Previous threads:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=865415
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1028018

This one is just to focus on every high def version, ignoring the DVD transfers as we've seen enough of them.

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/IMG_0398.jpg

This first set of caps is duplicating my previous choice of frames but all decoded using ffdshow and displaying overlay info now - and finally including the German "Ultimate" Steelbook HD DVD release. This time I'm linking them directly since that seems to be what people prefer. I intend to do more and include the French Blu-ray when it arrives (FR/UK BD disc 1 = FR/UK/AU HD DVD disc 1 but there should be a second disc with the theatrical cut like the FR HD DVD). I'll also post caps of the announced Japanese Blu-ray in this thread once I get that (I believe release date is in December?).

I don't have time to do a comprehensive overview (at the moment anyway), so I'm just posting the pics quick so you can all judge for yourselves which release is best and why. :) PQ/included cut(s)/extras/audio specs/cover art/etc... unfortunately no release has the best of everything yet.

The other bitrates have been posted previously, so I'll just say for now that the AVBR of the German VC-1 is 12.01Mbps.

(this is my favorite movie)

UPDATE Nov 9 2008: Added French Blu-ray release. Specs are here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14986820&postcount=967).

Disc 1 is unfortunately locked to Region B! And just like the French HD DVD release, if you choose the English audio option, French subtitles are forcibly overlayed. It's a VC-1 encode of the Theatrical Cut at 20.79Mbps.
Disc 2 duplicates Optimum's UK release that will also be released in other countries, so I haven't bothered to post identical screencaps of it.

Still waiting on the "Premium" 2-disc Japanese that's coming out Dec 5. Too bad that one STILL isn't bothering to use seamless branching. The Special Edition cut is again the main disc - it will be available separately and cheaper than the 2-disc set.

UPDATE Jan 13 2008: Added both discs of Japanese Blu-ray release. Specs are here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15254644#post15254644) and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15548634#post15548634).

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/IMG_0464.JPG

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-12-30_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-13-36_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-19-54_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/0-25-08_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-26-56_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-55-29_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/1-58-58_JP2.png

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_WMV.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_US.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_DE.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_UK.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_FR.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_JP1.png
http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/t2comp2/2-00-53_JP2.png

The HD DVD versions has the better PQ. But that is not saying much.

The HD DVD versions has the better PQ. But that is not saying much.
I don't agree. To me the UK Blu-Ray looks best.

I don't agree. To me the UK Blu-Ray looks best.

I agree. If you can blow up those 2 girls faces, you can see the difference pretty easily.

They're all soft.

I don't agree. To me the UK Blu-Ray looks best.

Did not notice that there is UK Blu-ray VC-1 version :eek:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/1-58-58_UK-blu-ray.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/1-58-58_DE-hd-dvd.png

Too bad you don't have comparative caps of the StudioCanal HDDVD (http://www.amazon.fr/Terminator-jugement-dernier-HD-DVD/dp/B000L42JP4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1223379016&sr=8-1), which is the best version as far as PQ clarity is concerned. Featurewise the german steelbook edition tops every other version, but I prefer the PQ of the StudioCanal release.

@Xylon: I believe I've seen comparative shots of the german and StudioCanal (2disc french edition), and the StudioCanal was an upgrade to the german. Do you happen to have some of those caps, by chance?

As I see it, they're all from the same subpar source and any claim that one version is vastly superior to another is just hyperbole. Here (http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?vergleich=terminator_2_hd_battle) is a comparison with the French HD DVD by the way, and it's the same thing there.

It needs a completely new transfer, and judging from the disc producer asking for extra features suggestions for both films over at HTF, I hope we'll see one before long.

I have seen this one on MUSE LD and it is one of the better MUSE discs IMHO as always.

Too bad you don't have comparative caps of the StudioCanal HDDVD (http://www.amazon.fr/Terminator-jugement-dernier-HD-DVD/dp/B000L42JP4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1223379016&sr=8-1), which is the best version as far as PQ clarity is concerned. Featurewise the german steelbook edition tops every other version, but I prefer the PQ of the StudioCanal release.

@Xylon: I believe I've seen comparative shots of the german and StudioCanal (2disc french edition), and the StudioCanal was an upgrade to the german. Do you happen to have some of those caps, by chance?

As I see it, they're all from the same subpar source and any claim that one version is vastly superior to another is just hyperbole. Here (http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?vergleich=terminator_2_hd_battle) is a comparison with the French HD DVD by the way, and it's the same thing there.

Guys, guys, guys! You didn't read the OP closely enough (or at all?)! Even Xylon is confused. Perhaps I should have noted this in the text overlays...

ALL OF THE STUDIOCANAL "DIRECTOR'S CUT" (PROPERLY CALLED "SPECIAL EDITION CUT") RELEASES ARE THE SAME VC-1 ENCODE! This includes both HD DVD and Blu-ray, and some are released by subsidiaries or partners like Optimum and Universal. French HD DVD, French Blu-ray, UK HD DVD, UK Blu-ray, etc. etc. all use the exact same video stream and even the disc menus are identical between the two formats. The same situation applies to the Rambo trilogy, Total Recall, Basic Instinct...

Only difference between those movies and this one is that the German HD DVD released by Kinowelt features a unique (and inferior) encode of the Special Edition cut vs StudioCanal's releases. Aside from the lower bitrate and added compression artifacts as a result, this encode displays the exact same vertical stretch and blurring as the Lionsgate TC MPEG-2 release. It also has the best selection of extras on any single release to make up for it, and comes in a sexy Steelbook case.

The only encode released so far NOT yet shown in this thread is StudioCanal's THEATRICAL CUT VC-1 as seen in Xylon's comparison thread. This is on the SECOND DISC of the French HD DVD - the French Blu-ray also supposedly includes a second disc but Amazon.fr says not. We'll see whenever mine comes (probably November), unless someone can confirm before then...

Kram Sacul and paku are on the money in that overall these are all just iterations of the same transfer. But this is a 1080p telecine made in 2003. Was the technology that much different 5 years ago?

Abridged quote about this transfer from another forum (link to full post is in my older comparison thread linked in the OP):
This is straight from my Terminator 2 Extreme DVD "Manual"

The previous transfer of T2 (the version that appeared on T2 The Ultimate Edition DVD) was created at the highest quality available at that time. However, since that time, many improvements have taken place in the realm of film-to-video transfers (also known as telecine).

Upon evaluation of the 1997 master elements, THX and Artisan determined that the picture quality and format of the high-definition (HD) images might not meet today's standards for HD distribution in the future. While video processing on this older master could have created a good quality image for DVD, time and effort would be spent on a master that had little future. THX is proud to take part in Artisan's decision to retransfer T2 using the latest telecine and post production technologies. This new film transfer has resulted in the superior images you will find on this DVD release.

Starting from the same interpositive (IP) print created from the original negative of the film used in 1997, THX supervised the transfer of the film into HD video. This new HD master could be called an "electronic film master" since it is an exact representation of the film recorded onto HD-D5 videotapes. The transfer and subsequent mastering were performed at International Video Conversions (IVC) in Burbank, California.

The technical format for the T2 electronic film master is 1920x1080 24PsF. Here is a brief explanation of what that means. 1920x1080 is the size of each video frame and is the current standard resolution of HD video. Each frame of the film is scanned into a frame of video that is 1,920 pixels wide and 1,080 lines high. Doing some math reveals that a picture size of 1920x1080 has an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (1920 / 1080) which means that the width of the picture is 1.78 times the height of the picture. 1.78:1 is also known by the term 16x9 because 16/9 also equals 1.78.

Any movie that has an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 would fill a 1920x1080 frame size perfectly. However, T2 was released in an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 which means that the width of the picture is 2.35 times the height of the picture. Movies that have an aspect ratio larger than 1.78 would have to have black mattes (also known as letterboxing) added to the top and bottom portions of the screen in order to fit the enire width of the wider film frame into a 1.78:1 picture.

Because of letterboxing, in a frame size of 1920x1080, a 2.35:1 picture would have used the entire resolution width of 1,920 pixels, but would only use approximately 815 lines of the 1,080 available lines. The rest of the 265 lines would be used and wasted by the black mattes. A decision was made early to optimize the new master by transferring the movie FULL FRAME by scanning each film frame so that it filled the entire 1920x1080 area, thus increasing the resolution of the image. While this master is not formatted properly, it utilises every single line for the actual picture content and maximises the ability to perform needed restoration.

Nice comparison. The StudioCanal transfer is still the one to get.

Didn't Kinowelt make a big deal about their Ultimate Edition saying they were completely remastering it and crap... ends up looking slightly worse than the MPEG2 US release.

Kram Sacul and paku are on the money in that overall these are all just iterations of the same transfer. But this is a 1080p telecine made in 2003. Was the technology that much different 5 years ago?
I think that either the technology has improved, or the people responsible have improved. Several shots show what looks like EE baked into the master which means it was automatically added in the telecine process (disqualifying the technology as "not that different") or it was added by someone during mastering (disqualifying them as "not that different").

In any case I would be surprised if it could not look a lot better. Also note that the 2003 telecine was from the same IP created in 1997. I don't have much knowledge of advances in analogue film technology and processing, but is it possible the image could be improved by striking a new IP from the original negative before transferring it to the digital domain?

Nice comparison. The StudioCanal transfer is still the one to get.

Yep. Although the WMV HD actually has slightly more picture visible! SC cropped it slightly and added tiny black overlays on the left and right.

Excepting that and the possible bitrate differences caused by differing runtimes, we actually have two fair codec comparisons here as the image underneath compression matches with no DNR apparent on any transfer.

---
WMV HD TC vs StudioCanal DC = 6.53Mbps WMV9 vs 18.90Mbps VC-1 (interesting because WMV9 is basically early VC-1, so we can see what happens to it at around half the lowest reported HDM bitrates)

Kinowelt DC vs Lionsgate TC = 12.01Mbps VC-1 vs 18.92Mbps MPEG-2 (I'm actually really surprised by the outcome here...)
---

The StudioCanal releases might have the best quality, but I'd say the Extreme Edition DVD gets the best value award. A reference-quality DVD transfer with a couple extras and the best HD version available if you can ignore the roughly broadcast-quality compression.

Didn't Kinowelt make a big deal about their Ultimate Edition saying they were completely remastering it and crap... ends up looking slightly worse than the MPEG2 US release.

Yep they did, and yep it does. Pretty ridiculous. Shall I dig up all the posts people made about it whooping the US BD's ass during the format wars? Too cruel? I think it would be justified for making people waste their money.

Posts like those and the ones saying the StudioCanal First Blood was vastly superior are why I don't put much faith in anyone's comparisons made without computer assistance.

I think that either the technology has improved, or the people responsible have improved. Several shots show what looks like EE baked into the master which means it was automatically added in the telecine process (disqualifying the technology as "not that different") or it was added by someone during mastering (disqualifying them as "not that different").

Touché. This level of EE doesn't usually bother me so I end up forgetting about it.

In any case I would be surprised if it could not look a lot better. Also note that the 2003 telecine was from the same IP created in 1997. I don't have much knowledge of advances in analogue film technology and processing, but is it possible the image could be improved by striking a new IP from the original negative before transferring it to the digital domain?

If they were willing to go back to the ON to do that, why not just scan the negative directly? :D

The way they mention scanning into full-frame 1080p with incorrect formatting makes it sound to me like the IP used was anamorphic 2.35:1. I wonder how much difference that would make versus transferring the same image portion directly from the Super35 source without the squeeze-unsqueeze.

I certainly agree that a "proper" new transfer is called for (that's what I am waiting for before buying a new release of t2).

Here is a HF-Noise Analysis sample. This is somewhat interesting if we are to presume it is basically the same master being used in each release. The particular codec responds slightly different in each case. Hard block artifacts are shared all around. Let's hope the "New-new release" is treated with a bit more tlc...

wmv-hd
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121488&stc=1&d=1223404640

br-us
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121489&stc=1&d=1223404640

hdvd-de
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121490&stc=1&d=1223404640

If they were willing to go back to the ON to do that, why not just scan the negative directly? :D
I've never found a source that adequately explains why, but I was under the impression that they rarely like to scan directly from the negative. Perhaps the film-to-film process involves less risks of damage than the scanning/telecine process.

And I'd guess using a Super35 source would be preferable. They could even create a 1.78:1 open-matte master for TV while they were at it (assuming the framing and SFX work allowed it.)

And I'd guess using a Super35 source would be preferable. They could even create a 1.78:1 open-matte master for TV while they were att it (assuming the framing and SFX work allowed it.)

Since they created a 4:3 master from the entire surface area of the S35 (reframing scene to scene basis), it wouldnt be impossible to create a 1.78:1 framing.

The WMV is a great disc, but the WMA sound is a disaster unless you have a premium PC speaker setup. And then there is the DRM with online verification...reason alone to skip it.

The SC HD DVD is still the disc to get. The German steelbook HD DVD had enormous potential, but the PQ is garbage and slightly stretched like the domestic BD.

Guys, guys, guys! You didn't read the OP closely enough (or at all?)!
[...]
msgohan, not to offend you, but in a thread titled "All High Definition releases comparison PIX" I was expecting shots from the french Studio Canal release, too, especially as it contains an encode different to the other ones. C'est tout.

msgohan, not to offend you, but in a thread titled "All High Definition releases comparison PIX" I was expecting shots from the french Studio Canal release, too, especially as it contains an encode different to the other ones. C'est tout.

In that case I apologize. I named the thread like that because I intend to update it for any future release even beyond the Japanese disc(s) and I don't want to have to bug a mod to change the thread title.

I didn't expect anyone to really miss the half of one release I currently don't have since I linked to Xylon's thread which includes it and the quality of the "Theatrical Cut" appears to match StudioCanal's "Director's Cut" encode which I did include (except the strange cleanup of that one print artifact).

Again, to be clear, the UK Blu-ray shots ARE the French StudioCanal release as far as the first disc is concerned, just currently missing out on the French-exclusive encode on the other disc minted from the same master but without the extended footage.

EDIT: Actually it appears I've had that backwards all along. The soft-forced-sub TC is on disc 1 and the DC is on disc 2, which I guess they just slapped into the release because they'd already made the DC disc for every other country - and didn't bother with their forced subs for the French market since it's "just" a supplemental disc.

In that case I apologize. I named the thread like that because I intend to update it for any future release even beyond the Japanese disc(s) and I don't want to have to bug a mod to change the thread title.

I didn't expect anyone to really miss the half of one release I currently don't have since I linked to Xylon's thread which includes it and the quality of the "Theatrical Cut" appears to match StudioCanal's "Director's Cut" encode which I did include (except the strange cleanup of that one print artifact).

Again, to be clear, the UK Blu-ray shots ARE the French StudioCanal release as far as the first disc is concerned, just currently missing out on the French-exclusive encode on the other disc minted from the same master but without the extended footage.

EDIT: Actually it appears I've had that backwards all along. The soft-forced-sub TC is on disc 1 and the DC is on disc 2, which I guess they just slapped into the release because they'd already made the DC disc for every other country - and didn't bother with their forced subs for the French market since it's "just" a supplemental disc.
:) I'm confused as well about all these different releases. In this light: thanks for the energy and effort which you put into it.

The most interesting to me: how close does the wmv-hd version look to the latest and greatest. IIRC it was using under 10Mbps CBR...

Diogen.

Sigh.

If any film deserves an all-new master struck from the original negative or first-generation interpositive, this one is it. Plus extensive chemical and digital cleanup and restoration. It's a crime that inarguably the most influential (and one of the best) action films of the 1990's is treated so shoddily by just about everybody. Warner spent millions on the restoration of Blade Runner, by comparison, T2 has gotten absolutely shoddy treatment. The future Governator of California deserves some respect! Let's see a newly remastered and restored version of T2, Lionsgate!

Sigh.

If any film deserves an all-new master struck from the original negative or first-generation interpositive, this one is it. Plus extensive chemical and digital cleanup and restoration. It's a crime that inarguably the most influential (and one of the best) action films of the 1990's is treated so shoddily by just about everybody. Warner spent millions on the restoration of Blade Runner, by comparison, T2 has gotten absolutely shoddy treatment. The future Governator of California deserves some respect! Let's see a newly remastered and restored version of T2, Lionsgate!

Studios don't seem to remaster titles out of the blue. It always seems to revolve around anniversary dates. They make a big spectacle of with new commentaries, bonus features etc. Maybe we'll see a new transfer for the 20th anniversary in 2011.

This time I'm linking them directly since that seems to be what people prefer.

I prefer the thumbnail linking to direct image. The page load times are also much faster. Do people seriously compare by looking at two images at the same time? With this thread and Xylon's threads I have manually make tabs for each image, and then drag each shot into each tab to compare. I then quickly flick between tabs to compare and spot differences. With thumbnails I just center click on each image to open in a background tab.

In Firefox there is an easier way than manually making tabs - right-click on the image then middle-click "View Image".

I flick between them as well generally, but to be fair comparing them side-by-side or scrolling between them is more akin to the differences you would actually be able to see in motion. A/B comparing is for those of us who want to see the absolute technical differences between the separate releases, regardless of what may be visible while actually watching.

UK Blu-ray release definitely is the best. It has no filtering, the least amount of compression artifacts, and retains film grain the most naturally.

I think it's best said all the versions look soft - which is a shame since this is such a landmark movie. The whole movie needs to be restored from the ground up like Blade Runner was.

Let's see a newly remastered and restored version of T2, Lionsgate!


That's the problem. Warner, I trust to restore, Lionsgate is a junior studio without the resources and know-how.

I think it's best said all the versions look soft - which is a shame since this is such a landmark movie. The whole movie needs to be restored from the ground up like Blade Runner was.
Was it "sharp" in the theaters?
Or, w/all the special effects & film stock choices, was "T2" always a softy?
Thanks.

Would be nice to see movies like this one, and Die Hard (1) get the 'Blade Runner' treatment.

I would settle for just new DNR/EEless transfers.

Would be nice to see movies like this one, and Die Hard (1) get the 'Blade Runner' treatment.

I dont think blade runner treatment is going to change much for Die Hard.

Since they shoot alot of Die Hard handheld with anamorphic lenses.

Alot of the lesser quality comes from that the camera goes out of focus and top of that has some distortions.

Geneon will release T2 in Japan on the 5th of December, the movies I have from them on DVD has had high standrads in both AQ and VQ, hopefully they have done something good with T2 but my hunch is that they are stuck witht he same print as everyone else.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/product/detail/2789321

Would be nice to see movies like this one, and Die Hard (1) get the 'Blade Runner' treatment.

The 'Blade Runner' treatment? You mean, that DNR cr@p Warner has managed to stick into the Final Cut.

Die Hard looks great, with all film grain apparently intact. After the Patton, TLD fiasco, FOX has been the greatest so far IMO, in both new releases and catalog, presenting the movies without DNR and excessive EE.

Seriously, what else do you expect from Die Hard?

http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9184_dhbd2.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9182_dhbd1.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9186_dhbd3.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9188_dhbd4.png


These seem flawless to me.

I would settle for just new DNR/EEless transfers.

Count me in ;)

The 'Blade Runner' treatment? You mean, that DNR cr@p Warner has managed to stick into the Final Cut.

Die Hard looks great, with all film grain apparently intact. After the Patton, TLD fiasco, FOX has been the greatest so far IMO, in both new releases and catalog, presenting the movies without DNR and excessive EE.

Seriously, what else do you expect from Die Hard?

http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9184_dhbd2.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9182_dhbd1.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9186_dhbd3.png
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i9188_dhbd4.png


These seem flawless to me.





Ha ha,

I found Blade Runner to be amazing compared to it's previous home video releases. I simply hope for the same type of 'jump' in quality for films like T2 & Die Hard.

Those Die Hard scans you posted actually look pretty darn great, I admit. I believe that was released before Patton as well, not after. So FOX did it right, then screwed up, then got roasted, and are now doing it right again? :)

Ha ha,

I found Blade Runner to be amazing compared to it's previous home video releases. I simply hope for the same type of 'jump' in quality for films like T2 & Die Hard.

Those Die Hard scans you posted actually look pretty darn great, I admit. I believe that was released before Patton as well, not after. So FOX did it right, then screwed up, then got roasted, and are now doing it right again? :)

Fox has generally been very good in delivering catalog releases with great image quality that appear to be faithful to the source.

It was two titles, Patton and The Longest Day, that gave Fox a bad reputation for excessive post-processing. Anyone who's been following the situation knows that Fox contracted the work on these two titles to the same inept people.

The WMV seems to look the best. I have the Studio Canal HD-DVD, looks pretty nice.

The 'Blade Runner' treatment? You mean, that DNR cr@p Warner has managed to stick into the Final Cut.

Warner didnt DNR Blade runner in that sense.

They did DNR on some footage, and at the same time added grain to other to make the viewing experience more consistent.

It was a vey well made restoration.

Re: BLADE RUNNER, it seems some folks have decided that "The Final Cut" was DNRed simply because the HD versions of the "archival versions" have more grain. What these folks fail to realize is that "The Final Cut" was a 4K scan directly from the original negative, and on top of that all the effects shots were scanned at either 6K or 8K from original 65mm elements. The "archival versions", on the other hand, were traditional HD telecines from decades-old 35mm InterPostives from the Warner Brothers vault. THAT'S the reason "The Final Cut" is less grainy- it's a direct 4K (with some 6K and 8K) scan from the source itself, whereas the "archival versions" were telecined from 35mm IPs which were duped from the negative decades ago. In particular, effects shots in the "archival versions" were 35mm reductions from the 65mm originals, which were then intercut with the 35mm negative then duped again to make the IPs, so those shots are 2 generations from the 65mm elements that were scanned for "The Final Cut". InterPositives being dupes, there is grain build up, especially if we're talking about dupe stock from 1982.

Vincent

BIG thanks, Vincent. ^^^

What's your take on getting more detail out of "T2"?
Thanks, again.

Vincent just pwned this thread.

It's amazing the degree to which people make assertions with incomplete and in fact wholly errant information. Be it DNR or bitrate, too many arguments based on less than all the facts. Not all "grain" is good, high bitrate != best picture, etc...

Thanks for the inside baseball Vincent...

Actually MovieSwede is correct. Here (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/2624/blade-runner-on-the-cutting-edge.html) is an article on the Blade Runner restoration.

The important bit:
Later, I speak with WB vice president of post production Kurt Galveo, who took a hands-on role in the transformation of Blade Runner to high-def disc. "We wanted to make sure that no matter what platform you look at it on, you always see the same thing," says Galveo. "We try to match the warmth, color, and texture. To keep that same kind of image on video, there are adjustments you have to make in color, because electronically it's a different color space. Plus, sometimes you have to add grain. When we scan the image and put it on digital form on disc, it can be too clean; you have to add texture so it looks like people remember it from the theater. But sometimes you literally have areas in the film where there's too much grain — opticals [special effects], for instance, can actually introduce more grain — so we have to take some out. It goes both ways."

MovieSwede is always correct. :p

I think "The Final Cut" looks fantastic. It's not like some yahoo put the entire movie through a single heavy DNR pass, which all too often seems to happen.

I've never found a source that adequately explains why, but I was under the impression that they rarely like to scan directly from the negative. Perhaps the film-to-film process involves less risks of damage than the scanning/telecine process.

And I'd guess using a Super35 source would be preferable. They could even create a 1.78:1 open-matte master for TV while they were at it (assuming the framing and SFX work allowed it.)
most of the time mastering is done from the inter-positive I read
one step from the negative

Regarding Blade Runner, I not disputing what was done during the restoration. I have no doubt the information provided here by the fine members are accurate.

But what is presented on the BD just doesn't seem to be all that faithfull to this fantastic restoration provided for the move.

Vincent,

I'm not mistaking lack of grain for DNR per se.

Re: BLADE RUNNER, it seems some folks have decided that "The Final Cut" was DNRed simply because the HD versions of the "archival versions" have more grain. What these folks fail to realize is that "The Final Cut" was a 4K scan directly from the original negative, and on top of that all the effects shots were scanned at either 6K or 8K from original 65mm elements.

But it's obvious from screencaps I have posted elsewhere here on AVS, that the Final Cut has simply been DNR, filtered or whatever term it might be, much like 95% of the stuff Warner has put out so far. The shots clearly show the pasty look and less detail (not just grain) compared to archival versions.

I have little to no doubt that the 4k master form the restoration is a whole different league from the BD.

Back on topic, I've added TC screencaps from the French release and updated the first post (see the original posts on the first page for the new pics).

Check post #6 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14813405#post14813405)... I've confirmed using the same decoders that this shot is smoother and less grainy on the TC vs the UK/FR DC disc. Some other shots also appear to show a difference similar to this. DNR?

Got my Japanese Premium Edition today. Probably won't be able to watch it for a few days, but since it has the Studio Canal logo as well as the Geneon logo on it, it might use the same masters as the French release. It's an AVC encode with Dolby True HD, however, so it's not the same encode. It's also THX certified, not that that necessarily means anything.

Snaps from the JP T2 Special Edition disc (AVC + TrueHD):

http://www.hdimage.org/images/gqcmr5lvrqc8maujt3j_t2avc1_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=gqcmr5lvrqc8maujt3j_t2avc1.png)http://www.hdimage.org/images/itd7b2dv3yo07ud2ufgs_t2avc2_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=itd7b2dv3yo07ud2ufgs_t2avc2.png)http://www.hdimage.org/images/3q8ag0vjp0lbwtr8ixie_t2avc3_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=3q8ag0vjp0lbwtr8ixie_t2avc3.png)http://www.hdimage.org/images/4yod20b43iyqwaf6m0so_t2avc4_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=4yod20b43iyqwaf6m0so_t2avc4.png)

The UK VC1 BD still seems to have the slightest of slight edges if you move a little closer/zoom in. As for the colour, could be a difference in renderer's. tl;dr we really need a new transfer no matter which is the best disc.

So which Terminator 2 Blu Ray is the best in terms of Video and Audio quality. Is it the Uk Blu ray version or the Japanese Blu Ray that just came out. I currently have the U.S. version and it sucks that it is only the Theatrical version and the video and audio quality are only ok. Thanks

Edit: I just ordered Terminator 2 Extended edition on amazon.uk, the studio canal VC-1 blu ray from the UK, Japan one was too expensive and House mentioned that The Uk version looks slightly better then the new Japanese Version

I'm waiting for I lost count dip that will hopefully come with T4.

Bummer, House. Wish I could've cancelled my order for the very expensive Japanese edition.

According to an insider at another site, this Japanese transfer (but with a different encode) will be used for the future Lionsgate release.

I haven't been following the situation closely, but is the actual transfer used for the Japanese release new? Or is it the same recycled transfer with some different processing "enhancements?"

Either way, I'm happy enough with the image quality on the UK release. It may very well be the case that there isn't much more to gain from this film.

Jeff Kleist of the Digital Bits says that it's a new transfer, although it does indeed look pretty soft still. I guess a Japanese company couldn't go back to the original negatives though (Mr. Kleist didn't give many details), so perhaps they only used an interpositive or later generation film material for the transfer. Hopefully a full restoration will happen in the future, perhaps for the 20th anniversary in 2011.

Ahh to wait for a full restoration or to get the German Steelbook or Japanese Platinum Edition.

:o

The StudioCanal releases might have the best quality, but I'd say the Extreme Edition DVD gets the best value award. A reference-quality DVD transfer with a couple extras and the best HD version available if you can ignore the roughly broadcast-quality compression

So it seems the WMV-HD disc is the best one as picture quality and detail. Is it also the less cropped version? If I'm not wrong the D-Theater version released by Artisan share the same master but is 1920x1080i and with higher bitrate. As far as I remember there are some macroblocking in the WMV-HD version, for example in head titles with fire flames.

This film needs a full restoration like Warner did with Blade Runner. The film simply looks soft. And a movie of this caliber shouldn't be. Maybe when the new Terminator flick hits the screen, we'll see a re-release.

Added pics from both Japanese discs. I think this "new master" thing is BS. It looks the same down to the framing, colors, individual specs of grain. Just a little blurrier than the StudioCanal encodes.

Here follow 2 terrible screenshots of WMV-HD edition taken with MPC-HC and saved in PNG format, bitrate is really too low even if resolution is lowered to 1440 vertical lines:

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8519/t21oo0.png (http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8519/t21oo0.png)

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2225/t22gp9.png (http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2225/t22gp9.png)

I confirm WMV-HD has some more lines on top and bottom of screen but not at sides. Anyway it's exactly the same master used for D-Theater tape by Artisan which is 1920x1080 even if interlaced, but it has higher bitrate and no artifacts.

It needs a new master full stop.

There is print damage in the same places on the UK and US BRD's you can check the JP discs to see if it is a new master and the WMV-HD

USA
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/dvdmike/DSC01359.jpg
UK
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/dvdmike/DSC01369.jpg

Those print artifacts are there on the Japanese release as well. Who still believes the "new master" line?

Those print artifacts are there on the Japanese release as well. Who still believes the "new master" line?

A "new master" does not necessarily mean a complete restoration.

John

It's a new master of the same moldy transfer.

You mean new encode. The japanese so far look the best. Sod all the other versions. (the TC on the japanese BR also looks inferior to the SE, which is the same as the 2003 Extreme Edition master, but with better encoding and colors). All the old T2 dvds are rendered useless by this japanese version, except for the missing bonuses.

The japanese so far look the best.
The screenshots on the first page of this thread prove you wrong. At least as far as I can see...

Come May 19, 2009 we get to start all new comparisons with the release of Terminator 2 Skynet Edition on Blu-ray. Info here (http://www.videobusiness.com/blog/1650000165/post/1750040975.html).

So still keep hold of the Optimum is the lesson then

So there's a promo for Lionsgate's T2 Skynet Edition on the new John Rambo extended edition Blu-ray, and it exclusively uses footage without the DNR actually present on the release, except for the few shots where they're showing the BD-Java overlays of the new disc.

Not so proud of the work they did?

In these shots you can also more clearly see that the French release of the theatrical cut has also been processed to remove scratches and grain, though obviously not as thoroughly as the Skynet edition.

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6186/t2promo1.th.png (http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6186/t2promo1.png)http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9902/t2promo1uk.th.png (http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9902/t2promo1uk.png)http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3633/t2promo1fr.th.png (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3633/t2promo1fr.png)http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8379/t2promo1jp1.th.png (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8379/t2promo1jp1.png)http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/5513/t2promo1jp2.th.png (http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/5513/t2promo1jp2.png)
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6448/t2promo2.th.png (http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6448/t2promo2.png)http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3577/t2promo2uk.th.png (http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3577/t2promo2uk.png)http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1258/t2promo2fr.th.png (http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1258/t2promo2fr.png)http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/3382/t2promo2jp1.th.png (http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/3382/t2promo2jp1.png)http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/422/t2promo2jp2.th.png (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/422/t2promo2jp2.png)

The japanese Geneon discs are the best, because the bitrates are the highest.

The Japanese encodes are vertically stretched.

I would be interested to see screenshots of the MUSE version someone mentioned earlier in this thread. I have a CLV copy

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4930782381_5c63582b59_b.jpg

and it has some of the same print damage shown in a post above:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4930782389_2195e00f7e_b.jpg

This frame with the spot looks particularly crappy compared with the rest of the movie in general.

The Japanese encodes are vertically stretched.

explain please.

Uhh, what is there to explain? :confused: The screenshots are right there to see.

DE, JP, and US are slightly stretched in the vertical direction (with a few lines cropped) compared to all other versions including the promo. It's obvious if you open them all and tab back and forth. The Skynet edition exhibits a similar stretch but it's been repositioned by like one line (check Xylon's thread if you care to see).

There's a corresponding (slight) decrease in detail on the stretched releases.