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.
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.
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 [emoji14]
Imagine the black bars on a 21:9 aspect ratio TV when watching Star Trek the next generation(4:3)
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!
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.
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.
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:
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).
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
View attachment 716209
: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
I have 2 massive 80mm [rear lense] 1.33x anamorphics.
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.
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
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.
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
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.