Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

And is being called picky that much of an insult from a group that calls others "Joe Six Packs" ?

Well, since the term has pretty much been reclaimed by the masses, I don't think its offensive or snobby or whatever negative you find in it.

Just an instantly understandable analogy.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Uh... you do know that detail is in the grain and when DNR is applied, the detail tends to disappear. And dont tell me there is more detail in the new scrubby-doobie-do version of Predator (If you think there is, you probably love that Reservoir Dogs transfer) as every image I have seen looks like they smeared Vaseline over the lens.

Funny then how the new version somehow has more detail, now that you can actually see it.

Instead of it hidden behind 6 feet of sandstorm like grain that meshes with the smoke and haze.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Uh... you do know that detail is in the grain and when DNR is applied, the detail tends to disappear. And dont tell me there is more detail in the new scrubby-doobie-do version of Predator (If you think there is, you probably love that Reservoir Dogs transfer) as every image I have seen looks like they smeared Vaseline over the lens.

Yes I have heard it plenty of times that the detail is in the grain....and I have also said that if SOME of the tiny amount of detail is taken away to make the grain less distracting then Im all for it. No matter how much DNR is used it is worlds above the dvd version.

"This new transfer cleans up some of the noise and excessive grain, while also sharpening detail."

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

All of the controversy is making me want to buy the new release just to compare it with the original release . It's a heated and interesting discussion, but hard to appreciate it without having viewed both editions.

It's only $14.99 at Best Buy. I say go for it and judge it for yourself. Only way to be sure.

[AKORIS]

[QUOTE=Post Prod;3443312]Yeah and a decent portion of the 2400 posts are people feeling a need to post about how stupid the debate is. If you think it's a really stupid debate, how smart is it to spend any time and energy posting in this thread?

This is the internet folks. and this is a hobbyist forum. This is exactly the place needless bickering, pointless chest thumping, circular arguments and nerdly hen pecking is meant to transpire. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go the local aquarium and complain about all the fish there.


that's because at this point it is a stupid debate-- it's the same pros and cons being said again and again....in this thread and others in the past-- what is there left to say??

[Blu Myers]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

All of the controversy is making me want to buy the new release just to compare it with the original release . It's a heated and interesting discussion, but hard to appreciate it without having viewed both editions.

+1. I've never seen such a heated debate over any other title.

[AKORIS]

and by the way-- look at the poll above now-- the 2010 release is gaining many votes-- the DNR haters have actually peaked interest in the release-- I would think that is the opposite of the intentions...

[persuazion]

Oh yeah and i forgot to add that I DO like the Resevoir Dogs Blu!!

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by leem6453

+1. I've never seen such a heated debate over any other title.

I dunno, the Gladiator and Shawshank threads were pretty entertaining...

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's the usual fanboy hypocrisy. Elevating yourself, while trashing those you disagree with. Pay it no mind.

You say that while calling him a fanboy. You do realize this "hypocrisy" is not missing from either side of this debate right?

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Beast

Funny then how the new version somehow has more detail, now that you can actually see it.

Instead of it hidden behind 6 feet of sandstorm like grain that meshes with the smoke and haze.

That "detail" is just your opinion, Beast, and nobody has been a bigger champion of people's rights to an opinion recently than you. Your claiming my opinion on the detail is wrong seems to be an extraordinary hypocrisy by your standards.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

That "detail" is just your opinion, Beast, and nobody has been a bigger champion of people's rights to an opinion recently than you. Your claiming my opinion on the detail is wrong seems to be an extraordinary hypocrisy by your standards.

There definitely is a misunderstanding on his part between facts and opinions.

[Blu Myers]

Originally Posted by Deads3t

I dunno, the Gladiator and Shawshank threads were pretty entertaining...

I didn't know there was a debate over Shawshanke. I'll have to check that out.

TOOL rocks btw.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by leem6453

I didn't know there was a debate over Shawshanke. I'll have to check that out.

TOOL rocks btw.

20 years strong!

[Peerless]

About the MPEG2 codec...
Yes, we've seen plenty of good transfers with this codec.
But this is what i think when i see a MPEG2 bluray:
1080p has 6 times the number pixels we had with DVD, right?
So it would only make sense (at lest to me) to have a bluray with
6 times the bitrate of the DVD (if the DVD looked good, already).
When it doesn't, i always think there will be compression related issues.
And that almost always happens (despite other variables, motion, grain, ratio - for the same movie, a 1.85 aspect ration will need more bitrate than a cinemascope, more picture, more bitrate, etc).
When you see the first Predator, it makes sense. In order to have MPEG2 working efficiently in that title, it should have been dual layer.
In my opinion, the problem wasn't MPEG2, but the decision not to release it as a dual layer.

[persuazion]

Well I think the issue is that nobody is getting on people for not liking or buying this release......but some of those people have a huge problem with the ones that do like it or buy it. One side just says " I dont care if you like it or not....I think it looks good and I'll buy it" The other side says "You dont know anything about movies.....you are setting a bad example!"

[Beast]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

That "detail" is just your opinion, Beast, and nobody has been a bigger champion of people's rights to an opinion recently than you. Your claiming my opinion on the detail is wrong seems to be an extraordinary hypocrisy by your standards.

Where did I ever once say that your opinion is wrong?

Might want to read what is written, rather than assume there's something more there.

There's no grain hiding exactly what I am saying. I am disagreeing with your opinion, nothing more.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

There definitely is a misunderstanding on his part between facts and opinions.

No misunderstanding at all. You people just need to simply stop twisting what I am saying.

It shouldn't be too hard. Again, there's no sandstorm like grain hiding what is being posted.

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The medium on which you're watching it doesn't have anything to do with whether a movie looks the way it's intended or not. A movie should look the way it's intended, regardless of the medium. And yes, if they're available, I listen to the original sound mix. Remixes often are horrible, replacing sounds in the process to make it more 'modern'. The problem is that some studios listen more often to people like you and don't think they need to include the original sound track, or make the picture look the way it was when it came out.

Falacious argument.

If that's the case, then remastering or restoring any film would be sacriledge to the originalists. SW fanboys want the original un-altered trilogy to be properly restored, which by your definition is something not to be done. Shouldn't they want it as it was seen in the theaters in '77, '80, and '83?

Or the James Bond films...perhaps Lowry Digital shouldn't have restored those either.

Or Lawrence of Arabia...

Or the Indiana Jones Trilogy...

I could go on and on...


Look, this argument has been recycled ever since the days of DVD. Everybody wants the best possible presentation of the film on their home medium of the time, yet, when restoration/remastering doesn't or does occur that people don't like for whatever reason, people complain. In some cases, people complain about lousey tranfers, while others complain that it doesn't look like it did back in the theaters...I have a question for that..."Have you been to my local theater?" Quite frankly, it sucks...I go to a movie there and I wouldn't have any idea how a film is "supposed to look"...not to mention how it sounds. This is why I don't go to the theaters anymore. With the advent of HDTVs and now BD, there's no need to. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that whenever 3D TV becomes more mainstream, that it'll start putting cineplexes out of business. Because by then, the novelty of theaters will have worn off. Just as hi-tech home gaming consoles have put coin arcades out of business.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Beast

Where did I ever once say that your opinion is wrong?

Might want to read what is written, rather than assume there's something more there.

There's no grain hiding exactly what I am saying. I am disagreeing with your opinion, nothing more.

By claiming there is more detail as a rebuttal to an earlier post of mine is saying my opinion about the DNR taking out detail is wrong.

You disagreed with my opinion, hence you find it to be wrong. Your wording (you know, what is "written") was designed to negate my opinion and again, by your standards, is hypocritical.