[Idea] Regraining Terminator 2! (Proof of concept/experiment)

[Synnove]

Ahh I see. I guess I'd suggest caution using that method; it could potentially decrease small shadow details since you're, in a way, raising the black level.

[zoidberg]

A well designed grain plate should have an average video level of 128 and should not affect the overall video level of the base layer when applied (besides the lightening/darkening of individual film grains).

[zoidberg]

Has the 4K even been cracked?

[deleted user]

Has the 4K even been cracked?

Yes! It has.

And Dark Knight has gotten a capture by HDRINVASION. And from what I read, the DK UHD is actually VAR for the IMAX scenes (not full, but at least 1.77).

[deleted user]

I checked the 4K Blu-ray and amazingly as some people noticed online, the clipped whites are nowhere to be found there nor is the green tint.

I think it could be good to reencode the 4K in 2K with some minimum light adjustment and presto you would have a better version, with grain added, than the current Blu-ray.

The 4K appears dim as is, on a standart display, but just adding more luminance in VLC was enough for me to fall into the same brightness as the Blu, without the clipped whites.

Also it could be cool to cut off the beginning new studio cards and the extra 4 frames at the end of reel one, so that it matches to the old Blu, and then we can remux soundtracks as we want.

Indeed, been saying that for a while. HDR releases have no clipped whites, hence they are perfect for regrading.

[spoRv]

Even if I agree that 4K has that "digital look", I will not dare to say is has "redrawn" details - like, for example, it happened for some Disney movies, where there are repaint shots (see BATB for example).

Yes, it is manipulated digitally, and yes it could be a bit different from the print, sometimes in a better way, sometimes in a worst way - like, some details are improved, others are lost. And yes, it does not represent the "original" in a verbatim way. But the same could be said for other releases, where the scan is sourced from negative: the result is NEVER the same as shown/seen in theaters at the time, because:
- there are more details in the remaster than in the release print
- the overall contrast is different - usually the remaster has not crushed blacks/blown whites, where the release print had, often a deliberate choice of the director and/or DP
- color grading can't be 100% the same of the release print - could be near, using a release print as color reference, but they (read: studios) usually do not that

That's why FanRes exist, after all!

But, apart DCI movies, I think it will be impossible to get 100% faithful representation of a movie in a digital version, shown on LCD/OLED displays.

(this post would lead to a whole new discussion, I think...)

[MrBrown]

I just want to chime ine following Detail comparison:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&d1=11...=524&y=336

somehow the chin in the UHD seems a bit "flatten", like I think you can "make out" a bit of hairs around the chin,, a stubble of beard, but in the UHD the chin just has the Color of the Hair.. in some parts it feels even a bit "too artificial black", like in the corner of the mouth.

It may not be "redrawn" as Disney movies may be, but it seem very "enhanced". Not completely waxen out, as Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition... but... not cinematic like...

[Stamper]

I think they used some kind of software Cameron uses on Avatar where they remap the texture of every pixel to make it look real.

Except this is based on real.

My feeling is, they didn't scan the neg. They use the 2002 source scan from the X-Treme or whatever it was called, because Studio Canal couldn't locate the neg, and they took some Avatar like software to bring detail out of it.

That source scan was open matte, so this explains the differences in framing.

IMHO, they lost the negative of the film. If they had the Oneg, it would look like T1, Aliens, Titanic.

Mr Brown, you're right, the black in the mouth is redrawn. The whole image is processed like if they didn't had more stuff, so it was computer generated.

Nothing to do with DNR. I tried to add super 35 grain, and the image below still look processed.

[Stamper]

Addition: look at Arnie's face, there's no way it's make up that has become apparent in 4K. It's all computer generated from a lower looking scan source, with everything including his eyebrows totally redrawn by computer.

I say this is Avatar tech in motion. You know how it is Avatar, they capture live action, then they redraw everything on top, just using the actors expressions as base.

Here, they had a low res master, they wanted that 3D thing to happen because of China ready to fund it, so they saved it using Avatar tech, hence the weird look of the whole film.

[spoRv]

Do not want to praise nor condemn their choices, but it seems to be just enhancement - maybe gone too... "wild", perhaps? Still, its "razor sharp" result is not so bad; but yes, is seems quite waxy and, without apparent grain, could look more artificial - or, less "analog-like" for an actual film based movie.

But, in a minor way, you have differences also thanks to various compression used - both codecs based, and bitrate; for example, take a look at MPEG-2 and AVC releases (using the same master, of course); very tiny details are different between them.

To me, sure the most difference is the color grading and contrast, then lack of grain, and at the end details - that, if I will be forced to choose, are way better than some over sharpened ones; IF color grading, contrast, and grain would be the same, probably the difference in details would be deemed minor. Probably. Maybe.