The Terminator: R1 SE vs UK R2 SE vs UK R2 UE vs HK R3 SE

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jan 2007, 00:16

Bradavon - Disclaimer: Please be aware the R1 SE and UK R2 SE were added by Mark, the HK R2 SE Eva and UK R2 UE Bradavon.

This is mentioned because the UK R2 SE and UK R2 UE have been compared by myself on the exact same equipment and the UK R2 UE is definitely not less sharp as these captures imply. I suspect this is because three different programs were used (PowerDVD, WinDVD and Media Player Classic).

Please use it only as a guide and in particular to notice the colour change in the first capture on the UK R2 releases.

R1

R2

R2 UE

R3:

R1

R2

R2 UE

R3:

R1

R2

R2 UE

R3:

R1

R2

R2 UE

R3:

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jan 2007, 00:21

Thanks. I'd give it to the R1.

I'm surprised you bought the R2. To confirm it's:

UK R2 2 Disc SE vs. R1 2 Disc SE

Right? Let me know the times and I'll add the UK R2 2 Disc UE captures.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 Jan 2007, 01:24

Mark, why did you make this comparison? I'm just curious.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jan 2007, 04:04

bradavon wrote:Thanks. I'd give it to the R1.

Agreed. Minutely sharper (you can almost read the name on Sarah's tag on the R1) and I think the blue tone on the first cap is correct.

I'm surprised you bought the R2.

I had the R2 first. Am now selling it.

To confirm it's: UK R2 2 Disc SE vs. R1 2 Disc SE

Not quite. There's no R1 2-disc. It's a DVD-18.

Right? Let me know the times and I'll add the UK R2 2 Disc UE captures.

Umm. Forgot the times. But all caps take place in the first 15 mins or so. Should be easy to find.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jan 2007, 04:05

EvaUnit02 wrote:Mark, why did you make this comparison? I'm just curious.

Was curious to see if the image had been improved for the R1. Not a great deal of difference, but looks like they fixed the colour grading in shot 1 as well as restoring the original mono (missing on both R2 editions).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jan 2007, 04:19

Markgway wrote:I think the blue tone on the first cap is correct.

That's what swayed it for me.

Not quite. There's no R1 2-disc. It's a DVD-18.

You knew what I meant Mr. Pedantic

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 Jan 2007, 04:24

Ah yes, the R2/4 SE did come out before the R1 SE IIRC. I might add the R3 caps later.

Actually the R1 SE is on a DVD-14.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Jan 2007, 09:50

Mark when you say DVD-18 you mean the double sided platter type of disc?

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 06 Jan 2007, 11:16

I have the HK release which is 2-disc rather than dual sided and has the mono track

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jan 2007, 14:16

grim_tales wrote:Mark when you say DVD-18 you mean the double sided platter type of disc?

Yes, but I'm sure Eva's right about it being DVD-14.

The movie side is dual-layer at least.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Jan 2007, 17:14

Markgway wrote:Agreed. Minutely sharper (you can almost read the name on Sarah's tag on the R1) and I think the blue tone on the first cap is correct.

The blue tone is indeed correct. I've seen this film a million times so I know how I it is supposed to look.

Markgway wrote:Not quite. There's no R1 2-disc. It's a DVD-18.

I'm pretty sure its a DVD-14. Dual layer for the film side & single layer for the extras side.

And the best thing about the R1 version: ORIGINAL MONO! That's the reason I won't be upgrading to the Blu-Ray version - it only features the 5.1 remixed track with new foley effects - yuk!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jan 2007, 18:15

grim_tales wrote:Mark when you say DVD-18 you mean the double sided platter type of disc?

DVD-18 = A DVD-9 on either side
DVD-15 = DVD-9 on 1 side and DVD-5 on the other

IronMonkey wrote:And the best thing about the R1 version: ORIGINAL MONO! That's the reason I won't be upgrading to the Blu-Ray version - it only features the 5.1 remixed track with new foley effects - yuk!

I will

(eventually). 5.1 Surround loveliness

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Jan 2007, 19:05

bradavon wrote:I will (eventually). 5.1 Surround loveliness

Yuk!

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 06 Jan 2007, 19:33

5.1 for the sake of 5.1 is stupid when the mono is pure and true

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Jan 2007, 00:03

Ivan Drago wrote:5.1 for the sake of 5.1 is stupid when the mono is pure and true

It is Brad we're talking about...

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 07 Jan 2007, 00:26

Ivan Drago wrote:5.1 for the sake of 5.1 is stupid when the mono is pure and true

Thank the skies that someone else agrees with me on this!

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 Jan 2007, 00:33

Brad can't help it, he has ADHD.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jan 2007, 04:00

Did you expect anything else?

. It's a great remix.

The mix even though it's Mono lends itself well to 5.1. You may not personally like the result but that much is true. Just because it's a remix it doesn't make it immediately bad, although as I always say shame on MGM non-R1/R3 for not including Mono.

It's no Tai Chi Master (speech from all speakers) or Withnail and I (Surrounds so loud you can barely hear the actors) fuck up!

I think you're all nuts for opting for Mono. The films full of gunfire and explosions, they've done a decent mix (that one obviously IMO).

I guess I must be lucky I can't notice the new foley. It's a shame you guys aren't as special as me

Anyway we've been hear before get over yourself guys

.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 07 Jan 2007, 09:54

That ADHD remark was unnecessary Eva

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 Jan 2007, 15:43

R3HK caps:-
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e282/ ... t1r3-1.jpg
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e282/ ... t1r3-2.jpg
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e282/ ... t1r3-3.jpg
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e282/ ... t1r3-4.jpg

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 Jan 2007, 17:25

In my insert booklet, for some reason most of the chapter title listings are mostly in Latin bizarrely. Does anybody else suffer from this?

bradavon wrote:I guess I must be lucky I can't notice the new foley. It's a shame you guys aren't as special as me

You don't a English mono track to compare it to, only random Euro language tracks that were down-mixed from the 5.1.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Jan 2007, 20:15

The R3 has some slightly different colours to the R1 and even R2.

The R1 is still the sharpest of the three, but if you have the R3 with mono it's good enough I'm sure.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jan 2007, 23:01

EvaUnit02 wrote:You don't a English mono track to compare it to, only random Euro language tracks that were down-mixed from the 5.1.

I'll try and decipher what you're waffling about. I know we've been here before

. I compared the English 5.1 to non-English (I forget which language) Mono and foley wise it sounded identical.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 08 Jan 2007, 00:20

Disappointing Blu-Ray/HD are dropping monos.

I requested to MGM and they responded with bullshit about including Dolby Digital for higher quality.

Fuckwits...

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 08 Jan 2007, 00:49

AFAIK the only publisher that has been putting original mono onto their HD releases has been Warner - eg Casablanca, The Searchers. Universal's combo of Animal House has original mono on the DVD side, but not on the HD (the 5.1 mix is so inactive that it may as well be mono though).

Speaking of Animal House - apparently when it saw HD remastering in 2003, director John Landis thought that it looked too good so they reportedly decreased the quality of the master.