Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) (Skynet Edition)

[Beast]

It's funny how Bill Hunt clears up the DNR situation, and then NOBODY posts about it.
I guess it's easier to go la-la-la than read what is really going on with T2.

From The Digital Bits:

So I've spent the last couple of hours going back and forth between the two Blu-rays and, sure enough, what I'm seeing IS more complicated. There's no doubt that the new BD image is softer looking, but I do see very, very light film grain in the image. It's subtle in places, but it's there. What's also there is good fine detail. A example is the shot about 23 minutes in, where Sarah Connor is watching herself on the TV monitor in Pescadero. In the new image, there's light grain visible on the wall behind her, but she's also got nice facial detailing - skin texture and imperfections, etc.

Now, you look at the same shot on the original Blu-ray, and you see much more grain on the wall... but you start to realize that it's not just grain you're seeing, but also video noise and compression artifacting. Doing a little research, I've confirmed that all of these BD presentations (including the international releases) are sourced from the same digital master - the same original film transfer. What seems to be different is the encoding, and whatever else individual home video departments may be doing prior to that point (different color timing, contrast, sharpening, etc).

The original Lionsgate T2 Blu-ray was an early MPEG-2 encode presented on a BD-25, while the new one is VC-1 on a BD-50. So the data rate is much higher on the new presentation. I've been told that no grain reduction was done (or requested) by Liongate on the new presentation. What I think is going on, is that some of the difference between the two has to do with the different encoding and data rates. I also think, after looking more closely, that on the original Blu-ray presentation some sharpening was done to enhance detail a bit, resulting in the appearance of video noise. None of that is visible on the new Blu-ray image. Yet I'm still seeing a little less grain in the new image.

As I noted, Lionsgate tells me no grain reduction was done, but my friend speculated that maybe the VC-1 encoder does a little bit of grain reduction automatically prior to actual encoding to make the process easier. What I have noticed on the new Blu-ray is very, very light grain and good fine detail, but also significant improvements in contrast and color timing. Indeed, the more closely I've looked at it, the more I've come to appreciate it over the original Blu-ray image. And none of that was obvious to me at first glance, upon a quick and casual comparison.

Read it all here:

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[Grim Reaper]

Originally Posted by victors

That's crazy.. so if a item is not selling for 2 years.. the battery will be inside for 2 years?!?

yup

i took the batteries out of mine already.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's funny how Bill Hunt clears up the DNR situation, and then NOBODY posts about it.
I guess it's easier to go la-la-la than read what is really going on with T2.

From The Digital Bits:


Read it all here:

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

so basically I just owned everyone in the thread trying to tell me the 06 version looks "clearly? better lol. who's blind now jerks?

thanks for the link

[Beast]

Originally Posted by DVDave

I take it you haven't read the Good The Bad and The Ugly thread yet?

I realize you may just be confused. This is about T2. Not TGTB&TU.

I think you may have confused the two films. Are we on the same page now?

[PS3FAN]

I'm probably the only one but is any one else's disc not working? I have a BDP-350 thats not connected to the internet. Do I need an update or what?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by PS3FAN

I'm probably the only one but is any one else's disc not working? I have a BDP-350 thats not connected to the internet. Do I need an update or what?

probably.

[Penitus]

Just got finished watching.

For 20 bucks, I was happy. I do look forward to a complete Cameron remaster though.

[Sussudio]

great link, thanks for posting that and the story beast!!

i watched my copy a few nights ago...i thought it looked great...not spectacular, but pretty damn good.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

great link, thanks for posting that and the story beast!!

i watched my copy a few nights ago...i thought it looked great...not spectacular, but pretty damn good.

It's just another example of people jumping the gun and crying foul.

It's kind of a shame. Now everytime something comes out that looks either too good or too bad, someone is gonna have a tizzy that they screwed up. Pretty sad. But what can ya do.

[neo_reloaded]

All the same frame:

EDIT: DVDbeaver has some kind of crazy redirect scheme where you apparently can't link to images. Links changed to imageshack, but original files all came from DVDBeaver.

Skynet Edition - http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7889/skynet.jpg

Original Lionsgate release - http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3438/originali.jpg

Japanese release - http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2645/24607509.jpg

Now I'm not saying screenshots show the whole story, or that the Skynet Edition is terrible. But look at those screens, particularly the lower part of her cheek or the tuft of hair running down in front of her ear, and tell me that no smoothing was done on the Skynet edition. Yes, some video noise is cleaned up. Yes, the Skynet edition is better than the original Lionsgate version in particular aspects. But no, the differences are NOT just the absence of compression noise - there is a certain amount of detail lost. The Japanese edition has an extremely healthy bitrate and uses AVC, so there is further evidence that the detail I see is not just a result of compression artifacts.

Whether that amount of detail shows up in actual viewing, I don't know. I got the Skynet edition for the extras and the third cut of the film that the Japanese release doesn't have - at some point I'll get around to doing an actual viewing comparison between the Skynet and Japanese releases. I'm sure both are perfectly fine for normal viewing, as the smoothing looks to not be a big deal - but I do have an academic curiosity about this now.

[BStecke]

^ None of those work. I'll be watching my copy tonight and I'll try to compare what I see with the screens posted earlier.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by BStecke

^ None of those work. I'll be watching my copy tonight and I'll try to compare what I see with the screens posted earlier.

Links fixed.

[retablo]

Now that he changed his tune somewhat, I wonder which version Bill Hunt prefers — the Japanese import or the Skynet edition? I wish he would compare them.

[Beast]

Those screencaps just support Bill's information.

There's grain in the Skynet pictures. The other pictures don't look like grain, it looks like video noise. Hell, Sarah looks like she's got five o' clock shadow the noise is so bad. Someone get her some shaving cream.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Beast

Those screencaps just support Bill's information.

There's grain in the Skynet pictures. The other pictures don't look like grain, it looks like video noise. Hell, Sarah looks like she's got five o' clock shadow the noise is so bad. Someone get her some shaving cream.

I disagree strongly. In the Japanese and original Lionsgate releases, you can clearly see there is a tuft of white hair extending from the sideburn area down to her cheekbone. In the Skynet version, the skin just looks lighter there.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

All the same frame:

It's funny, her flyaway hair and some lines look sharper in the Japanese version, but the rims of her sunglasses, especially the right one, are sharper on the Skynet version.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I disagree strongly. In the Japanese and original Lionsgate releases, you can clearly see there is a tuft of white hair extending from the sideburn area down to her cheekbone. In the Skynet version, the skin just looks lighter there.

That's cause that's video noise, not film grain.

[jd213]

Tabbing back and forth between the two and it's easy to see that it's not just a lack of video noise, there is plenty of actual lost detail. The aforementioned cheek hairs, the texture on her tanktop, etc.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Beast

That's cause that's video noise, not film grain.

???

I don't have magical insider knowledge, so I won't argue the film grain vs. video noise point (although given the smoothing of actual detail, I personally believe that there is plenty of grain in there as well as whatever video noise). That is why I specifically mentioned actual detail - hair on her cheek. Surely you don't believe the hair to be video noise?

For other bits of actual detail, look at the hairs on the periphery of her head - any hair sticking out from the main mass. There are a few places where the difference is telling.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I disagree strongly. In the Japanese and original Lionsgate releases, you can clearly see there is a tuft of white hair extending from the sideburn area down to her cheekbone. In the Skynet version, the skin just looks lighter there.

You may disagree, but not only does the Japanese screencapture reveal more digital noise (not grain), but there is heavy edge-enhancement on it that I see, which isn't as prevalent on the Skynet capture (look at the hard edges around the arms for example). This said, I have not seen the Japanese disc and how it looks in motion, but based purely on the screencaptures above, I would undoubtedly pick the Skynet transfer as the best one.

For the record, the UK Skynet disc (which should be identical to the US Skynet disc) looks better than the old Lionsgate disc - in a number of different areas. It sounds better as well.

Pro-B