Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by meehan

Seriously? I Mean, seriously?

His moustache looks like it's a blurred charcoal effect from Photoshop!

If you think this looks good then you need...

I don't think it looks good but I bet the original shot looks ass as well.

[meehan]

Originally Posted by drtre81

I don't think it looks good but I bet the original shot looks ass as well.

Although it's not perfect due to the nature of the shot, at least in the original you can actually see individual hairs. Not just a fluffy blur.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I don't see anything wrong with that close up Carl Weather shot. I see fine, small, natural tight film grain in the background of the image. Yes, the image is a bit hazy and soft but clearly from how it was filmed.

Oh yes... "clearly." The original film was shot mushy and blurry, huh, with no fine detail at all?

Please don't use definitive words like "clearly" when you actually have no clue.

[drtre81]

Arnold's thoughts on the new movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBv4AsGVDxw

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Arnold's thoughts on the new movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBv4AsGVDxw

That's awesome.

[AlaskaDon]

Once again, blu-ray.com saves the day. I had this in my cart at Amazon, but figured I would check out what people were saying before buying it. I see no point in trading one mediocre transfer for another. My old BD will have to suffice until they manage to get it right.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Arnold's thoughts on the new movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBv4AsGVDxw

The Governator has been very active promoting Predators in that Blu-ray.com thread. It's good to hear comments from a man "in the know".

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Yeah, I posted this yesterday. Don't forget the conclusion:

Yet had NOTHING to say about the DNR in predator 2...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...iew-predator-2

and gave it a 4/5 pq rating.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by drtre81

which is from the scene as the arnold pic posted 1000 times.

And it also doesn't look nearly as bad as the Arnold shot.

Again, it's Arnie's vibrant red shirt and the lighting that caused the DNR to go too far.

Cause there is still pretty clearly grain there in that image of Carl Weathers.

Is there as much as in the original release? No. But it certainly doesn't look horrid.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by meehan

Seriously? I Mean, seriously?

His moustache looks like it's a blurred charcoal effect from Photoshop!

If you think this looks good then you need...

His moustache looks a bit blurred, but I can see skin detail AND film grain in the background. Why can't you? Maybe you just need a high quality, calibrated monitor.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by retablo

Oh yes... "clearly." The original film was shot mushy and blurry, huh, with no fine detail at all?

Please don't use definitive words like "clearly" when you actually have no clue.

You have no clue because you evidently cannot distinguish film grain from compression grain. Sounds like you need some education because the original BD is filled with TONS of compression artifacting which is NOT real film grain. Every frame of the original BD I see lots of artifacts. "Clearly" the new BD has too much DNR, but that shot with Carl Weathers has film grain in the background which evidently you cannot see.

[42041]

There's remains of grain all over that scene. Key distinction: real film grain is noise, it isn't frozen in space.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by sharkcohen

+1 The format is awesome, has tons of potential, and there are great examples of solid catalog releases on it, but more examples that are poor. Garbage in, garbage out.

I have to strongly disagree with you. There is a greater number of solid catalog releases, both in Region A and Region B territories. But then again, if one spends most of his time on forums where the primary discussions revolve only around 7-8 poor releases, one could probably come to the conclusion that there are more poor catalog titles than solid ones.

This said, I had a chance to look at Predator this past Tuesday, and it is most definitely a very disappointing catalog release. DNR application has erased everything that makes film look like film. The original release, which had its issues, certainly is the better option at the moment.

Pro-B

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Yet had NOTHING to say about the DNR in predator 2...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...iew-predator-2

and gave it a 4/5 pq rating.

I didn't find the DNR in Predator 2 to be that distracting. 4/5 is being a bit generous though. I'd give it a 3.5 max.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This said, I had a chance to look at Predator this past Tuesday, and it is most definitely a very disappointing catalog release. DNR application has erased everything that makes film look like film. The original release, which had its issues, certainly is the better option at the moment.

Thanks for your thoughts. I look forward to the Blu-Ray.com review.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

You have no clue because you evidently cannot distinguish film grain from compression grain. Sounds like you need some education because the original BD is filled with TONS of compression artifacting which is NOT real film grain. Every frame of the original BD I see lots of artifacts. "Clearly" the new BD has too much DNR, but that shot with Carl Weathers has film grain in the background which evidently you cannot see.

Haha why don't you educate me... I'm a professional photographer and am producing 2 films this winter... I've shot digital and film for years, but hey, I don't know anything about film grain. There IS film grain in the original, sorry friend. There is some artifacting, sure, but it's not ALL compression. Get it right.

You said "clearly" the film was shot blurry and smeary... right? Wrong. Ah man, the misinformation on this board is hilarious.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by Home Th3atre

I don't think this review has been posted yet. A bunch of comparison shots also. The reviewer states that the red shirt arnold is an isolated frame and is caused by the lighting or something.

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/art...ay-comparison/

I will say from this review I actually like the brightened up shot of the Predator. I'm not saying that there is more detail or that the contrast hasn't been boosted but it makes me feel there are other shots of the movie where I will get to see more of the picture due to the brighter look. I'm not saying it's better or worse, I'm just saying that aspect of it interests me a bit I can't lie. Whether or not the McTiernan wanted those shots dark or not is a different story I suppose. Okay, shields up. Ready to be fired upon for my comment.....

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by BMM

Anyone who thinks Blu-Ray doesn't look much better than DVD either needs a better TV or their eyes checked.

+1. I don't know who could possibly say any DVD looks just as good as a blu. Even the worst blu rays are better. Hands down.

[42041]

Well, most people I know don't watch movies in the same lighting they use their computer in, so what may seem dark in a screengrab comparison can look just fine in a home theater environment.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well, most people I know don't watch movies in the same lighting they use their computer in, so what may seem dark in a screengrab comparison can look just fine in a home theater environment.

True. I will have to investigate on my ps3.....