or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Total Recall Special Edition (1990)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Total Recall Special Edition (1990) - Page 5

post #121 of 544
If the UK disc is actually the real Special Edition disc, I doubt it very much that it's a new scan. It looks like the old master was used and re-timed/cropped to breath new life into it. I really haven't seen anything to indicate otherwise. Both shots contain identical detail, with the only difference being that the "new" version looks sharper due to the contrast boosting (boosted highlights + crushed black levels = higher perceived detail).
post #122 of 544
I think it's quite obviously a new scan, there's actually grain rather than video noise soup, but whatever gets you goin' I guess.
post #123 of 544
New framing, better colors and better grain reproduction = new scan.
post #124 of 544
Spot on 42041 and MovieSwede. Really looking forward to watching this truly remastered transfer.

Did a little archeology and here is the progression from the original US release, Studio Canal, and the remaster.

The first two are the exact frame and the last is very close but illustrative of the improvements.
-May need to right-click and 'view image' to see each at full resolution. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1-31-39;13_3.png
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1-31-39;13_4.png
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Total-Recal-Ultimate-Rekall-UK-BD_19.jpg?d9c344

The original was dim and drab in respects to contrast, poorly resolved grain due to possible combination of factors such as low quality scan and poor encode. Net result plenty of video/compression noise and artifacts.

The Studio Canal version does seem to have some improvements, due to EE, in its filtered blotchy grain then takes a turn for the worse when the DNR ratchets into overdrive as well contrast changes were excessive and poorly implemented.

Certainly interesting skimming over some of the comments. A few claimed in regards to the SC that no DNR was evident and grain was perfectly natural, as well contrast was far superior. Finally, one mentioned that they felt there could be no possibility of room for improvement.

////

Here is an example of how, in this instance, the new transfer has handled the highlights with a gentle roll-off rather than harsh clipping found on the SC version, which is very evident in the background in the window.

The remaster retains more visual information such as the highlighted shades are not clipped but are still brightly illuminated

SC at 720P Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
total-recall-special-edition_11.jpg

Remaster at 1080P Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Total-Recal-Ultimate-Rekall-UK-BD_03.jpg?d9c344

Note the lights, in the remaster, you can no longer clearly define the two bulbs but they are not garishly clipped or bloomed out either. Very tasteful and conscientiously done.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 7/2/12 at 1:30pm
post #125 of 544
Another review >>>

Quote:
“For the memory of a lifetime … Rekall! Rekall! Rekall!”
StudioCanal’s remastered transfer for this Ultimate Rekall release is definitely better than what we’ve had on DVD and on the earlier BD. There. I’ve said it. Now, get your ass to Mars with your own copy of it.
Restored from the original negative under the approval of Paul Verhoeven, this marks the film’s second major arrival on the format in the UK. Now, to be honest, I don’t actually own the previous incarnation that StudioCanal put out, because I wasn’t much impressed with it. For reference, I have looked back at the Region 1 Mars tin limited edition which this, ahem, blows clean out of the water. Although that’s not coming as a surprise to anyone, is it? I did see the movie a couple of times upon its initial theatrical release but I am not going to sit here and claim to remember how the image looked splashed across the big screen of the original Odeon in Liverpool back in 1990.
But, to me, this looks very nice and essentially very film-like.
The 1.85:1 image hails from a healthy AVC encode that doesn’t betray elements of egregious digital tinkering. The picture is clear and clean, not too soft-looking, but far from razor-sharp. Grain is well resolved, with no clumping or frozen instances. As you would expect, it can spike a little during the process shots. I noticed a couple of very small frame jumps that I couldn’t locate on the DVD – but then again, I’m watching a PR copy of the film, so it is conceivable that this may be down to the disc, itself. Trust me, though, if you weren’t looking for such things, then you’d never see them. There is no edge enhancement on show, which is immediately beneficial. Only the most minimal of artefacts pop up, and these do not distract. The massively saturated reds of the Martian landscape and sky don’t bleed or smear, but there is, however, at least one instance of banding that fuzzes and wobbles about for a second. The main occasion when this appears is just before the Martian shuttle passes over us. I’m sure some defenders might like to insist that this is just part of the downward blast of heat causing a mirage. But they’d be wrong. It’s banding.
Close-up detail is excellent, folks. There is often finite separation in hair and eyelashes, good facial texture – pores, wrinkles, a bit of food or spittle in the corner of the mouth, etc - and some sharp clarity on eyes. You can see dirt behind fingernails and even little nibble-marks on them. There are wayward ear and nose hairs on display too, for those who love that sort of thing. I’ve got to say, I was really amazed at the level of clarity this transfer now provides on the smaller things. I’ve always loved Arnie’s work-shirt in this – and he wears it throughout most of the movie – but this is first time that I’ve seen the fine weave-lines in the material. Likewise the actual texture on Melina’s khaki leggings, or the pattern on the flash of Lori’s stockings as she retrieves her hidden blade. We can clearly the see the designs on Lori’s earrings too. And some cellulite in a hooker’s bum. Shards of glass are crisp and clearly rendered, especially the Johnny Cab window that sprays the road – it looked like splashing water to me in previous incarnations. Computer readouts are sharper and cleaner, as is the footage frequently seen on the TV monitors. The blinking lights that surround Doug as he enters the Rekall chair. The lashings of loving detail in the mutant flesh and the chunks of meat blown out of bodies. All of these things are distinct and appreciable. Some background information is also more apparent now. For instance, I’d never spotted the knucklehead by the door to The Last Resort who is dancing away to no music as Richter and his men storm the place. Resolution on these more distant images is always keen, making it fun to peruse the extravagant sets and crazy characters.
You still can’t see the spit that Melina yicks into Cohaagen’s face, though!
Contrast, to my eyes, is higher than I’ve been accustomed to. Some shots can look a little hazy, such as the moment when Doug awakes from his Martian dream at the start, but overall the image seems to possess a fair balance. You can see the level adjust itself as Quaid turns on the lights during his fight with Lori in their apartment – the light comes on and the contrast becomes too high, falters slightly, and then balances out. And there are other minute fluctuations too. Now that’s nitpicking, folks. However, the blacks aren’t spectacular, I’m afraid. They lack depth and vigour and shadow-play is unavoidably compromised. The mystery down in the caves and tunnels of the Martian pyramid is muted and infiltrated by grey. The surrounding shadows in Doug’s nose-picking sanctuary in the old factory appear more hazy and flattened. Then again, when I look back to the old DVD, they are just as inadequate.
The most obvious recipient of this restoration is the colour-timing. Skin-tones are now more natural than I’ve seen them appear before. The primaries are nicely saturated and help bestow the film a comic-book appeal. The various livid shades of the mutant flesh – lots of purples and lilacs – are more apparent and weirdly entrancing. The pink of Lori’s lipstick and little sports bra is now possibly even more captivating. The neon of Venusville, and the gaudy attire of the locals, is also brighter and more energised. Blood is never missing from the screen for long … and it is luxuriously thick and dark and nasty ... especially that big raspberry jam splash that the rat makes on the monitor after Richter finally hits what he’s aiming at! The heavy, dominating reds of Mars are presumably now precisely how Paul Verhoeven always wanted them to be. And they are thick and heavy, yet they look intentional and smooth, with no degree of smudginess at all. The midnight blue seen in Cohaagen’s room is also smoother and more appealing. The new (or original) colour scheme is great I’m happy to report.
All in all, I’m very happy with the way that Total Recall looks on this BD. It is unlikely to blow your socks off until you actually have a proper gander at those close-up details, but this is definitely better than I’ve seen it appear on home video before, and we have its maker’s stamp of approval on it. You can’t say fairer than that really.

Source:
http://www.avforums.com/movies/Total-Recall-Ultimate-Rekall-Edition-review_10968/blu-ray.html
post #126 of 544
I guess I need to pick this up. Even though I have the previous BD. Since it's under $10.
post #127 of 544
Hey, you know they will do the "Hahahahahaha, you thought this was the 'real' Blu-ray release?" version.
post #128 of 544
Somebody posted some screenshot comparisons over at the bluray-disc.de forum >>>

Optimum Home Entertainment UK (VC-1) vs Studiocanal UK (AVC)


http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=131364
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=132155

Source:
http://www.bluray-disc.de/forum/blu-ray-filme/85022-total-recall-ultimate-rekall-edition-4.html#post3472316
post #129 of 544
post #130 of 544
Hm..Sharons top change color to purple in the screenshots? I'm not totally convinced that there is increased resolution here. I'ts almost like they added a layer of grain on the new edition.
post #131 of 544
Indeed. That was my concern, like my brain was being tricked into thinking it was more 'film like', when the detail looks virtually identical.
post #132 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by surap View Post

I'm not totally convinced that there is increased resolution here. I'ts almost like they added a layer of grain on the new edition.

I'm looking at the screenshot comparisons...wondering about that, too. It does look like the same resolution with more grain.
post #133 of 544
I'm also wondering about the new framing. Take a look at screenshot comparison #1. Notice that there is space between the legs and the lower edge of the image (old edition). That makes sense visually.
In the new edition that space is gone.

>>>
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131364/picture:0
post #134 of 544
Wait, people were happy with how this Looks?
post #135 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoergosum View Post

I'm also wondering about the new framing. Take a look at screenshot comparison #1. Notice that there is space between the legs and the lower edge of the image (old edition). That makes sense visually.
In the new edition that space is gone.
>>>
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131364/picture:0
The theatrical framing would not be that precise, I doubt there's anything deliberate going on there.
post #136 of 544
Looks more natural now.
More filmier...
post #137 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The theatrical framing would not be that precise, I doubt there's anything deliberate going on there.


Its not like it was shot super 35, plus the framing would have to be pretty spot on or the blow ups would have looked funny
post #138 of 544
Go, UK!
post #139 of 544
I'm still thinking that this is simply a remaster of an old transfer than a new scan. I saved one of the screenshots from the previous page and tweaked it a bit to try and get it to match the "new" transfer. Take a look:

Here is the original from Bluray.com:
338

Here is the updated transfer from Blu-raydefinition.com:
338

And here is the Bluray.com screenshot that has been adjusted:
338

The color of the adjusted shot doesn't match exactly as I was working with a lossy jpeg to begin with. I also didn't bother to try and match the new framing. Also, the Bluray.com shot is 720p, so it's a little blockier than the 1080p Blu-raydefinition shot. But I still think it's close enough to the alleged new transfer that it begs the question: is it ACTUALLY a new scan? I'd be willing to bet it isn't.

And I just want to add that I find the updated color balance horribly unnatural looking, especially that shot of Sharon and Arnold in the bedroom.
post #140 of 544
Huge facepalm @ those "it is not a new tranfser" comments. But then again, I've seen some people claiming that the remastered Gladiator and GONY were simple retweaks of old transfers too. rolleyes.gif
post #141 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Wait, people were happy with how this Looks?
How is Total Recall suppose to look? Jost Vacano hated the release prints. Paul Verhoeven interviewed for his collaborations with Vacano said Jost prefers their films in the cool spectrum. Total Recall in the photo chemical age was always compromised in a green because of the use of blue screen for sets that needed to be lit for a red finish — imagine what can be done now with proper isolation tools to fully manipulate Total Recall into something consistent and not on the verge of visually coming apart.
post #142 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Its not like it was shot super 35, plus the framing would have to be pretty spot on or the blow ups would have looked funny
I'm not sure what you mean. There's a small variability in what area of the print different theaters show, and the DP wouldn't put compositionally important stuff where it might get masked off or whatever.
post #143 of 544
Heh. Even if it's not a new scan, what does it matter? The grain looks beautiful, the contrast is more filmic and the colour is richer and more finely graduated. The slight EE is gone, too.
post #144 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brad View Post

it begs the question: is it ACTUALLY a new scan?
They say it's a new transfer from the negative, it looks like a new transfer from the negative, the texture is more crisp, natural, and refined, it has different geometry and framing. You're right, this is a real headscratcher biggrin.gif
post #145 of 544
How is Lionsgate gonna make money on this release? Does the price go up after the preorder period?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoergosum View Post

I'm also wondering about the new framing. Take a look at screenshot comparison #1. Notice that there is space between the legs and the lower edge of the image (old edition). That makes sense visually.
In the new edition that space is gone.

The framing difference between the original US release and previous StudioCanal edition was huge compared to what you're pointing out, and no conclusion was reached on which was "correct".
post #146 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Heh. Even if it's not a new scan, what does it matter? The grain looks beautiful, the contrast is more filmic and the colour is richer and more finely graduated. The slight EE is gone, too.

Because they said it was? this is just like the Universal/Paramount/Warner thing, they know how to market to us the avs crowd.
They know who buys the back cat stuff and know what we want to hear.
Edited by dvdmike007 - 7/3/12 at 4:16pm
post #147 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Because they said it was? this is just like the Universal/Paramount/Warner thing, they know how to market to us the avs crowd.
They know who buys the back cat stuff and know what we want to hear.

Wait, we were lied too by Universal? Surely American Werewolf in London & The Sting were new scans....
post #148 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by raoul_duke View Post

That was my concern, like my brain was being tricked into thinking it was more 'film like', when the detail looks virtually identical.

As your attorney, I advise you not to worry.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133716
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133719
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133720
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133721

The middle two may not be the exact same frames given how still those shots are.
post #149 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

As your attorney, I advise you not to worry.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133716
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133719
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133720
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133721
The middle two may not be the exact same frames given how still those shots are.

Are they labeled right? the first two are appalling
post #150 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

As your attorney, I advise you not to worry.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133716
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133719
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133720
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133721
The middle two may not be the exact same frames given how still those shots are.
Thanks for the comparisons. I think the additional detail (for example, the wall on the right side of the second image) is quite obvious, even though the old transfer is sharpened. If you still think it's the same scan and think the old one looks better, knock yourself out I guess; I don't really have the energy for these silly discussions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Total Recall Special Edition (1990)