As high-res as possible, I'd like to recreate the tag seen on the guns.
Can someone get a hi-res capture of this Terminator scene?
- Thread starter dropshipbob
- Start date
1080p from the Remastered version. As high-res as it gets until they release a 2160p(or higher) version
Uncompressed PNG:https://www.dropbox.com/s/73haoneo6ojr3d2/guntag.png?dl=0
cavx
Master Member
1080p from the Remastered version. As high-res as it gets until they release a 2160p(or higher) version
I wonder how long it takes to see a back catalogue on UHD and if the actually do new 4K scans or just 2x2 upscales of the current 1080P masters.
They don't do masters in 1080p, since the 90's they have usually scanned films at 2K, which is slightly higher resolution. Seeing as how they still release blu-rays that use old masters from the 90's....... I would say A LONG LONG time
cavx
Master Member
Personally, I had hoped UHD would have also changed the aspect ratio and moved us towards "21:9". 16:9 makes no sense for movies shot at either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1. Even Sony's 4k projector is 17:9 or 4096 x 2160. The projector even has Anamorphic support offering a choice of either 1.25x or 1.33x, depending if you use the full 17:9 or the 16:9 mode. Both result in a projected image is 2.37:1.
The STAR WARS Blu ray masters are referred to as 1080p. Not sure if they were done late 1990's or early 2000s. Nothing is stated about the width. All I know is they were created back when it was decided that 2k looked like film.
2k normally mean 2048 horizontal pixels or 2 x 1024 (1k).
HD in the home has 1920, not 2048.
The film ALIEN was scanned at 4k (4 x 1024) and they then reframed it for a video system of 1920 x 1080 pixels which cut off the ends regardless if you factor in the letter box.
So was the remastered THE TERMINATOR 2k or 4k? It has slivers preserving the original 1.85:1 AR.
The STAR WARS Blu ray masters are referred to as 1080p. Not sure if they were done late 1990's or early 2000s. Nothing is stated about the width. All I know is they were created back when it was decided that 2k looked like film.
2k normally mean 2048 horizontal pixels or 2 x 1024 (1k).
HD in the home has 1920, not 2048.
The film ALIEN was scanned at 4k (4 x 1024) and they then reframed it for a video system of 1920 x 1080 pixels which cut off the ends regardless if you factor in the letter box.
So was the remastered THE TERMINATOR 2k or 4k? It has slivers preserving the original 1.85:1 AR.
Last edited:
I believe.... I read it was a 4K remaster. So take that with a grain of salt, or sugar lol
Episodes 2 and 3 are the ones that are 1080p due to being shot digitally in 1080p.
16:9 still makes sense because we still have stuff shot in 21:9 AND 4:3, and 16:9 will continue to be a nice little middle ground in between those
Imagine the black bars on a 21:9 aspect ratio TV when watching Star Trek the next generation(4:3)
cavx
Master Member
Yeah I heard that too. It is hard to really know in this country. We get what we get.
Parts of episode 1 was supposed to be shot digitally as well. The majority was shot on 35mm film. I still remember how good that film looked at the midnight screening and how bad the Blu ray looks.
16:9 still makes sense because we still have stuff shot in 21:9 AND 4:3, and 16:9 will continue to be a nice little middle ground in between those [emoji14]
Imagine the black bars on a 21:9 aspect ratio TV when watching Star Trek the next generation(4:3)
Side pillars are way easier to watch on a 21:9 system than letter boxing is on a 16:9 display.
4x3
16:9
21:9
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The Terminator, thank you very much for the screen cap.
And I wish I knew what you guys were talking about, it's its own language!
And I wish I knew what you guys were talking about, it's its own language!
You're very welcome
It helps if you're a movie buff and/or also into graphics
Only a few seconds worth, at night when Qui-Gon takes Anakin's blood sample on Tatooine.
A bit like they experimented with CG Yoda, in a single shot, a few seconds of him walking across the floor next to a kneeling Obi-Wan.
cavx
Master Member
I didn't know what scene had been shot digitally in that film, just that digital cameras had been tested.
It makes sense about Yoda being digital to walk. I'm still coming to grips with the whole digital replacement Yoda in that film on BD. The mount is much more articulate and not slap-head, but I don't know, I am sure they could have improved that film in other ways - like turning off the edge enhancement.
Back to The Terminator, I recently watched a YouTube review where they classed this film as a "slasher flick". Really?
Technically speaking, yes, 1984's "The Terminator" is a horror slasher, with sci-fi elements. Compare it to a known slasher like Halloween. Michael Myers stalks Laurie, just like the T-800 stalks Sarah.... after seeing it as a slasher, you see the film in a slightly different way
MIND BLOWN:
Sarah riding off into the (nuclear) sunset, my doing
Last edited by a moderator:
cavx
Master Member
Technically speaking, yes, 1984's "The Terminator" is a horror slasher, with sci-fi elements. Compare it to a known slasher like Halloween. Michael Myers stalks Laurie, just like the T-800 stalks Sarah.... after seeing it as a slasher, you see the film in a slightly different way
MIND BLOWN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYMxA16eLtk
:lol
Sarah riding off into the (nuclear) sunset, my doing
I'll watch it again with that mindset
I always took her comment "I know" as acceptance of a coming nuclear war since I first saw it on video in 1985. I missed this at the cinema.
I just wish that movie had been shot in Scope. James Cameron says he doesn't like anamorphic lenses due to a limited focal length and why he did not use them for THE TERMINATOR or for ALIENS. He claims to like CinemaScope, which is why everything he did after was Scope, just he used Super 35 to do it. This meant he could shoot using spherical lenses and still end up with a CinemaScope image. AVATAR has dual aspect ratios depending on which version you saw and he opened the masks up for the 3D version of TITANIC. I have not checked the framing on that one yet to see if it is compatible with my Constant Image Height system in the Scope mode.
I love the look of anamorphics, the blue flare lines and way the backgrounds do blur and distort (lights etc will be ovals).
I'll watch it again with that mindset
I always took her comment "I know" as acceptance of a coming nuclear war since I first saw it on video in 1985. I missed this at the cinema.
I just wish that movie had been shot in Scope. James Cameron says he doesn't like anamorphic lenses due to a limited focal length and why he did not use them for THE TERMINATOR or for ALIENS. He claims to like CinemaScope, which is why everything he did after was Scope, just he used Super 35 to do it. This meant he could shoot using spherical lenses and still end up with a CinemaScope image. AVATAR has dual aspect ratios depending on which version you saw and he opened the masks up for the 3D version of TITANIC. I have not checked the framing on that one yet to see if it is compatible with my Constant Image Height system in the Scope mode.
I love the look of anamorphics, the blue flare lines and way the backgrounds do blur and distort (lights etc will be ovals).
BOKEH, is the word you're looking for
I love that look too. But, being a amateur photograph I have learned you don't actually need an anamorphic lens to get that
For example: https://youtu.be/oErHXjtmZC0?t=19s
So if you want lens flares, tape some fishing wire infront of the camera lens :lol
OR, if you can't make it - fake it
:lol :lol
One of my photos, with and without a CG lens flare.
I didn't get to see T1 in the cinema either, having only just been born
too young to see T2 on the big screen as well First time seeing a Terminator film on the big screen: T3 - what a horrendous experience. I expected it to be really bad, judging from the trailers. It was even worse
cavx
Master Member
BOKEH, is the word you're looking for
Yes it is
I love that look too. But, being a amateur photograph I have learned you don't actually need an anamorphic lens to get that
For example: https://youtu.be/oErHXjtmZC0?t=19s
So if you want lens flares, tape some fishing wire infront of the camera lens :lol
OR, if you can't make it - fake it
View attachment 716209
:lol :lol
One of my photos, with and without a CG lens flare.
I have 2 massive 80mm [rear lense] 1.33x anamorphics.
This was shot through one using a 1080/30P blogger (of all things to use) whih is all I had on me at the time.
I also have a smaller 60mm [rear lens] 1.35x and a 50mm 2x from an old 16mm projector.
The trick with these smaller lenses is that you have zoom in a bit to rid the vignetting. Once rotated to be vertically aligned, you get all sorts of interesting things happening.
I didn't get to see T1 in the cinema either, having only just been born
First time seeing a Terminator film on the big screen: T3 - what a horrendous experience. I expected it to be really bad, judging from the trailers. It was even worse
Ha, yeah, well I was old enough, just there was a Cat4 Cyclone about to hit the town I was living in at the time, so it was agreed that it would probably be best I don't go.
The cinema used to do 2 films and that night, THE TERMINATOR was support film to RAMBO - FIRST BLOOD PART II (another favorite 80's film). I missed all the 80's RAMBO films on the big screen and would not see them in CinemaScope" until I watched them on my own system. I made sure I was there opening night for the 2008 RAMBO though.
T2 was epic on the big screen. Again, I went opening night and I loved it. The nuclear dream sequence was scary and I always felt it lost its impact once it came on video. Once again, everytime I've watched this on the 21:9 system and WOW, that is scene savage.
I enjoyed T3. Sure it is pop corn and not James Cameron and typically of Hollywood to change stuff, but the film overall is enjoyable.
Then there is TERMINATOR SALVATION and, yeah. That film is bad. This is a Terminator film, not Transformers. Stay focused MG or stick to your music videos.
T5 is well, not perfect, but 1000x better that TS and again, quite a good film on its own.
They say Cameron gets the rights back in 2018 and will work with the director of DEADPOOL and that concerns me. I like DEADPOOL a lot. But part of me feels it was a bit of a one hit wonder. I'd like to proven wrong here.
Last edited by a moderator:
No real anamorphic lens for me yet
2019 actually
A lot of directors nowadays seem to be "one-hit-wonders". If only Cameron would both write and direct it
cavx
Master Member
No real anamorphic lens for me yet
Do you want to buy one? I have a few here including a set of refurbished optics that I would like to see go to a good home.
I forgot that I have a 15mm plano convex lens (typically the rear lens of an anamorphic pair ) with a diopter of 6 (I think) and if I can track down the matching plano concave (diopter of 4), I'd be able to make a little light weight camera adaptor for my phone.
2019 actually
A lot of directors nowadays seem to be "one-hit-wonders". If only Cameron would both write and direct it
I think he got too preoccupied with 3D and this new AVATAR trilogy he is doing.
Feel free to PM some photos and details of the lenses
I loved Avatar, just like my mom, but he is taking too long on the FOUR sequels. Last bit of news I read, the last one is supposed to be released in 2023. Meaning my beloved mom probably won't be around to see the whole "Avatar series" :facepalm :cry 2009 - 2023 that is FOURTEEN years, same amount of time between Cameron coming up with Avatar in the first place and the release of the first film. Which means it's a total of 28 years, which means Cameron is INSANE :lol
Makes me think of VALVE and their Half-Life 2 Episode 3 release :facepalm
"We're going to focus on episodic content, because then we'll be able to release content faster" :rolleyes :darnkids rant over
cavx
Master Member
Feel free to PM some photos and details of the lenses
I loved Avatar, just like my mom, but he is taking too long on the FOUR sequels. Last bit of news I read, the last one is supposed to be released in 2023. Meaning my beloved mom probably won't be around to see the whole "Avatar series" :facepalm :cry 2009 - 2023 that is FOURTEEN years, same amount of time between Cameron coming up with Avatar in the first place and the release of the first film. Which means it's a total of 28 years, which means Cameron is INSANE :lol
Makes me think of VALVE and their Half-Life 2 Episode 3 release :facepalm
"We're going to focus on episodic content, because then we'll be able to release content faster" :rolleyes :darnkids rant over
Yes he is insane and I think he crossed the line during THE ABYSS - a bit too much nitrogen narcosis, I think.
So it is 4 sequels now? What is that? A pentalogy? It's own saga? I do like AVATAR but I much prefer to watch the film in Scope. This has caused countless arguments at AVS Forums and yet, to me, with a CIH system that allows me to watch this film in two ways, Scope is just nicer. I fully understand why he opened the masks for the 3D editing - because the deeper the image (more diverged), the smaller the image appear. In fact, it was the testing of this film on a 3D projector that taught be that. I moved my seating position from the back row to the front so the image would be bigger in 3D. Once I got used to that image size in 2D, I stayed there and now watch EVERYTHING at 2x the image height. And I can because I have 1080p rez for everything.
Sending PM now.
.
cavx
Master Member
After conducting a full audio and video calibration of my cinema, I decided to watch this film again.
For the OP, the best image of the tags on the guns is probably on that .45 Longslide with the laser site. You only see the top half, but frame by frame, it is best image for detail.
The Terminator, yes he is way more menacing when watching this film from a "slasher" genre perspective, but I think the reason I still don't see this as a "slasher film" is that we see too much of him in the open. Probably the only scene where the film is "slasher" to me in when he takes out Ginger and Matt. It is dark and you don't see him as well as you can in other scenes.
Like a good monster film, good slashers don't get revealed until the end. It could then be suggested that his endoskeleton is that reveal at the end, and from that perspective, he is almost scary. It is emotionless and seemingly unstoppable. Even after being blown apart, it still presses on with its mission to try to kill Sarah. Sorry for the spoilers
The BD transfer is nice. I just wish the Blu-ray had included the original mono soundtrack from 1984. Parts of the 5.1EX mix are nice (the panning from surrounds to the screen for the introduction of the HK is cool), but overall, it sounds too processed and they changed the sounds of gun shots which sounded way better in the original mono mix. His .45 long slide should not go "pew pew pew". As far as I know, this is the same Gary Rydstrom mix from the 2004 DVD.
For the OP, the best image of the tags on the guns is probably on that .45 Longslide with the laser site. You only see the top half, but frame by frame, it is best image for detail.
The Terminator, yes he is way more menacing when watching this film from a "slasher" genre perspective, but I think the reason I still don't see this as a "slasher film" is that we see too much of him in the open. Probably the only scene where the film is "slasher" to me in when he takes out Ginger and Matt. It is dark and you don't see him as well as you can in other scenes.
Like a good monster film, good slashers don't get revealed until the end. It could then be suggested that his endoskeleton is that reveal at the end, and from that perspective, he is almost scary. It is emotionless and seemingly unstoppable. Even after being blown apart, it still presses on with its mission to try to kill Sarah. Sorry for the spoilers
The BD transfer is nice. I just wish the Blu-ray had included the original mono soundtrack from 1984. Parts of the 5.1EX mix are nice (the panning from surrounds to the screen for the introduction of the HK is cool), but overall, it sounds too processed and they changed the sounds of gun shots which sounded way better in the original mono mix. His .45 long slide should not go "pew pew pew". As far as I know, this is the same Gary Rydstrom mix from the 2004 DVD.
Last edited by a moderator:
After conducting a full audio and video calibration of my cinema, I decided to watch this film again.
For the OP, the best image of the tags on the guns is probably on that .45 Longslide with the laser site. You only see the top half, but frame by frame, it is best image for detail.
@The Terminator, yes he is way more menacing when watching this film from a "slasher" genre perspective, but I think the reason I still don't see this as a "slasher film" is that we see too much of him in the open. Probably the only scene where the film is "slasher" to me in when he takes out Ginger and Matt. It is dark and you don't see him as well as you can in other scenes.
Like a good monster film, good slashers don't get revealed until the end. It could then be suggested that his endoskeleton is that reveal at the end, and from that perspective, he is almost scary. It is emotionless and seemingly unstoppable. Even after being blown apart, it still presses on with its mission to try to kill Sarah. Sorry for the spoilers
The BD transfer is nice. I just wish the Blu-ray had included the original mono soundtrack from 1984. Parts of the 5.1EX mix are nice (the panning from surrounds to the screen for the introduction of the HK is cool), but overall, it sounds too processed and they changed the sounds of gun shots which sounded way better in the original mono mix. His .45 long slide should not go "pew pew pew". As far as I know, this is the same Gary Rydstrom mix from the 2004 DVD.
The Terminator was the first film where I actually noticed that there are different sound mixes: "this version sounds different than that other version I saw", because I remembered when Arnie shoots the wrong Sarah in the back, that it sounded like Magnum revolver, this huge and powerful sound. Then it didn't sound like that all of the sudden. That made me very confused :confused
Compared to Halloween, before you actually see the endoskeleton, that is like when Michael Myers is only seen driving around in the car, or very briefly
Similar threads
