The CURRENT T1 BD release

[UniSol GR77]

Any good?

Did they clean up the most of the dirt and the scratches the best they could?
What about DNR?

Is it still a great release in terms of PQ... waiting for the upcoming new version?

[Deezer1986]

I'm personally waiting for the upcoming one that's allegedly coming out.

[benricci]

It's actually not that bad. I'd say 3.5 out of 5 stars for picture quality. The daylight scenes are pretty good, and the colors hold up very well. Plus it's dirt cheap!

There might be a better edition coming out (it's been pretty heavily rumored), but for now this is acceptable.

[dougotte]

I concur w/ benricci. It' cheap, and it looks/sounds pretty good for a low-budget production of that era. Why wait for years for something that might look/sound only marginally better? Enjoy it now.

Doug

[bfellow]

I disagree. They need to clean the dirts and scratches since its pretty obvious they didn't clean up most of it. I also would like if they included the original soundtrack.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by bfellow

I disagree. They need to clean the dirts and scratches since its pretty obvious they didn't clean up most of it. I also would like if they included the original soundtrack.

Meh, the only real dirt is during sfx scenes and opticals, but that's to be expected. Really didn't bother me all that much....

[UniSol GR77]

Originally Posted by benricci

Meh, the only real dirt is during sfx scenes and opticals,

Like on the DARKMAN HD-DVD! Why that, Ben Ricci? Can't they clean up those FX scenes at all?

[benricci]

Originally Posted by UniSol GR77

Like on the DARKMAN HD-DVD! Why that, Ben Ricci? Can't they clean up those FX scenes at all?

When you use an optical printer to composite special effects shots, there is bound to be dirt introduced as you layer the separate film elements on top of each other and re-photograph them. Think of it like making a photocopy of a photocopy.

As you create effects and dissolves, each pass through the printer will also degrade the quality (as it's now a generation removed from the source) and you may notice that one scene in the film is crystal clear, but the next scene that features effects has a slightly softer and possibly grainier look. Each time you re-photograph the film elements, you add a new layer of grain and possible artifacts.

This is why I typically don't take points off for video quality if the special effects shots have a softer look or some dirt. It's most likely not a transfer issue, as these "problems" are probably in the source print to begin with.

It can be cleaned up (with some work and a bit of money, and possible re-composition of effects shots), but that's usually why you'll see more dirt and speckling during shots featuring optical effects in pre-CGI films.

As CGI effects and digital editing became more prevalent, these types of issues went away, by and large.

[Pantallicarox]

It has something to do with how they film them or something like that. I read a story on it on gizmodo or something a while back.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Pantallicarox

It has something to do with how they film them or something like that. I read a story on it on gizmodo or something a while back.

Great insight, thanks.

[bfellow]

Just wait for the Skynet edition lol

[RiseDarthVader]

You know you can always look at the reviews on this site containing screenshots.

[Teabaggins]

Originally Posted by benricci

Great insight, thanks.

hahah

[UniSol GR77]

Originally Posted by benricci

When you use an optical printer to composite special effects shots, there is bound to be dirt introduced as you layer the separate film elements on top of each other and re-photograph them. Think of it like making a photocopy of a photocopy.

As you create effects and dissolves, each pass through the printer will also degrade the quality (as it's now a generation removed from the source) and you may notice that one scene in the film is crystal clear, but the next scene that features effects has a slightly softer and possibly grainier look. Each time you re-photograph the film elements, you add a new layer of grain and possible artifacts.

This is why I typically don't take points off for video quality if the special effects shots have a softer look or some dirt. It's most likely not a transfer issue, as these "problems" are probably in the source print to begin with.

It can be cleaned up (with some work and a bit of money, and possible re-composition of effects shots), but that's usually why you'll see more dirt and speckling during shots featuring optical effects in pre-CGI films.

As CGI effects and digital editing became more prevalent, these types of issues went away, by and large.

How could I do without you? Thank you so much, terrific insight.

[sonnyworld85]

I'm refrained from buying this release. I am certain that a new edition will be on the horizon with a more cleaned up picture and sound along with better special features I hope!