Grain was present due to the technology used at the time, it was not an artistic choice by the director 'to add grain'. I have no idea why people are complaining!
Look forward to this one!
This could be a future purchase for me when the prices drop. I'm starting to get fed up with changing versions of movies not knowing which is the right print. I recently was given the arrow version of The Thing, loved by 90% of fans. I found it too bright and too much grain showing up badly in the sky and parka jacket's. I'll stick with the universal one. This version of T2 sounds great with little grain. I want films to pop on my OLED and look better than they did on plasma and CRT. Whats the point if they don't look any better and are full of grain.
Grain was present due to the technology used at the time, it was not an artistic choice by the director 'to add grain'. I have no idea why people are complaining!
Look forward to this one!
Except there is way more detail visible on the de-grained UHD than on the previous blu-ray releases, fine facial and body hairs being the most noticeable improvement.Grain removal doesn't just remove grain, it removes detail right across the frame. If it's overdone it can lead to faces looking like they're made of wax.
Grain can be distracting if it's excessive, and HDR makes grain hugely worse, but it also create a nice, warm, film like image. The Leon 4K disc is a good example of this.
......Personally I say leave it up to the director. It's his film, so he can do what he likes with it. We then have the choice whether to give him our money or keep it in our pockets. The director get the final say on everything.
I don't really get the current obsession with "detail". I mean, does being able to make out Sarah Connors individual downy hairs make this version more enjoyable than the non downy hair version? Do people sit watching in stunned awe because they can finally see the stitching on Arnies leather jacket?Except there is way more detail visible on the de-grained UHD than on the previous blu-ray releases, fine facial and body hairs being the most noticeable improvement.
Might as well watch upscaled blu-rays otherwise...I don't really get the current obsession with "detail". I mean, does being able to make out Sarah Connors individual downy hairs make this version more enjoyable than the non downy hair version? Do people sit watching in stunned awe because they can finally see the stitching on Arnies leather jacket?
YesI don't really get the current obsession with "detail". I mean, does being able to make out Sarah Connors individual downy hairs make this version more enjoyable than the non downy hair version? Do people sit watching in stunned awe because they can finally see the stitching on Arnies leather jacket?
'Current' obsession?I don't really get the current obsession with "detail".
I don't really get the current obsession with "detail". I mean, does being able to make out Sarah Connors individual downy hairs make this version more enjoyable than the non downy hair version? Do people sit watching in stunned awe because they can finally see the stitching on Arnies leather jacket?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that opinions aren't welcome here.Why are you even in this forum then?
The revisionist argument is an interesting one. If we want movies to be presented EXACTLY as they were in the cinema back in the day, then you can throw HDR in the bin entirely.
Personally I say leave it up to the director. It's his film, so he can do what he likes with it. We then have the choice whether to give him our money or keep it in our pockets. The director get the final say on everything.