The Terminator New Release - Page 18

I agree. Unless you're watching it side-by-side with the old disc, the colors look more or less neutral (with respect to an overall teal cast, not the colors the scene is lit with) in much of the film. The "problem", if there is one, is blown well out of proportion (as is usual with the screenshot colorimetry silliness).

Honestly I have a bigger problem with the rather visible Lowry-ing going on in many scenes, occasionally manifesting as a static grain pattern that follows moving objects underneath the layer of fake grain, more often making textures look subtly plasticky.
Edited by 42041 - 3/1/13 at 9:48pm

I cannot believe Lowry is still doing that kind of crap. Too bad.

Don't get me wrong, it's done quite well compared to some of their earlier efforts. But there's definitely something going bump in the night with the grain and underlying texture, the image takes on this vague digital edge sometimes.

So, not as evident as the A New Hope scenes on Tatooine? Looked pretty bad there in a few spots.

Could you give us an example? Specific moment in the movie (hh:mm:ss)?

I'll have to skim the film.
Definitely less artifacty than Lowry's work on Star Wars though.

I haven't seen Star Wars on BD (and I won't, at least until I can't watch the ORIGINAL ones), but I've seen Terminator three times and haven't noticed anything like this.
Edited by Johnny Vertigo - 3/3/13 at 12:51pm

I noticed the color timing immediately into the "present" day scenes. Flesh tones make it all too obvious that they have been skewed digitally.

And in motion, especially during close-ups, there is some very slight smearing evident. Tried getting screens but it was too subtle to come across in stills. The grain leaves a haze of sorts. It's quite noticeable when Sarah and Kyle are in the hotel. Those scenes are really afflicted.

Lowry removes grain and replaces it with fake grain, it's what they do.

Okeedoke, I see this mentioned from time to time, but do we have any proof of this? Actual, real concrete proof. I fail to see how James Cameron would allow his film to have a full restoration, the grain removed, then new grain added and then a new negative printed from that digital master. That to me sounds not only implausible, but laughable. Lowry has cleaned up numerous films in full on restorations and new negatives were printed from those restorations. At least that is what I have read. The internet is ripe with bull***t so who the frick knows...???

I've seen fake grain on Blu-Rays before (hello Blue Underground) but as much as I dislike the teal on this Terminator release, it looks sensational even on the largest screens. It does not have a fake appearance.

I'm not saying I am right, but I cannot fir the life of me see why grain should be removed only to have new grain added. i have personally watched a colorist work on a transfer in regards to grain and use DNR to reduce grain from shot to shot to match. It can be done, easily, with superb results.
Edited by Matt_Stevens - 3/4/13 at 1:40pm

So they get too DNR it & then tell the pro-film crowd: 'lOOk grain!'.
So they can have their fakesugar cake & eat it too.
I was anti-fakegrain even B4 Blu. Can't think of a reason for fakegrain on a HD release [including "300"].


Didn't you follow the "Aliens" thread??? Were JC bragged bout what a great job was done.
It's a classic well worth checking out for yourself.

"T" doesn't lOOk nor sound as originally release; what has Blu brought?
I wouldn't mind the old-as-dirt MPEG 2 transfer sooooo much if it had only includED the OST in lossless.

Robert Harris has said time and time again that it's Lowry/Reliance's SOP to de-grain movies and then add "period appropriate grain" back in.
It's what they do.

Yep. From what I know, their patented process is designed to pretty much clean up everything on the image including grain. As a result, to avoid the harsh video look, they add 'film grain' to make the image look authentic once again. It sounds as if they've improved quite a bit over time with it.

Anyone know which version of the discs will be in the upcoming Quadrilogy boxset from Amazon on 26 March 2013?

I'm assuming the remastered 2013 release of Terminator, but wondering if T2 or T3 will be remastered too.

The "Terminator Anthology" collection was previously a Best Buy exclusive. It's just been released into general retail now. All of the discs are the old, existing editions, simply packaged together. The first Terminator is the original Blu-ray release, not the remaster.

Avoid.

I just can't bring myself to call this series a Quadrilogy. While even Cameron's films were not Shakespearean in their quality (they still were pretty strong for action movies with some drama and a little humor sprinkled in... and with a good anti-war sentiment), the other two movies were just baaaaaaaad. I hold no hope for the fifth. Have you read about the two writers they have picked? Even with Arnie coming back in some capacity, this may finally be the It's A Good Day To Die Hard of the series after the last two were Die Hard with a Vengeance and Live Free Or Die Hard... you know, the Terminator franchise going out with a whimper along with the John McClane and Predator and Alien franchises.

Has anyone found any digital tinkering in the remaster (wires erased, etc) or did Cameron leave this one alone?

Thanks for the clarification: I was looking for a cheap way to give relatives all 4 movies in the best quality available and thought the "Terminator Anthology" might have been it.

I look at it as four individual films, the first two being excellent, the next two being ERROR EXPLETIVE DELETED. IMO, Schwarzenegger's hubris ruined T3 in some areas (writing/acting) and saved it in others (action/scope). Overall, it was a disappointment. TS, aside from some rad sound effects, is rather boring.

So I guess now we're just waiting on a T2 remaster?

Which wouldn't make any sense because the irregular texture of grain is too similar to various filmed objects underlying it, most obviously human skin. Grain removal always does collateral damage and has no place in modern transfers, none.

Absolutist statements like this may allow you to feel ideologically pure, but they are neither practical nor realistic. There are legitimate uses for grain removal, such as video transfers that are forced to rely on excessively grainy dupe elements rather than an OCN, or movie scenes where the grain level fluctuates radically from shot to shot and need to be adjusted for consistency.

The difference between grain and fine object detail such as human skin is that the grain pattern will change randomly in every frame of film, whereas the legitimate detail will not. A sophisticated enough algorithm can detect the difference and only remove the grain, while replacing its absense with picture detail interpolated from the frames before and after. This is what Lowry does better than other DNR or grain management processes. It's not perfect, but the results are often very good, and may represent a genuine improvement over the source material.

I may not care for the teal & orange recoloring inflicted on Aliens, but that movie has always suffered from severe grain problems due to issues that stem from the original production. James Cameron complained about it for years. The Blu-ray is the first time that the grain has been brought under control to a reasonable level without wiping it (and the picture detail beneath it) away entirely. In respect to grain and detail, it looks much better than any film print of the movie ever did.

Personally, I prefer they just up the bitrate on grainy sources and capture it all, then leave it to the consumer and that DNR slider on their playback equipment to tune it how they want.

Most Bluray discs are not filled to capacity and extras can be shunted to an additional 25GB Bluray disc if necessary: it doesn't cost the studios much to stamp an additional disc and if they want to stratify the market, I would suggest selling the movie disc and extras disc separately or movie disc only plus movie + extras discs.

I loved the video/audio presentation on the remastered The Terminator film!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

got th blu ray this week from amazon

picture defintely has great detail. Read a lot about the teal shift. Hard for me to say - if a movie already had a blueish tone, i normally cant really notice as well as others if there is the teal shift. Maybe if the Godfather Part II had a teal shift, I would notice If it turns out the movie was re-color timed to keep up with a trend, then I agree it was wrong to do so.

I am a little disappointed about the audio. A lot has been said about the lack of mono and as I mentioned before, I felt it shouldnt have been too much of a hassle to include it. But I would have still been receptive to a 5.1 mix as long as it was done right. Listneing to this blu ray, I think the sound mix is overkill. I dont know about you guys, but it seems as if instead of using surrounds for pans and ambience, the designers simply cut the mix in half and put 50% of the audio in the front and 50% in the surrounds! During some of the car chases it seemed like the music was coming out of the surrounds and it was overwhelmed by the sound effects from my front 2 speakers

I dont remember the 2001 dvd 5.1 mix being punched-up like this, guess I'll have to give it a spin.

Overall, still nice to have and its better than the previous blu ray. This has long been one of my favorite movies - just felt its not the definitve High-Def release a lot of other older catalog titles have been released in.

It's been the same since the DVD. When I reviewed that disc back in the day, I specifically noted that a lot of the musical score was shifted to the surround speakers for no reason.

The teal colour timing makes the film look closer to what it actuelly originally looked like then the warm red push found on the DVDs and the orignal Blu-Ray. Sorry, but those previous released home video versions were far more harsh to the source to the point that the orignal Blu-Ray even had a pink tint!

There's no doubt that the old DVD and Blu-ray were also inaccurate in their own ways. However, that doesn't make the teal Blu-ray correct. The movie was not originally teal. It's just a different kind of wrong now.

I never said the new remaster colour timing was 100% accurate, but I'm willing to bet its much closer to the source then previous home video releases with damage, warm pushes and pink tints. Perhaps the teal as we know it today which has been digitally stored is close to a more primitive similar (by today's standards) analog version that was originally presented on the film which focused on the greens and blues. Perhaps up till now they haven't been able to recapture something close to that orignal look due to a lack of effort, time commitment and technology and resources on previous formats and releases.

just throwing it out there..
Edited by Blu-21 - 3/11/13 at 4:30am

Eh... what?

So you mean that's the reason why "every" re-issue are drenched in teal(/orange)?

And I saw a 35mm copy of The Terminator last spring.

Anyone know if the recently released USA re-master is the same as the recently released UK version?

I have watched the UK version and was quite impressed by the level of detail. Whilst some scenes seemed to have a teal push, it wasn't as bad as I expected and although I would prefer a release transparent to the original source without tinkering, I can grumpily live with this. The audio sounded different from what I remember on the laserdisc and yet there were subtleties that I hadn't noticed before like the surround bird song in places. I just wish the studios could give us more options to see this closer to the original presentation and the version they want us to see.