. It was inexpensive enough so it just makes me think twice about pre ordering another movie any time soon.

    Robert do you have lionsgate email address so I can tell them what I think?

    View attachment 42883

    Equipment:
    Pioneer Elite SC-05 Receiver
    Samsung UBD-K8500
    Samsung UN55F9000 55" 4K UHD TV
    Upgraded Samsung Evolution Kit
    Altec Lancing A-7 Voice Of The Theater (L&R)
    Bowers & Wilkens HTM61 S6 (Center Channel)
    Advent Marble (Surround Side & Back Channels)
    HSU Research VTF-3 MK5 HP 15" Subwoofer
    Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI from Samsung 4K UHD player straight to evolution kit on Samsung 4K TV

  26. Just took a look at my 4K disc. It is an abomination. Typically, I am open minded enough to judge what something looks like in motion vs pictures, but this looks like total trash. I figured that I would find some type of "silver lining" here, but the final product here is inexcusable. If you're on the fence, cancel your order – to my eyes, the Skynet edition looks better. Even the text in the opening credits look bad. It's easily the worst transfer I've ever seen on the UHD format. It's probably one of the worst discs in my collection (bluray or otherwise).

  27. Carlo Medina

    I don’t think I own this one. Is this a better presentation than previous blu rays?

    Slightly more film grain than the 2009 Skynet edition, but otherwise likely from the same master. I tried to watch it after watching the remastered Terminator and it didn't look good.

  28. I a number of ways I feel it looks better than the version I have on blu-ray. Yes the transfer has a number of things not right but I am not sure I would call it an abomination. Yes it does fall short and this release being what it is doesn't help the format. But somehow I do not see this one bad release damaging the format and what Tristar Pictures should do now is to correct there screw up! I agree this release should have not happened the way it did and this title deserved a better transfer than it got! Is it beyond horible IMHO? With all the flaws it honestly could have looked worse and what saved it to a certain extent maybe was what 4K UHD brings to the table. Personally I feel that even though I chose to keep my 4K blu-ray the studio needs to do a new transfer and do it right 100% and we shouldn't have to wait another 6-8 years for a transfer done right. This is freakin Terminator 2 and it and we the fans deserve better! I will do a second viewing and maybe I feel a little different after a second viewing? For those of us that purchased this 4K release the studio should let us exchange it for a corrected version! Has anyone seen or heard anything from Cameron or the studio regarding the quality of this release? I am going to think about picking up the newer skynet edition at this point but maybe the studio shouldn't get any more of my cash until they fix this?

    Terminator 2: Judgement Day
    Released: 6-27-2006
    UPC Code: 012236191513
    Aspect Ratio 2.35:1
    Audio: 5.1 DTS-ES & Dolby Digital EX

    View attachment 42901
    View attachment 42902

  29. Received my copy last night and while it could be better I don't feel the 4k disc is an "abomination".

    Image – 3.75(if the blue lazer blasts in that one shot were the correct color it would be a 4.0)

    Audio – 4.5(should have had an Atmos remix)

    An upgrade from previous Blu-rays? – Yes

  30. View attachment 42966

    Josh Steinberg

    It's a new master that was created with the intention of being the basis of a 3D conversion. The grain was eliminated with the apparent goal of having a better 3D presentation, and was done with the enthusiastic participation of director James Cameron.

    However, I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that this master was ever intended by Cameron to be used for anything other than a 3D conversion.

    It seems that this would not be the appropriate master to use for a UHD release.

    This is a title card before the start of my 4K disc.

    Looks like the 4K version is based off that 3D master.

  31. This could have been and SHOULD have been much better. I'm disappointed that T2 just cannot seem to get a QUALITY home video release. This one should have been it. Instead it's just another missed opportunity.

  32. As much as I like 3D, I don't want to watch a 3D version of the version (theatrical) I don't watch. I always watch the extended. So nothing being released appeals to me.

    Lets me off the hook of waiting for it to be released.

  33. Mike Frezon

    Does anyone know if the Blu-ray included in this 4k release is the same as the 2009 Skynet Edition Blu?

    No it's an all new release. It does contain 3 different versions. Theatrical version is based off this new transfer. The other two versions are Frankensteined from this new transfer & older transfer. The disc menu even says somethnig to the fact for highest quality presentation view the theatrical.

  34. Tino

    How on Earth did James Cameron allow this controversial “remaster” to be released.

    When the film was being prepared for 3D conversion, Cameron gave interviews where he described the process and said that they were scrubbing the grain and other things to make it look as if it had been made recently. It seems possible and perhaps even likely that all of these changes are exactly the look that Cameron was going for.

  35. Josh Steinberg

    When the film was being prepared for 3D conversion, Cameron gave interviews where he described the process and said that they were scrubbing the grain and other things to make it look as if it had been made recently. It seems possible and perhaps even likely that all of these changes are exactly the look that Cameron was going for.

    For the 3D presentation sure. But you think he’s happy with this 4K release considering all the terrible reviews?

  36. I don't think he really cares that much, which is why I find his comments about not having the time to approve decent HD or 4K releases of The Abyss and True Lies to be so disingenuous. Add to that his statements indicating he thinks "scrubbing the grain" makes this film look "as if it was made recently", and I really wonder what in the heck is wrong with him. That a filmmaker of his experience and stature would say such a thing is mind-boggling to me.

    IMO T2 has never received the treatment it deserves, and this 4K release just piles on that tradition. Thanks Mr. Cameron.

  37. Tino

    For the 3D presentation sure. But you think he’s happy with this 4K release considering all the terrible reviews?

    I don't think the reviews really concern him.

    I also think that the things the reviewers look for may be the very things that Cameron wanted to eliminate. A reviewer who is grading the disc on how well it reproduces the original theatrical release in 1991, or the look of the original camera negative, is going to give an unfavorable review to this disc. But, on the other hand, Cameron specifically endorsed and praised the removal of the grain and the changing of the look to make it appear more modern. That's exactly the kind of thing a reviewer would give a poor grade for, and would probably be willing to do so sight-unseen just based on that philosophy or stated goal.

    So if a reviewer is going to come at it with the point of view "My definition of perfect is looking like the 1991 theatrical release or the original camera negative" and if Cameron is coming at it with "I want to make it look like a movie from 2017 that was shot and edited digitally" then they're both at odds in a way that can't be reconciled.

  38. Dave Moritz

    Thank you for your review Robert very much appreciated. I did how ever end up keeping my copy of Terminator 2 that just arrived today. There where some things I was not happy about and the absent of film grain was one of them. But at the end of the day I felt it still looked better than the 1st blu-ray release and with the added bonus of lossless audio I kept it. Lionsgate should have done a better job at this release given that it is Terminator 2 and that the studio is not doing 4K any favors by not releasing a perfect or near perfect release of Terminator 2. But it looked just good enough to keep and not go through the mess of returning knowing that there is no reissue coming anytime soon. It was inexpensive enough so it just makes me think twice about pre ordering another movie any time soon.

    Robert do you have lionsgate email address so I can tell them what I think?

    View attachment 42883

    Equipment:
    Pioneer Elite SC-05 Receiver
    Samsung UBD-K8500
    Samsung UN55F9000 55" 4K UHD TV
    Upgraded Samsung Evolution Kit
    Altec Lancing A-7 Voice Of The Theater (L&R)
    Bowers & Wilkens HTM61 S6 (Center Channel)
    Advent Marble (Surround Side & Back Channels)
    HSU Research VTF-3 MK5 HP 15" Subwoofer
    Audioquest Cinnamon HDMI from Samsung 4K UHD player straight to evolution kit on Samsung 4K TV

    As I stated in my review of this disc, the disc was authored as region-free by Studio Canal (or a company they hired), so Lionsgate is nothing more than the distributor in this case.

  39. I just watched T2 4K HDR and it was fantastic.
    True, no grain, but also true: great detail, great contrast, great color, great dynamic range. The only 'plastic' faces I saw were somewhat obvious extra makeup.
    Comparison- wise I have the poor Skynet transfer, which of course is not in the same league.
    I generally appreciate a nice grain field- e.g. many of the Warner Archive releases.
    But I'm not complaining about this disc.
    Cheers!

  40. I'm returning mine back to Amazon. It's sitting on the table ready for me to print and slap on the return labels. I didn't even open the package as I'm removing this edition from my collection. Speaking of package, even Robert Patrick's package has now been, um, removed from this release.

  41. Michael Osadciw

    I'm returning mine back to Amazon. It's sitting on the table ready for me to print and slap on the return labels. I didn't even open the package as I'm removing this edition from my collection. Speaking of package, even Robert Patrick's package has now been, um, removed from this release.

    :blush: 😆

  42. Put me in the abomination column. This disc really, really sucks. I think Mr. Harris mentioned the notorious issue with the original 'Patton' Blu-ray as being a similar example of severity, and I agree completely. This is absolutely the most DNR ravaged disc I've seen since that first 'Patton' release. Why they authorized this thing for release is beyond me.

  43. David Wilkins

    Put me in the abomination column. This disc really, really sucks. I think Mr. Harris mentioned the notorious issue with the original 'Patton' Blu-ray as being a similar example of severity, and I agree completely. This is absolutely the most DNR ravaged disc I've seen since that first 'Patton' release. Why they authorized this thing for release is beyond me.

    I agree wholeheartedly. It beggars belief that after so many years of edge-enhanced, tealed, DNRed misfires, major labels are still releasing substandard crap like this. Especially when it gives a glimpse at just how good T2 really could look. Sadly though, some reviewers, along with the majority of consumers, will happily gobble it up, believing it represents the latest and greatest in vintage film-to-home video transfers.

    The generally enlightened folk on forums like this one are sadly in a tiny minority. I'm sure we've all got a million horror stories about dear friends and close family members who are blissfully happy with badly compromised home A/V. This, despite years of us gently trying to educate them or even adjust and improve their set-ups for them.

    I own multiple copies of T2 on BD and DVD, but my go-to viewing disc shall remain the UK 2008 Optimum/StudioCanal BD, which has the same transfer as the US 2015 Lionsgate BD. They're bound to have another go within the next decade or so; maybe next time they'll finally get it right.

  44. revgen

    It's easier for the conversion company (Stereo D) to convert the 2-D image to 3-D by eliminating the film grain. However, normally artificial grain is added back into the image to make it look less like plastic and more like film like they did with Titanic 3-D. This didn't happen on the T2 master for some reason. The T2 3-D conversion was done on a smaller budget than Titanic, so that may explain why.

    Lionsgate and StudioCanal should have went back to the original 4k scan before grain removal was performed for the 3-D conversion. I'm sure Cameron has that original scan stored somewhere.

    I don't think they added fake grain on "Titanic".
    It seems to me, they made a perfect new 4K transfer and then moved to 3D convertion and degrained the film in this process. That makes a lot more sense for preservation, when you have a perfect new transfer with grain intact.

    They degrained and added artrificial grain on "Aliens" because Cameron was never satisfied with the heavy grain of the used high speed negative back in 1986.

    The big question on T2 is, if an 4K transfer with intact grain exist or they degrained the picture directly after the scanning process and bevor color grading. The new color grading was approved by James Cameron and DoP Adam Greenberg.

  45. "Cameron approved" doesn't seem to mean much. Aside from Avatar, most of his work that's been released on Blu-ray or 4K UHD ranges from looking decidedly mediocre to looking like crap. Not a very good track record for a guy who has the reputation of being an absolute perfectionist. I don't get it.

  46. While de-graining used to mean a loss of high frequency information, this hasn’t been true since John Lowry arrived on the scene.

    One can de-grain, lose no information, and then add noise back to an image, if desired.

    Back when we were testing The Godfather(s) at half a dozen post houses, I made certain that Lowry had a crack at it.

    The bullet points: follow original reference color, extremely clean, repaired, full stability, and no changes to original film grain.

    When they presented their candidate, they got everything correct, except that there was zero grain.

    The image was so startlingly resolved that it led a high level studio tech, to refer to it as “looks like a f**king CBS movie of the week!”

    The projected image appeared as though we were viewing a live scene on the other side of a large picture window.

    So, there is no question that one can remove grain without not only damaging the imagery, but enhancing it.

    Unfortunately, that wasn’t what the original filmmakers were looking for in that specific case.

    But if someone IS seeking that look, there is no question that they have the algorithm.

  47. I think the T2 situation is a conundrum.

    IMHO, they worked the process that way:

    – 4K raw scan is done with grain intact.
    – All the grain is removed in 4K.
    – Digital fixes in 4K are done as all the image elements will be broken down. You have to remove stuff that stands out like when the crew is in plain sight of a shot, or do fixes like head removal/replacement of stuntmen at this stage.
    – 3D conversion is then done in 2K.

    So there is no way to go back to the raw scan because you would have to put back in all the digital fixes which would probably take at least a week, and put the grain back in the places where the digital fixes were done so that it's seamless. (or completely swap shots and match grain). It's like precision work and it takes time.

    So The only way you can add grain back in the 4K now is the Lowry way. By then you would have to get it approved by Jim, which might takes months, if years. You might also want to do the same to the SE elements. I hope it happens down the line.

  48. UHDvision

    I think the T2 situation is a conundrum.

    IMHO, they worked the process that way:

    – 4K raw scan is done with grain intact.
    – All the grain is removed in 4K.
    – Digital fixes in 4K are done as all the image elements will be broken down. You have to remove stuff that stands out like when the crew is in plain sight of a shot, or do fixes like head removal/replacement of stuntmen at this stage.
    – 3D conversion is then done in 2K.

    So there is no way to go back to the raw scan because you would have to put back in all the digital fixes which would probably take at least a week, and put the grain back in the places where the digital fixes were done so that it's seamless. (or completely swap shots and match grain). It's like precision work and it takes time.

    So The only way you can add grain back in the 4K now is the Lowry way. By then you would have to get it approved by Jim, which might takes months, if years. You might also want to do the same to the SE elements. I hope it happens down the line.

    The problem with this 4k is not simply grain removal.

  49. Weird eh? My initial reaction was that it was the old scan source upscaled.
    It has a plastic look that even 4K images at 60mb each that Studio Canal provided me, shows.
    In the press book interview, JC says they scanned the negative. That's what they told him, but I'm wondering about this.

    Remember in 2002 they scanned in HD the film I think from an IP, and in 16/9 to get maximum data info, for the X-Treme edition. Upscaling this to 4K and doing a makeover doesn't sound so crazy to me.

    Also both versions shows clipping in the same places, which I don't remember the film version having.

Leave a Reply