Looking for the "right" Terminator 2 color grading...

[Stamper]

The high res stills in 5K from the Terminatorfans site look awesome!

[ilovewaterslides]

I hope you're joking. They look very bad. I'm not even sure it's a new transfer tbh. It looks more like an upscale of the old 2K DI DNR'd as hell with edge enhancement applied to it.
A new scan from the original negative would be looking better than that. The amount of detail you're getting compared to the old Blu-ray is due to the upscale and EE.
It reminds me of the BTTF Blu-ray actually. I can't believe the studios are still using these awful techniques and I can't believe that people are still falling for that...

[zoidberg]

Don't forget that everything you're seeing press release wise pertains to the 3D conversion. Distrib Films US is releasing the 3D in theatres, Lionsgate will be releasing the home releases (including UHD). All StereoD conversions are heavily degrained (remember Jurassic Park?), Legend3D seem to be the only facility that can keep the grain.

[CSchmidlapp]

Was the Titanic 2D Blu the film remastered before the 3D conversion was applied?
The reason I ask is it will probably be the same here, and what we are seeing is representative of both 2D and 3D releases.

There is alot of DNR here, and artificial sharpening.
https://www.theterminatorfans.com/wp-con...Connor.jpg
Admittedly when in motion (Trailer) it does not look as bad, but It certainly does not look like film anymore.

We will just have to wait and see

[Stamper]

I'm not joking. Do you think the latest Blu-ray from Lionsgate looks good on your TV? It's not bad. Yet when you compare the two you get this.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/113772

See way more image, different framing. There's a bit of EE on this, and if you look closely, it's the same on the original master, probably because the shot was blurry (out of focus) on the negative and they tried to bring it back. On all the other stills, you don't see EE at all. It's a 4K remaster from a film that was made quick, fast and dirty.

Look, 4K upgrade will bring some quirks from films that were made fast. It's natural to try to fix those.

[ilovewaterslides]

I disagree.

I think that T2 can look way better than this. I don't think they truely made a new transfer at all. Using an already existing DI is definitely cheaper.

People used to say the same stuff about BTTF, that it had to do with the type of film it was shot on. This is not a valid arguement.

Most of the films out there with the proper gear and treatment can look better than this crap. Heck, even Evil Dead that was shot on 16mm looks better than this T2 "remaster".

[spoRv]

Don't know... the 4K version found on the link Stamper posted before (http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/113772) seems pretty nice to me, resolution wise.

[Stamper]

There's some more astounding screenshots here

Look at this, just gorgeous, you can see the pimples on John Connor face. This is certainly not the old master from 2003! This is insanely good looking.

So sure, some shots look processed, but those were dodgy shots in the first place. Remember that film was made in 12 months from script to release.

[zoidberg]

The official UK website also has an 'official video' now courtesy of StudioCanal:



Also and this is a big one for all you folks in the UK:

It's only in the cinema for one day (August 29th)

[Beber]

Hopefully, the real deal will look more like "Titanic", "Aliens" and "Abyss", 'cause this resemble too much "Jurassic Park 3D" and "Predator UHE": it's too scrubbed, too filtered and borderline waxy. In France, I'll see it in 3D september 14.