AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Total Recall Review Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Total Recall Review Thread - Page 4

post #91 of 134
2/21/12 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The UK Blu-ray's audio also sounds to me like a stereo source that's been processed into 5.1. It's not unlistenable by any means, but the disc is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of audio. The video does look much better than the domestic Lionsgate edition, though. I prefer the UK Blu-ray overall.

You're probably right about it being a processed stereo track, the title sequence sounds so lifeless. The image is improved over the Lionsgate but many of the matte and special effects shots have some of the worst noise reduction artifacts I've ever seen. I'd love for this to get a new remaster
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 134
2/21/12 at 1:33pm
I thought that the opticals looked very respectable on the UK disc, all things considered.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 134
2/21/12 at 2:37pm
8K pretty much equals what 35mm film will hold.

The standard for theatres is 2K and 4K. Once the digital projection switch over takes place in the next two years...there will be talk of 6K and 8K standards for theatres.

At that point, 4K for home video simply won't be enough...since that's only about half of what film can hold and it's less than what you can at the theatres.

So now us home video enthusiasts will have to go through several format changes (starting with Blu-ray) before we ultimately end up at 8K.

The thing I can't stand is the current HDTV format really has not even fully switched over just yet. There are those who still have 4:3 TVs and some who have HDTVs and don't yet have HD sources or only tune into the SD channels.

Many current HDTV broadcasters limit the available bandwidth and many current Blu-ray releases don't even get proper scans (or film materials,) or utilize the highest (best) quality audio format.


There was talk of HDTV standards (an improvement over NTSC) since the 70s...however it took about 25 years of working on a standard...and adopting one of them in the United States till we even had our first HDTV broadcast around February 19th 2009.


The talk of 4K is all nice and sweet. However, I can see it now...in the mix of releases there will be upconverted 2K material, digitally filtered grain from filmed sources to help give the look of digital cinema...and audio limited to compressed Dolby Digital. In the end, maybe it won't matter...since by the time there are standards for 4K and actual product released...there will be a whole generation or two who grew up only watching digitally recorded, digitally projected movies.

Before moving ahead, everything currently wrong with Blu-ray need to be worked on. Such as Blu-rays being released with compressed audio soundtracks...filtering applied where it has no business in the first place, using digital "masters" that were intended for older formats and a whole host of other misuses.

Blu-ray when done right is gorgeous. However, those are the exceptions. When outstanding Blu-ray releases start becoming standard and we get used to it's quality...I would think at that time is when people might really want to start upgrading to something even more outstanding when compared to Blu-ray.

Right now I see 4K home video as a solution to a so called problem named Blu-ray. However if we don't learn our lessons with our current outstanding format (Blu-ray,) we will again be setting ourselves up for more disappointments.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 134
2/21/12 at 3:17pm
Total Recall is a great movie.

I watched it straight through (more or less) and the UK version is just gorgeous. It takes on almost a new-ish print 3 dimensionality once the dirty print problems pass after the first 7 minutes or so.

For $15, not bad.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 134
2/21/12 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captainjoe View Post

The image is improved over the Lionsgate but many of the matte and special effects shots have some of the worst noise reduction artifacts I've ever seen. I'd love for this to get a new remaster

Yeah, some shots do look worse on the UK. Found my big screenshot posts again if anyone wants to take a look. I also totally forgot about the altered framing.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 134
2/21/12 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

8K pretty much equals what 35mm film will hold.

The standard for theatres is 2K and 4K. Once the digital projection switch over takes place in the next two years...there will be talk of 6K and 8K standards for theatres.

At that point, 4K for home video simply won't be enough...since that's only about half of what film can hold and it's less than what you can at the theatres.

So now us home video enthusiasts will have to go through several format changes (starting with Blu-ray) before we ultimately end up at 8K.

The thing I can't stand is the current HDTV format really has not even fully switched over just yet. There are those who still have 4:3 TVs and some who have HDTVs and don't yet have HD sources or only tune into the SD channels.

Many current HDTV broadcasters limit the available bandwidth and many current Blu-ray releases don't even get proper scans (or film materials,) or utilize the highest (best) quality audio format.


There was talk of HDTV standards (an improvement over NTSC) since the 70s...however it took about 25 years of working on a standard...and adopting one of them in the United States till we even had our first HDTV broadcast around February 19th 2009.


The talk of 4K is all nice and sweet. However, I can see it now...in the mix of releases there will be upconverted 2K material, digitally filtered grain from filmed sources to help give the look of digital cinema...and audio limited to compressed Dolby Digital. In the end, maybe it won't matter...since by the time there are standards for 4K and actual product released...there will be a whole generation or two who grew up only watching digitally recorded, digitally projected movies.

Before moving ahead, everything currently wrong with Blu-ray need to be worked on. Such as Blu-rays being released with compressed audio soundtracks...filtering applied where it has no business in the first place, using digital "masters" that were intended for older formats and a whole host of other misuses.

Blu-ray when done right is gorgeous. However, those are the exceptions. When outstanding Blu-ray releases start becoming standard and we get used to it's quality...I would think at that time is when people might really want to start upgrading to something even more outstanding when compared to Blu-ray.

Right now I see 4K home video as a solution to a so called problem named Blu-ray. However if we don't learn our lessons with our current outstanding format (Blu-ray,) we will again be setting ourselves up for more disappointments.

Where did you get your info from? 4K is kind of ridiculous for smaller screens (unless you use to it to make-up for the loss of detail in passive or autostereoscopic 3D TV's, but that's a different subject altogether), and unless we see TV's that go higher than 100", 1080p is fine (and more than enough for smaller screens). While I'd love to have a 4K screen the difference would be completely negligible for most people, unlike the jump from SD to HD.

The US made their HDTV standards official back in 1998 with sets available at the same time, so I don't know where you got that date from. If you're talking about the digital switchover that was in June 2009, and there were plenty of shows airing in 1080i and 720p (as it still is now), with 3D now added to the mix (still 1080i) a year later.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 134
2/21/12 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxarwing42 View Post

Where did you get your info from? 4K is kind of ridiculous for smaller screens (unless you use to it to make-up for the loss of detail in passive or autostereoscopic 3D TV's, but that's a different subject altogether), and unless we see TV's that go higher than 100", 1080p is fine (and more than enough for smaller screens). While I'd love to have a 4K screen the difference would be completely negligible for most people, unlike the jump from SD to HD.

The US made their HDTV standards official back in 1998 with sets available at the same time, so I don't know where you got that date from. If you're talking about the digital switchover that was in June 2009, and there were plenty of shows airing in 1080i and 720p (as it still is now), with 3D now added to the mix (still 1080i) a year later.

if people can tell 720p from 1080p on a 24" monitor I think you can tell 2k from 4k on a 50" HDTV (assuming the material has more than 2k detail)
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 134
2/21/12 at 9:05pm
The difference between 720 and 1080 even on a 32" screen is very obvious. 1080 to 4K will be an even bigger leap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxarwing42 View Post

Where did you get your info from? 4K is kind of ridiculous for smaller screens (unless you use to it to make-up for the loss of detail in passive or autostereoscopic 3D TV's, but that's a different subject altogether), and unless we see TV's that go higher than 100", 1080p is fine (and more than enough for smaller screens). While I'd love to have a 4K screen the difference would be completely negligible for most people, unlike the jump from SD to HD.

The US made their HDTV standards official back in 1998 with sets available at the same time, so I don't know where you got that date from. If you're talking about the digital switchover that was in June 2009, and there were plenty of shows airing in 1080i and 720p (as it still is now), with 3D now added to the mix (still 1080i) a year later.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 134
2/22/12 at 12:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

Yeah, some shots do look worse on the UK. Found my big screenshot posts again if anyone wants to take a look. I also totally forgot about the altered framing.

Yeah the shot with the guards firing at the hologram you can see the noise reduction smoothing on the back on the guards clothing on the right.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 134
2/22/12 at 5:39am
I always love the statements that go like this:

"X% of people can only see Xp from Xft on a X" screen. Anything more than X makes no difference."

While I fully understand and appreciate "optimum" seating placement relative to screen size and resolution, there is no end all be all magic formula. Some people have better eye sight than others, some people like to sit farther away, some closer... and some people just let their furniture and room layout decide for them.

My 15" laptop has a 1080p native display and the increased pixel density is wonderful. Soon there will be 1080p 9" tablets. We've already got 720p smartphones. Pretty soon 1080p on anything larger than 17" is going to look too pixelated and by that time 4K displays will be ready for consumption.

And to keep this thread slightly on topic, I hope there's a remastered, unfiltered 4K version of Total Recall available.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 134
2/22/12 at 6:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

Blu-ray when done right is gorgeous. However, those are the exceptions. When outstanding Blu-ray releases start becoming standard and we get used to it's quality...I would think at that time is when people might really want to start upgrading to something even more outstanding when compared to Blu-ray.

I see what you are saying, but realistically "outstanding" Blu-ray releases will never become standard. It's a business at the end of the day and while restorations and new scans will take place on selective movies/catalogs, they will be the exception. It's just like DVD - there were relatively few outstanding DVDs and even that format was never optimized as it easily could have been. So many DVDs used older laser disc non-anamorphic transfers and still excessive DNR and EE in a lot of cases with anamorphic releases. Personally, I would love to see outstanding BD releases become the norm before moving to 4K, but I doubt it will happen.....and we're likely to see the same thing yet again with 4K.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 134
2/22/12 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio/videoman View Post

The difference between 720 and 1080 even on a 32" screen is very obvious. 1080 to 4K will be an even bigger leap.

I don't really agree here. Unless I am fairly close to a 32" screen, it is pretty difficult for me to tell the difference between a GOOD 720/768p set and a
1080p one. My eyesight is fine btw. (just trying to avoid the inevitable "have you had your eye sight checked lately?" comment.) I think the problem nowadays is that a 720p set is generally a bottom of the barrel set, so other aspects of picture quality come in to play, making the picture seem that much worse. Some of the older 768p sets, those that were top of the line for their time, would be hard to pick apart from a 1080 set unless you were standing right in front of it. I tend to agree with those people who think that 4k will be useless to most people unless we are talking 65+" sets at thx or less viewing distances. I would bet that your avg joe six pack sits almost double that distance away, and clearly won't tell a difference (especially if he has had a couple six packs )
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 134
2/22/12 at 10:46am
It's really not that difficult to "remaster" film nowadays. As with Total Recall, it wasn't even physically cleaned; it was simply subject to a cleaning algorithm. Voila, clean print.

As far as "not being able to tell the difference," that's ridiculous. I could easily spot the one 1080 tv in a row of 720's 3 years ago when helping someone buy a tv. 1080i and 1080p look different as well.

The debate is completely academic; there are already 4k monitors and projectors and sources. It's here and will be available to consumers at a market price in about 4 years or so for early adopters.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 134
2/22/12 at 11:39am
I was never implying that we were not going to get 4k. I agree that it is coming very soon, I just don't yet believe it will benefit all of us. The whole "can't tell the difference" thing I guess is just a difference of opinion. Can you honestly say you can tell two 32" tvs apart by resolution from more than say 6 or so feet away? I ask because I see a lot of people saying things like "I can tell the difference between my 32" 1080p sony and the 32" 720p poloroid in the other room", which isn't really a fair comparison. As for 1080i and p, there really aren't any 1080i sets around anymore. No flat panels ever had this resolution, but if you are talking about an older crt or something, I guess I can see where you are coming from, but then again its older hd tech vs newer, so there are other factors contributing to overall picture quality. I honestly have not seen many screens above 1080p rez, so I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the difference with 4k, I just don't see it given that the difference (to me...and its not ridiculous) between 720p and 1080p is not huge on smaller sets. I would love to have a 70"+ inch 4k oled though, that would be perfect!!!! On a side note, sorry to move this thread way off topic.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 134
2/22/12 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

Can you honestly say you can tell two 32" tvs apart by resolution from more than say 6 or so feet away?

69ppi
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

I would love to have a 70"+ inch 4k oled though, that would be perfect!!!!

63ppi

Looks like you would be taking a step back in overall image quality...

I'm only foolin'!
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 134
2/22/12 at 12:25pm
funny... I guess I proved my own point.... I still want a 70" 4k oled though..
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 134
2/22/12 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

I was never implying that we were not going to get 4k. I agree that it is coming very soon, I just don't yet believe it will benefit all of us. The whole "can't tell the difference" thing I guess is just a difference of opinion.

It matters in that there is a significant difference which is visible when one compares. Now, do you care about the difference, that is the opinion portion.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 134
2/22/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

It matters in that there is a significant difference which is visible when one compares. Now, do you care about the difference, that is the opinion portion.

Art

I guess what I should have said instead of "opinion" is that it is all relative to what one defines as normal viewing distance, and whether your eyesight is sufficient. To me, I have a hard time believing that the majority of people buying tvs today can tell the difference between a 720p tv (say 40" or less) and a 1080p tv at the kind of viewing distance most are watching from, assuming they are both good quality sets. When I am at the store, I can definitely tell the difference between a 720p set and 1080p, even on a smaller tv. However, that is at a closer distance than what most people are viewing their tvs from.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 134
2/22/12 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

I guess what I should have said instead of "opinion" is that it is all relative to what one defines as normal viewing distance, and whether your eyesight is sufficient. To me, I have a hard time believing that the majority of people buying tvs today can tell the difference between a 720p tv (say 40" or less) and a 1080p tv at the kind of viewing distance most are watching from, assuming they are both good quality sets. When I am at the store, I can definitely tell the difference between a 720p set and 1080p, even on a smaller tv. However, that is at a closer distance than what most people are viewing their tvs from.

This would seem to be germane to the discussion:

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter

I'm all for 4k, but it's probably somewhat pointless on a 65" TV viewed from 8' away. Once I get a 120" screen and projector, however, it starts to become a different discussion. And there are quite a few HT enthusiasts out there with 120" screens...

As for Total Recall, I own far too many version of this film (had two, then bought a third just for the commentary, what a mistake that was, then bought the BR), but would still happily buy yet another for a properly mastered disc.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 134
2/22/12 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post

had two, then bought a third just for the commentary, what a mistake that was

What are you talking about, the commentary is amazing!

Reply
Reply
post #111 of 134
2/22/12 at 4:26pm
There was a lot of controversy over Arnold's commentary because he got paid a lot to do it.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 134
2/22/12 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

What are you talking about, the commentary is amazing!


ROFL

Yup.



Silly me, I was hoping for some sort of discussion on the merits of dream vs. non-dream, and which was intended, and instead was treated to two inane hours of them patting themselves on the back for making it impossible to know, because, "you see what we did there, you can't know, because it could go either way" and similar comments. *gag*
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 134
2/22/12 at 6:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

What are you talking about, the commentary is amazing!


"... no more dick-tatter-ship & all that..."
Thanks for sharing & thanks for reminding me I don't need too buy this.
However, as always, its interesting too say the least how much diff releases vary!
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 134
2/22/12 at 7:23pm
I didn't realize this was such a popular title.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 134
2/23/12 at 4:25am
How many versions have been released? I first saw this on HD DVD and had to have a copy. So I bought my copy when it first came out on BD. I haven't watched it for a while, but I seem to remember it being quite impressive revealing the limits of the special FX of the time (1990?).
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 134
2/23/12 at 5:55am
You seem to all be leaving out the single most important part of this film's legacy:

Tripleboob.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 134
2/23/12 at 9:03am
The worst Blu-Ray disc out there is the 40 Year Old Vrgin... They used the exact same master as the DVD, which had edge enhancement halos all over the place..

The Blade Runner Blu-Ray is not a bad transfer considering its age, but unfortunately, the audio is Dolby Digital only, no lossless track.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 134
2/23/12 at 9:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon S View Post

The worst Blu-Ray disc out there is the 40 Year Old Vrgin... They used the exact same master as the DVD, which had edge enhancement halos all over the place..

The Blade Runner Blu-Ray is not a bad transfer considering its age, but unfortunately, the audio is Dolby Digital only, no lossless track.

There's nothing wrong at all with the transfer on Blade Runner. The problem there is the encode.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 134
2/23/12 at 9:51am
Blade Runner still looks great.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 134
2/23/12 at 11:47am
Is it Matrix Glitch day around here?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Total Recall Review Thread