or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Terminator (1984) - 4 DVDs vs Blu-ray comparison PIX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Terminator (1984) - 4 DVDs vs Blu-ray comparison PIX - Page 8

post #211 of 541
So, you OBVIOUSLY have a citation of the story documenting that a lowry restoration has been done.....


















....no, you don't.
post #212 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss View Post

So, you OBVIOUSLY have a citation of the story documenting that a lowry restoration has been done.....

....no, you don't.

It has been confirmed by Van Ling, Cameron's home video guy.
Not sure why you think it's unlikely that Terminator would get a remaster. It's not exactly some obscure art film from the 80s.
post #213 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss View Post

So, you OBVIOUSLY have a citation of the story documenting that a lowry restoration has been done.....

....no, you don't.

I have something even better.

An 'ignore' button.
post #214 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

Someone on another forum pointed out this "brochure": http://www.lowrydigital.com/EPK.pdf



Reliance MediaWorks (Lowry) selected filmography, including The Terminator and True Lies. I probably can't link to it but their list on a social networking site from February 24, 2010 also included both films. No sign of T2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss View Post

A lowry restoration?!? Is that some kind of a joke? A studio is not going to invest the time or money for a significant restoration on a title 3 decades old with such minimal sales prospects.

I can see a quick fix taking place a la total recall, with a boost in color and contrast, and some cheap algorithm to digitally get rid of some of the grime. They are not going to be cleaning this print frame by frame, that's for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss View Post

So, you OBVIOUSLY have a citation of the story documenting that a lowry restoration has been done.....



post #215 of 541
Supposedly the new transfer will come with the steelbook release later this year. I cant wait!

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....46#post6054246
post #216 of 541
We shall see...
post #217 of 541
Highdefninja is claiming that it is "confirmed" to be the yet unseen Lowry master. Van Ling arranged the special features.

If it turns out as well as Aliens, I'll be happy.
post #218 of 541
I'll happily await a non-steelbook US release.
post #219 of 541
Key must for me is original mono and not that terrible, widely panned remix that sound nothing like the original. AND that is missing a lot of music.
post #220 of 541
I do not recall MGM re-releasing a BD with a new transfer before, so this would be the first.

MGM has re-issued Terminator with a different case cover (wow) and same transfer however.
post #221 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Key must for me is original mono and not that terrible, widely panned remix that sound nothing like the original. AND that is missing a lot of music.

Love that silenced gun noise.
post #222 of 541
In lieu of the original mono audio ('cause I doubt it will be on the UK platter) a more respectful remix would do me fine, in place of the current abomination. They must have had the dialogue stems to create the atrocious 5.1 track, so what the **** happened to the music and effects stems?

Well, I suppose I can begrudgingly appreciate why they would go to a new stereo source for the music (IIRC Brad Fiedel supplied the masters for the remix himself) but ignoring the original blood-and-thunder effects track was utter lunacy. It's not the same film that I love, simple as that.
post #223 of 541
I also pray Cameron doesn't digitally tinker with any shots in the film as he did with Aliens.
post #224 of 541
Heh. After I saw Lance Henriksen's torso poking up out of the floor at the end of Aliens I could never un-see it, and I'm very glad it's gone. The stabilisation of the matte extension to the hangar bay was also most welcome. Cameron only corrected the most egregious flubs, leaving in things like the wires holding up the drop ship models.

There are a couple of things I'd LOVE to see fixed in Terminator. Better compositing would really help that cheesy blue-screen shot of the T-800 bearing down on the door at the machine factory. And there's no reason why the blatant wire that's pulling the petrol tanker along shouldn't be erased. Everything else is gravy.
post #225 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Heh. After I saw Lance Henriksen's torso poking up out of the floor at the end of Aliens I could never un-see it, and I'm very glad it's gone. The stabilisation of the matte extension to the hangar bay was also most welcome. Cameron only corrected the most egregious flubs, leaving in things like the wires holding up the drop ship models.

There are a couple of things I'd LOVE to see fixed in Terminator. Better compositing would really help that cheesy blue-screen shot of the T-800 bearing down on the door at the machine factory. And there's no reason why the blatant wire that's pulling the petrol tanker along shouldn't be erased. Everything else is gravy.

Its nothing wrong correcting a flaw no one saw during their first time viewing. I took some viewing before I saw Bishops torso. So removing it just help us see it as it looked the first time.

Im not so sure about the blue screen shoot (I guess its actually a rear projection shoot) because thats how the movie looked the first time you saw it. But on the other hand if it makes a great movie even better, why not. But then we have the issue of Arnolds puppet that isnt seemless with the live action footage. So maybe its better to leave things alone before you make one change to much.
post #226 of 541
I hope they put more original flaws in especially if it annoys the revisionists.
post #227 of 541
My philosophy is this:

If it looked that way originally, and that's what people saw on a big 50' screen, then why change it?
post #228 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

My philosophy is this:

If it looked that way originally, and that's what people saw on a big 50' screen, then why change it?

I agree with this. Leave the film alone.

However, to play devil's advocate, I will say that an perfect transfer from OCN to Blu-ray probably looks better (sharpness, contrast, color, etc.) than most theatrical presentations. If you take into account issues with projector focus, print wear, and everything else that goes wrong when 14 year olds are running your average movie theater. Blu-ray has revealed many things in films that have otherwise gone unnoticed, as websites like http://www.moviemistakes.com/ have revealed over the years.

OK, I'm done.
post #229 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Blu-ray has revealed many things in films that have otherwise gone unnoticed, as websites like http://www.moviemistakes.com/ have revealed over the years.

Yes, it's not as black-and-white as "If that's the way it is on the negative..."

Especially of note in the realm of visual effects, there are many, many techniques that have been executed over the years in the specific knowledge of the degree to which what was being exposed on the negative would not be visible by the time it was reproduced down to a theatrical print.
post #230 of 541
I think the most important thing is that you dont destroy the pacing of the movie if you correct a flaw. Leave the cut alone, remove the glitch and dont tell anyone.

As soon as you extend scenes, change angle etc you risk distract the viewer.
post #231 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Yes, it's not as black-and-white as "If that's the way it is on the negative..."

Especially of note in the realm of visual effects, there are many, many techniques that have been executed over the years in the specific knowledge of the degree to which what was being exposed on the negative would not be visible by the time it was reproduced down to a theatrical print.

Bingo. I don't want this stuff fixed for the sake of it, instead it's because certain VFX methods can't hide behind several print generations any more. If a certain shot can be given a helping hand to look a bit better in the digital age without actually augmenting it, then I say go for it.
post #232 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

However, to play devil's advocate, I will say that an perfect transfer from OCN to Blu-ray probably looks better (sharpness, contrast, color, etc.) than most theatrical presentations. If you take into account issues with projector focus, print wear, and everything else that goes wrong when 14 year olds are running your average movie theater. Blu-ray has revealed many things in films that have otherwise gone unnoticed, as websites like http://www.moviemistakes.com/ have revealed over the years.

You are using a site that uses DVDs not blu-rays as proof?. They mostly go on about continuity errors and film crew sightings, guess you want continuity breaking cigeratte placements fixed digitally.

Benny Hill was making spoofs of film flaws back in the 60's but since you say that is not possible for him to have seen them I guess he went into a time machine to our present age so he can get material and I guess newspaper, book & magazine film reviewers used this time machine too since they wrote about them. Before the home video age there were plenty of satires of vfx and yes including about seeing wires like SCTV did.
post #233 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Benny Hill was making spoofs of film flaws back in the 60's but since you say that is not possible for him to have seen them



Did he say that film flaws were never visible before the Blu-ray era?

No.

He said that there are more film flaws visible in the Blu-ray era.
post #234 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

You are using a site that uses DVDs not blu-rays as proof?. They mostly go on about continuity errors and film crew sightings, guess you want continuity breaking cigeratte placements fixed digitally.

Benny Hill was making spoofs of film flaws back in the 60's but since you say that is not possible for him to have seen them I guess he went into a time machine to our present age so he can get material and I guess newspaper, book & magazine film reviewers used this time machine too since they wrote about them. Before the home video age there were plenty of satires of vfx and yes including about seeing wires like SCTV did.

This topic has come up recently at another forum.

Firstly, Robert Harris has said that when restoring The Godfather Part II there was a scene where wires were visible on the scan of the OCN which were not visible on theatrical prints in the '70s, so they removed them. To quote him directly:

Quote:


Going back to an original element is sometimes problematic. And you deal with it, shot by shot, and frame by frame.

In GF2, during the murder of Fanucci, in a 4k scan of the camera original, tiny wires attached to squibs in the actor's face became visible. These had to be digitally removed. They were not visible in final prints.

Secondly, digital changes were made on the Blu-ray Disc release of A Night to Remember for similar reasons.

Quote:


Brown notes: Some of the Titanic model shots, whilst looking okay on the fine-grain, were seen for the first time warts and all' on the scans from the negative. We were seeing flags and all sorts of things which were all but invisible on the fine-grain due to the much higher contrast, and the fact that the film had only ever been seen previously three generations of laboratory printing further away from the negative than we were seeing for the first time on the five-metre screen at 142.

On a few of these problem' shots I was able to draw Garbage Mattes on Resolve and track the film weave with fills and blurs to disguise the bits and pieces that weren't welcome in the final film-out. I felt comfortable in doing this as they were rendered less visible to the original viewing audience due to printing limitations. So, I had to replicate this in a sympathetic way without improvements' that were never there previously.

Finally, when An American Werewolf in London appeared on Blu-ray Disc John Landis said some small details such as the writing on the bottles behind the bar were visible on the Blu-ray Disc which had not been evident on original screenings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6lWNSDsTZg

In short, there's plenty of evidence that a good Blu-ray Disc might contain information the director did not intend the audience to see, unless it is digitally removed.

Steve W
post #235 of 541
Steve, I wish Landau would have told Universal to lay off the fricken' edge enhancement on An American Werewolf in London BD.
post #236 of 541
post #237 of 541
Are we lOOking at any "re-"mastering (new transfers) w/any or all of the titles?!?!
post #238 of 541
Some information about the German disc that is released October 5th:
It will feature the new transfer and the revised sound effects from the year 2000 because the producers think they "fit better" eek.gif

Of course that doesn't mean a US or UK version doesn't include the original sound mix as an option but since it's said to be an artistic choice I don't think it's gonna happen...

Source: http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-news/filme/36345-weitere-informationen-zur-terminator-blu-ray-disc-am-0510-im-steelbook
post #239 of 541
Boo-urns
post #240 of 541
It's not looking good for the UK disc, to be honest, seeing as MGM/Fox leave off original tracks as standard anyway. I'll still keep my pre-order just for the steelbook packaging, but I won't touch the disc with a bargepole if the mono is indeed missing.

Looks like the US version is our only hope.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Terminator (1984) - 4 DVDs vs Blu-ray comparison PIX