Except the problem with the previous releases is that they all *are* washed out. The new image doesn't look overly contrasty with crushed blacks and blown out white, it looks *right*. The problem seems to be that they had to go ahead and mess with the colors while they were at it.
You mean keep the original photo chemical compromised green cast?
Imagine a 'before' image, that is essentially the same image, with the brightness altered to make it look washed out,(no print damage or anything like that). A bar wipes across the screen and you get the 'after' screen, where I suppose you're meant to go "OMG, IT LOOKS AMAZING!"
I'm daft, but I'm not stupid.
That's been the technique used in TV , not to mention cables, advertisements for decades.
Originally Posted by raoul_duke
The new Verhoeven interview is also a hoot. For the right reasons. Bless him.
It's a restoration so that would imply restoring it to what it originally was, not changing it
Scanned from the Original Camera Negative at 2K resolution and color corrected to the specifications of the director (who in advanced age won't be around to involve himself with the inevitable 4K scan for future formats) — this is as close to a restoration as Total Recall (1990) will remotely receive.
So Mike, can you kindly explain in detail why it is that you will be sticking with the UK edition? By UK, you mean the remastered Rekall Edition (2012), correct? If we are going by the link that you've provided... Or do you prefer the old UK release? Your one sentence sarcastic explanations and one word replies are rather rude...
I don't get it - are there two different remasters now? Is the DE Special Edition some older version? I currently have the old UK edition. Was pondering an upgrade to the new version. Now I'm just confused!
EDIT: Never mind. Think I understand now. Personally in all those comparisons I prefer the new version. Although the contrast in a couple of those is a bit annoying. Still much better than the excessive over-enhancement though.
In the first image on that site you can see something I go on about. The one with the blond in it, at the center bottom of the image on the table, the clear container with the white top. Dark line EE on the container in the Special Edition and in the Rekall Edition the outline is gone! Flip back and forth, there, gone, there, gone. Hardly just there, EE is all over the SE.
A strong example of the evils of EE that accompanies grain scrubbing for 'modern viewers'. Not claiming the new version is the best it could be either going by the caps.
no teal and orange in any of those caps-a-holic shots either. Unless beige is now teal; last I checked it wasn't. Not much that couldn't be approximated with lighting and analog timing really; but it's funny how no one's questioning the blue push in the UK shots.
IMO the new transfer looks superior in every regard. Moreso compared to the joke of a transfer that is the US release.
Mike, those examples that you've posted to show more detail in the old UK/DE release are a complete nonsense. In virtually every screen capture, the new Rekall Edition shows a significant increase in detail. The only place where the old scan showed more detail was in the surface of Mars which can be seen outside of the window. This is insignificant, the rest of that shot is at least twice as good in the NEW scan.
Old UK/DE and US (in some ways better than the old UK/DE versions) editions:
- Severe EE throughout.
- Severe sharpening.
- Outdated 2K scan from the DVD era.
- Blotchy looking grain.
- Full of compression artifacts.
- Some of the worst and ugliest automatic scratch removal out of any big budget catalog title.
- Crushed whites.
- Crushed blacks.
- Contrast way too hot.
- UK/DE versions had severe DNR applied to virtually ALL special effects shots, including the entire ending scene. We are talking Patton levels of DNR.
- Wrong color grading, orange Mars, strong blue push, etc.
- No Verhoeven's involvement on any level.
New Rekall Edition (2012):
- A perfect, unmolested, modern 2K scan. Beautifully cleaned up from scratches, etc.
- Grain structure completely intact, albeit at a 2K resolution.
- Very little EE.
- Very little sharpening.
- High bit rate encode.
- No DNR.
- Verhoeven's involvement throughout the entire process.
- Mostly correct color grading (red Mars), but with somewhat annoying modern teal/orange push throughout.
Now I can understand the hate towards teal and orange color grading. I hate it myself. This new remaster of Total Recall only has a minimal to moderate amount. This is not what the movie looked like originally at the cinemas in 1990. But... Neither did the old Blu-Ray. For a catalog title, everything else looks about as perfect as a modern 2K scan can provide.
If every Blu-Ray was of at least this quality, I would be an extremely happy customer. Just take a look at what Universal is doing to our beloved classic movies.
Total Recall (Rekall Edition 2012) is a day one purchase. A Blu-Ray done 95% right and which had the director's involvement. And the movie itself is one of the best in the history of cinema. Instead of hating such a fine release, we should reward everyone who was involved with our purchases. We need to send the right message to the studios, good work gets rewarded. There are so many movies which have been completely DESTROYED on Blu-Ray. Those are the ones that should be boycotted and the work hated. Not this.
So what is the best NEW disc to get?
The US Mind-Bending edition or the UK Total Rekall edition?
Quality should be the same, unless Lionsgate messes up the encoding. The question is if you want to pay extra for steelbook/slipcase, booklet, German audiocommentary (subtitled in English) and two French featurettes (not subtitled).
NOW the Blu-Ray.com reviewer gave really high props for the 'Rekall' edition.....but in the beg. of his post, he states that he has NOT seen any other home video release. Really?????????? Let's get Ralph Potts on this one!
in comparison #1 you can clearly see more detail in the black areas (trousers). No more black crush.
Also notice the lights in comparison #2....again...more detail.
I see the opposite....I agree with more detail, but the blacks are crushed and the whites are blown out with a blue push....however, the Rekall Edition just 'looks' better to me, so don't call me a video snob
Just watched the UK version. The lack of black "crush" on the new transfer comes at the expense of a half-decent black level. What was black on the old transfer is now a uniform dark grey on the new one. Yes, this means that more detail is exposed in those areas but it gives the image a flat, washed-out quality that doesn't **** your eyeballs as it perhaps should.
The colour correction is a bit hinky as well, they can't quite decide what colour Mars should be as it changes from shot to shot in some scenes. Most of the time it's orange, but occasionally there's a pinky/magenta hue as well as solid red tones. The colour's got some banding at times, too.
Where this transfer excels is fine detail and grain reproduction, which are both superb (the dirty, noisy opticals excepted). I can't help but think that matey over at blu-ray.com was so overwhelmed by this aspect of the transfer that he didn't pay particular attention to anything else.