"The sound and picture quality was astounding compared to all those cheesy 80's films."
Is that a joke? T2's picture quality is terrible. The picture quality of T1 is way better, and is one of the better-looking movies I've ever seen. Both T1 and T2 were shot on 35mm film with a spherical lens, but T1 was 1.85:1 (which is the typical aspect ratio for movies shot with a spherical lens) while T2 was 2.35:1 (which is asinine). Because T2 was cropped down so much, that didn't leave much active film frame area for the picture, and the smaller the film frame area, the lower the resolution. Most 2.35:1 movies are shot with an anamorphic lens which squeezes the image so that it takes up whole film frame, so that you get the full resolution that 35mm offers.
Most any '80s movie looks better than T2. Christine (1983) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) are two of the best looking movies ever.
"Watching 1989's Batman and 1991's T2 back to back. My god Batman looks/sounds horrible."
There's either something wrong with your eyes or something wrong with the videos you watched. Were you watching the recent 4K release of T2? If so you're one of those kids who thinks film grain is a bad thing (lol), because you've grown up in an era where everything is shot on cheap video. The 4K transfer of T2 had all the film grain scrubbed away with heavy-handed DNR, making everyone look like they were made of wax. Basically, they made a movie that was shot on film look like a YouTube video.
The previous DVD and BD transfers of T2 have all been bad due to a combination of a less-than-ideal filming process, a not-so-good transfer process, and excessive DNR, but the new 4K release is a whole new level of bad, due to DNR that wasn't just excessive, but through the roof.
For the record, film grain is a good thing, as it contains all of the picture details. Remove it and the movie becomes a wax museum.
reply
share