Angel Dust on 27/2/2009 at 11:18
Is there a similar edition for the first film and if not is one planned?
EvaUnit02 on 27/2/2009 at 12:34
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Is there a similar edition for the first film and if not is one planned?
Yes. The remastering (and mixing of an all new 5.1 track, not that I give a shit when it's a mono film. The old 5.1 track on every MGM DVD release is fucking terrible, with added/replaced foley effects that ruin certain scenes. Like when the Terminator assassinates one of the other Sarah Connor's, the BLAM BLAM BLAM foley has been replaced with a pussy arse pish pish pish - which makes absolutely no sense because the gun doesn't have a suppressor fitted, IIRC. ) is being supervised by Van Ling. He put together the awesome T2 Ultimate Edition DVD, Aliens Laser Disc and the ancient Abyss DVD.
The current T1 BD is a total piece of shit, it's literally a DVD upscale. (
http://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4726) Visual evidence.
Angel Dust on 27/2/2009 at 12:45
Sweet, I love T2 but the first one is one of my favourite films of all time.
Queue on 27/2/2009 at 15:42
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Far from all Blu-ray aren't like that. Quit making ignorant generalisations.
It wasn't a generalization it was just an opinion based on what I've seen, which looks lifeless to me.
But, then I again, I don't spend too much time worrying about it.
Kolya on 27/2/2009 at 15:51
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
The original is clearly the better image. And consider that the contrast of the image was a decision made by the DP and the Director. Altering that for the sake of showing off how you can see the fine detail damages the artistic intent of the creators, and hurts the composition of the frame.
I think the contrast may well be due to the film material. And there were definitely no changes made to the "composition of the frame". For that they would have had to crop the image or something.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Original? Dude, both the DVD and the HD releases are from the same master.
I just labeled it "original" because it's probably closer to it, since it didn't have the DNR filters applied. By the way you still haven't addressed any of the points I made. Doesn't matter. I've realised by now this is a religious question for some. And that can't be discussed reasonably.
frozenman on 27/2/2009 at 17:05
The sounds of Miles Dyson dying and saying 'I don't know how much longer I can..hold this' is excellent sampling material.
EvaUnit02 on 28/2/2009 at 01:09
Quote Posted by Kolya
I just labeled it "original" because it's probably closer to it, since it didn't have the DNR filters applied. By the way you still haven't addressed any of the points I made. Doesn't matter. I've realised by now this is a religious question for some. And that can't be discussed reasonably.
It's hard to discuss your points when they're based on poor understanding of the subject matter, no offence. I really should've made a reply like this one sooner, sorry.
First off, the DNR would've been applied to the HD master from which the transfers for both that HD-DVD(/Blu-ray too, since it's the same transfer) and DVD were created from. So the DNR affects both that DVD and HD disc from which the screencaps were taken. If you wanted an image that was truly representative of the source material, you'd have to create an entirely new HD master from the original analogue film elements.
Clearing that up, your points about more detail in the black levels and an overall sharper image are very much true. But when you consider how much more expensive Blu-rays are than DVDs, the minor visual difference doesn't justify the premium in the case of this particular release (Top Gun). I picked up my HD-DVD of that film after the format had died and prices had dropped dramatically.
The audio on the other hand is a different matter. The DVD has a 768kbps DTS track, which is blown away by the Blu-ray's
losslessly compressed Dolby Digital TrueHD track.
The benefit of Blu-ray is not just an increased resolution, but also Audio with far less compression or (more desirably) encoded in a codec format that offers lossless compression.
Fafhrd on 28/2/2009 at 02:34
Quote Posted by Kolya
I think the contrast may well be due to the film material. And there were definitely no changes made to the "composition of the frame". For that they would have had to crop the image or something.
And who do you think picks what film to use? And the composition consists of what you can and can not see in the frame. Altering the lighting by fucking with the contrast effects what you can and can not see.
Kolya on 28/2/2009 at 04:25
So basically I was right?! :D
No, it's okay really. I've learned my lesson: Blue Ray if you can afford it only, otherwise the 35 mm projector in the bedroom will have to do.
Scots Taffer on 28/2/2009 at 05:26
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
The original is clearly the better image. And consider that the contrast of the image was a decision made by the DP and the Director. Altering that for the sake of showing off how you can see the fine detail damages the artistic intent of the creators, and hurts the composition of the frame.
I politely disagree from a completely non-technical standpoint. I think it changes practically nothing except clarity, artistically I feel like the images are otherwise the same - with the exception of flesh tones dulling in Blu-Ray, but fuck me the grain in most of the originals is fucking horrific.
I must pick that up too actually, best fucking fighter pilot footage I've ever seen. And the ultimate homoerotic drinking game movie.
