By way of illustration as to just how tricky these issues can be, let's go back to Lionsgate's new T2: Skynet Edition Blu-ray Disc. The other day I made the comment that the new transfer looks much softer than the original, and seemed to have had excessive grain reduction applied to it. A friend of mine who works in the industry called me up after reading the comments and said he'd thought the same thing too at first glance, but that after really taking the time to analyze things more carefully, he thought that what was going on between the two discs was actually much more complicated. He suggested I take a closer look to see if I saw the same things too.
So I've spent the last couple of hours going back and forth between the two Blu-rays and, sure enough, what I'm seeing IS more complicated. There's no doubt that the new BD image is softer looking, but I do see very, very light film grain in the image. It's subtle in places, but it's there. What's also there is good fine detail. A example is the shot about 23 minutes in, where Sarah Connor is watching herself on the TV monitor in Pescadero. In the new image, there's light grain visible on the wall behind her, but she's also got nice facial detailing - skin texture and imperfections, etc. Now, you look at the same shot on the original Blu-ray, and you see much more grain on the wall... but you start to realize that it's not just grain you're seeing, but also video noise and compression artifacting. Doing a little research, I've confirmed that all of these BD presentations (including the international releases) are sourced from the same digital master - the same original film transfer. What seems to be different is the encoding, and whatever else individual home video departments may be doing prior to that point (different color timing, contrast, sharpening, etc). The original Lionsgate T2 Blu-ray was an early MPEG-2 encode presented on a BD-25, while the new one is VC-1 on a BD-50. So the data rate is much higher on the new presentation. I've been told that no grain reduction was done (or requested) by Liongate on the new presentation. What I think is going on, is that some of the difference between the two has to do with the different encoding and data rates. I also think, after looking more closely, that on the original Blu-ray presentation some sharpening was done to enhance detail a bit, resulting in the appearance of video noise. None of that is visible on the new Blu-ray image. Yet I'm still seeing a little less grain in the new image. As I noted, Lionsgate tells me no grain reduction was done, but my friend speculated that maybe the VC-1 encoder does a little bit of grain reduction automatically prior to actual encoding to make the process easier. What I have noticed on the new Blu-ray is very, very light grain and good fine detail, but also significant improvements in contrast and color timing. Indeed, the more closely I've looked at it, the more I've come to appreciate it over the original Blu-ray image. And none of that was obvious to me at first glance, upon a quick and casual comparison.
By the way, I've also confirmed that Lightstorm (and presumably director James Cameron himself, or someone he trusts to speak for him on such matters) evaluated and approved the new Blu-ray presentation.
The point of all this is, these issues are far more complex than they may seem at first, even to experienced observers. This is why I argued the other day, and believe more strongly than ever today, that Blu-ray enthusiasts need to be more careful in making snap judgments about such issues. Fans need to keep things in the proper perspective, and realize that they can be more complicated than they first appear - certainly more complicated than can be judged based solely upon looking at still frames in an Internet forum. I'm just saying.
. Si quiero comprarme el BD, ¿para que quiero las otras?!!!, eso de que no encarece el precio.....
o es que hay que ver antes alguna de las otras versiones de la peli??
