Doesn't terminator still not have a good release anywhere that's not DVD? DNR, blue tints and color corrections, some issues i don't remember because it was a 3D release.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Matrix is Coming to 4K Blu-ray on May 22nd
- Thread starter SergioFerrazJr
- Start date
I'm not sure of all the dvd/blu rays, just know that the new ones were quite bad when it came to the color grading (blue filter galore) and dnr'd to hell and back, here's a video that shows you just how much of the color was changed with the new release:
You're right, still looks amazing though, and we will get at least 8k out of it in the future.
The best (foto) 35mm film under ideal scenarios would need a 87-175mpix digital equivalent to show as many detail. Don't know how that translates to "film" film but I guess the steps that have to be taken from perfectly exposed film, to copying the negative, scanning etc is dragging this down massively.
Another thing to keep in mind is that not all 35mm is the same.
There's the silent 35mm gate (aka super35 as it was known later) which is 4 sprockets tall and the width is edge to edge.
Then sound came and took up a portion of a side of the image. In order to keep the 1.33 aspect ratio, the surface area was reduced both in width and height.
Then cinemascope came around and this uses slightly more vertical area on the negative (1.17 aspect ratio thereabouts).
But then cropped widescreen came (1.85 and 1.66) and chopped off more of the top and bottom. This image is essentially 3 sprockets tall.
Then there's VistaVision which is basically fed horizontally like a still camera and is 8 sprockets wide like a still 35mm camera.
Visual:
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...7d481ad/1374187485835/formats.jpg?format=750w
Last edited:
It absolutely looks better.
I'm beginning to think most criticisms of color correction on the internet comes from complete ignorance, "I recognize a difference therefore bad" the "original" version of the footage in this comparison is a dated transfer (2003) intended for CRT, thus the obvious overly bright and clearly blown out footage. Obviously it's hard to compare, but if you saw the original print of the film you'd know that there is a difference and the 2003 master is clearly inadequate in modernity. It's just the version of the film that the majority of us recognize.
Ignorance?
Terminator 2 originally didn't have the blue color graded over everything, at all, the colors were much more natural looking in the day scenes. The blue was used for shots at night (IE in the asylum where Sarah is).
How on earth does adding a blue tint over EVERYTHING make it look better? It's taking away contrast, when you add blue tint you are taking away from the warm colors on the screen.
Cameron, much like George Lucas, likes to tinker with his movies, and one of the worst things is color grading. He did it with Aliens as well, but not as bad as he did with Terminator.
This is NOT how the movie originally looked when it comes to the colors.
Sorry this isn't related to the Matrix, but do you have a better comparison between the two releases? It's impossible to tell the DNR you mention in that YouTube clip because it's compressed to hell. But apart from the different colour grading, the 4K release looks better in the video.
? it has crushed blacks, that damn teal layer over it (this decades piss filter) with the vibrancy slider pushed hard. They all seem to have black hair etc. Its a bad "port". Whats 4k good for if details get lost in a pile of black splotches. Just looking at the thumbnail, the details on the shotgun, the wooden handle etc all got lost - its just a puddle of black. Meh.
Sorry, the site I normally use is messed up atm, but when it's up and working you should be able to find it on there and see for yourself,
http://screenshotcomparison.com/search
(just search for terminator 2 and should find the 4k to see)
Many of the reviews will bring it up though:
https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/49326/terminator2judgmentday4kultrahdbluray.html
I mean it is 4k, so you are going to get better detail in the parts that aren't DNR'd to hell, but overall the dnr parts + the color grading (for me at least) made it an easy-pass for 4k, hopefully we'll get a re-release in the future without the dnr'ing, but I doubt Cameron will give us the original color grading.
Even the Abyss (if we ever get it) will probably be color graded differently then it originally was.
There is another thread in these parts where people swore up and down that older films were better because they utilised more practical effects instead of CG
Those shots look incredible! This is what I've also read when I was reading through various comments on the blu-ray's colour grading, that both are incorrect compared to the original theatrical release (which also varies depending between prints or something?). I hope it looks more like that theatrical print screencap gallery. Wasn't making the blu-ray more green a conscious decision to make it look more like the sequels?
Strange that they're releasing just the first one and not all three in a boxset, but I'll take it nonetheless.
Now give us Macross DYRL and Macross Plus please :)
Now give us Macross DYRL and Macross Plus please :)
My friends and I walked out knowing we saw something incredibly special, even though we didn't fully understand what we just watched. The Trinity introduction drew applause form everyone 30 seconds into the movie, we all looked at each other and just said Holy Sh*t.
As far as the 4k version, I can't wait to see the lobby scene, because there are little pieces of mortar flying every where, its going to be glorious.
Interstellar, Dunkirk.
My CRT in 2003 was calibrated to D65 by an ISF pro and displayed colors the same as a modern flat panel that is properly calibrated.
Interstellar has plenty of 35 in it, but yeah, forgot about Dunkirk. I have that disc too, it does look good. I hate the film, unlike The Master or 2001 but yeah, it's already on there.
Honestly it's kinda funny how people hold to old transfers as if they were gospel...for some reason.
New 4K scan taken from the original negative. Warner's restoration team is getting pretty damn good. They did Unforgiven last year and it's great.
The new master looks a lot better, despite the use of DNR it still has a lot more detail than before. This is why I don't pay attention to most of these so-called video reviewers (like the recent blu-ray.com review that gave Batman Begins UHD a near perfect video review), I'd rather trust my own eyes.
I still remember my hand shaking as I tried to put the keys in my car's ignition after getting out of the theater. Seeing it for the first time was a rush unlike anything I had ever experienced at the movies. I probably saw it 5+ times in the theater. For little while in college it was a regular weekend thing to do with friends.
Not really, at least for older films - film stock might have a much higher "resolution" then 1080p, but 4k and up you definitely start reaching some diminishing returns - the only extra detail a 64K scan of even a 70mm film reel that you'll see is a collection of extremely high res film gain.
Here's a high resolution scan of Lawrence of Arabia(seams to be a bit higher then 4K, with a resolution of 6189x2700). It's certainly high res, but zoom in and you'll see that the image is actually very noisy and not particularly sharp - a higher resolution scan isn't going to resolve any more detail because this scan is already at the level where the film grain is clearly visible.
Some more resent movies that have been shot on film are able to "store" more detail in the reels, as can be seen in this 8k scan of the Interstellar (8640x5760). But even here, we are at the limits of the film medium since again, the film grain is visible and an even higher resolution scan won't be able to resolve more detail, because that detail doesn't actually exist.
The new master looks a lot better, despite the use of DNR it still has a lot more detail than before. This is why I don't pay attention to most of these so-called video reviewers (like the recent blu-ray.com review that gave Batman Begins UHD a near perfect video review), I'd rather trust my own eyes.
Weird. Why did they shift the letterbox up and down on shots? Did Cameron reframe or is this accidential? In that closeup it kind of makes a weird tangent with his chin where before it was framed better.
T2 - like every Cameron film since Abyss(?) - was shot on Super35. This is basically what silent films were shot as and you use the entire 4-sprocket area of the 35mm negative. The framing was done in post and going from 1.33 to 2.35, you have a lot of wiggle room. This also helped when tranferring to 'full-screen' home video: you just had to open the matte and you wouldn't lose much horizontal information. When they did the new transfer, they probably just decided to reframe the film.
This also explains why they DNR'd the film so heavily. When you're cropping so much, your useable negative surface area is quickly diminishing and your grain is being magnified.
If it was shot on film, you run the film through a modern scanner which is higher resolution and has better image quality (color reproduction, dynamic range etc).
I think a lot of that is the aesthetic of shooting on a larger format more than it is resolution.
I had a quick scan through the Blu-ray and it doesn't appear to be as sharp as many of the new 4K releases of 35mm films - though detail is high, and the noise level is much lower.
I think 35mm has generally been considered to be around "3K" resolution - so more resolution than 1080p provides, even if it's not entirely 4K. A lot of this depends how it was shot and transferred though.
Some movies shot on 35mm film don't seem to benefit from a 4K release at all - though you have to wonder how much of that is the film, and how much is the transfer.
Unfortunately shots are often framed differently in these releases, but here's a random shot for comparison, since it shows the difference quite well:
I have very conflicted feelings on Terminator 2's UHD release.
Yes, it has that waxy look from the DNR, and I dislike a lot of the new color grading (like the shot above where the distinct blue is now teal and blacks are green), but it's unquestionably sharper and more detailed.
It looks like they were DNR'ed to get rid of the film grain - and I can see why some people might want rid of it, based on how some 4K releases look - and then much finer artificial grain was added back to give it some texture.
That is talking about low-ISO still photography, it's not really applicable to movies.
Last edited:
Great shots, Jett. New master looks great. The 3D re-release looked amazing in theaters as well.
Yeah, heaven forbid some of us would like to see the movie without revisionist color grading that saps away the movies original color tone. I mean seriously why would you argue against people that just want to see the movie that way it originally was and how they remember it?
Color is one of the most important aspects of a film, it can completely change the atmosphere and tone of the movie when used, especially when it's used completely over a movie.
Would Suspiria be the same without it's super vibrant primary colors or Saving Private Ryan without it's sepia tone colors?
Look at the arcade cabinet and the colors, the green, etc.
Look at the wall, look at John's jacket, you're losing contrast and details for this new color grading.
Just look at how drastically the colors are shifted, you're taking away the warm colors in favor of the colder ones, white and red colors sapped away.
Look at the shotgun, the barrel and everything, the brown, the details, all gone.
Look at his skin, does that look natural at all to you? It looks like wax, super clean and very unnatural looking. All the little details of his skin have been scrubbed clean.
DNR can be applied to only specific frames and shots, sometimes too heavily, it isn't something that has to be used entirely over the movie,t hat's why some shots the skin/textures look fine but others with heavy DNR applied don't.
4k is going to give you sharper details regardless, by the very nature of it being 4k, that doesn't mean you aren't going to lose texture and detail when you get to the parts that are DNR'd quite heavily, like the shot above.
Everyone talking about motion film resolution, please watch the Yedlin demos right now.
https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yedlin-camera-resolution-myths
https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yedlin-camera-resolution-myths
Not sure where those images from the new transfers are from but they're waaaaay too dark.Yeah, heaven forbid some of us would like to see the movie without revisionist color grading that saps away the movies original color tone. I mean seriously why would you argue against people that just want to see the movie that way it originally was and how they remember it?
Color is one of the most important aspects of a film, it can completely change the atmosphere and tone of the movie when used, especially when it's used completely over a movie.
Would Suspiria be the same without it's super vibrant primary colors or Saving Private Ryan without it's sepia tone colors?
Look at the arcade cabinet and the colors, the green, etc.
Look at the wall, look at John's jacket, you're losing contrast and details for this new color grading.
Just look at how drastically the colors are shifted, you're taking away the warm colors in favor of the colder ones, white and red colors sapped away.
Look at the shotgun, the barrel and everything, the brown, the details, all gone.
Yeah, I bought it. Gambling on the 4K upgrade passing through Movies Anywhere.
