Predator 3D Blu-ray (1987) [Region Locked]

[CptHowdy87]

Originally Posted by Frank@Chicago

I think I only paid $14 and got a slipcover, but I already had the cleaned up 2D version (Ultimate Hunter) so I wondered later if my LG couldn't have almost produced the same amount of 3D using the set's conversion feature.

LOL! Not even close! They did a great job on the 3D here. I don't know what the hell is up with some of the reviews talking about barely noticing 3D throughout most of the movie. Perhaps their vision is impaired in some way or they don't even know what 3D is which is quite possible as people often talk about a lack of things "popping out" at them which is not what 3D is. It's the spatial depth that 3D is adding to the movie and it's apparent in every single shot in Predator.

The jungle setting was absolutely perfect for 3D. It made the movie incredibly immersive. It's the only way I plan on watching the movie from now. It sucks that TV's are no longer made with a 3D setting. My TV won't last forever. Maybe I can find a used now and set it aside until my current TV gives up on me. I only own a handful of 3D movies, but it would suck to not be able to watch them again after a certain point.

I really wish 3D took off. I never thought of it as some unnecessary gimmick like half the 3D haters (the other half just have terrible eye sight). I thought Prometheus in 3D at the cinema was incredible as was T2 which I saw at the cinemas last year. James Cameron still believes in it so hopefully we one day get a 3D conversion of The Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss and True Lies.

[presidentevil3d]

I think the 3d is good apart from 2 scenes where it goes blurry/like Vaseline is over the lens

[levcore]

Isn't that just the excessive DNR?

[bud_brigman]

Im still bummed we didn’t get the rumored Independence Day conversion. It must be sitting next to the Star Wars movies in the warehouse.

[Law212]

Well maybe because the sequel didnt do well. Even though I enjoy it personally.

[bud_brigman]

Originally Posted by Law212

Well maybe because the sequel didnt do well. Even though I enjoy it personally.

It was rumored long before, when Fox was doing all the conversions. I just think they didn’t sell well, so Fox stopped. I was hoping we’d see it when the sequel hit, but ... no.

[mrjafunk]

I thought the 3D was really good here. Good seperation between characters and foliage.

[the13thman]

This is an odd one because when I first watched it, I was quite impressed with the 3D. However, when I rewatched it I didn't think as much of it, though naturally I still think it is an improvement over the 2D version.

Since then I have hunted down the original 2D release without all the DNR, it isn't as bright or sharp but better represents my memory of what the film should look like in 2D (before the world went digital the widescreen VHS was my preferred version).

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by levcore

Not very well I think is the answer ha ha. Same as you though, its been a good while since I've watched it, maybe I should revisit!

I've yet to sit down and watch the 3D version but I have had a look and I remember it being pretty good considering. I had a quick look again today. The 3D is very mild to start with a few low key pop outs. The 3D picks up in the jungle with clearer layering, decent explosions, nice 3D particle effects and some muzzle flashes look enhanced. Slightly off topic, looking at this movie, some of the shots are exact copies of shots from The A-Team TV show lol.

The DNR is strange because it's always there but it is inconsistent. At their first meeting Arnold's face is fine, but Carl looks like a wax works dummy. Later on both of their faces are much less waxy. In the few scenes I looked at, I don't remember Arnold's face been as bad as I see with Carl in parts of the movie. I wonder if some of this is automatic and has issues with the skin tone? That kind of stuff used to happen regularly with lighting but this would be new. Anyway, the DNR also seems to be reduced in the Jungle.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by the13thman

This is an odd one because when I first watched it, I was quite impressed with the 3D. However, when I rewatched it I didn't think as much of it, though naturally I still think it is an improvement over the 2D version.

Since then I have hunted down the original 2D release without all the DNR, it isn't as bright or sharp but better represents my memory of what the film should look like in 2D (before the world went digital the widescreen VHS was my preferred version).

Thanks.

Yes, the DNR blurring of the faces in this is awful in their attempt to get rid of the film noise/grain.

The best, strongest 3D scene that I remember is when they're crossing the log. That looked great IMO and not an auto converted shot. The rest of the film, most of it looks like mild 3D and being mostly autoconverted with some errors with all of those jungle leaves and plants everywhere.

If this film wasn't Predator, but something else, I wonder if many of the positive reviews for the 3D would feel the same. Compared to the stronger 3D of other jungle set action films. Jumanji 3D looks much better IMO and that had medium layers of 3D from what I remember in theaters.

Even so, it's been years since I watched this, so I'll have to give it another watch as a general fan of the film and double check my lower impression of the 3D.

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks.

Yes, the DNR blurring of the faces in this is awful in their attempt to get rid of the film noise/grain.

The best, strongest 3D scene that I remember is when they're crossing the log. That looked great IMO and not an auto converted shot. The rest of the film, most of it looks like mild 3D and being mostly autoconverted with some errors with all of those jungle leaves and plants everywhere.

If this film wasn't Predator, but something else, I wonder if many of the positive reviews for the 3D would feel the same. Compared to the stronger 3D of other jungle set action films. Jumanji 3D looks much better IMO and that had medium layers of 3D from what I remember in theaters.

Even so, it's been years since I watched this, so I'll have to give it another watch as a general fan of the film and double check my lower impression of the 3D.

I bought this movie on April 2019, and i didn't noticed much conversion errors besides the Dutch rapids fall that was in 2D mainly... i'd preferred that they had done a reshoot of it even if with another actor but with 2013's tech so that the movie would become close to perfect.

I didn't read any reviews when i bought it of it being a good conversion or not as it is mostly singular to people's equipments dependent, but from the start to finish i didn't noticed any conversion errors besides said scene mentioned.

If i had bought the 2D and done an autoconversion with my 3D TV it would have looked really gross and not worthy to watch again, but this 3D "auto conversion" is tremendous.

And if the movie weren't from the year of 1987 i'd say it is almost as good as any good to great MCU conversion.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

I bought this movie on April 2019, and i didn't noticed much conversion errors besides the Dutch rapids fall that was in 2D mainly... i'd preferred that they had done a reshoot of it even if with another actor but with 2013's tech so that the movie would become close to perfect.

I didn't read any reviews when i bought it of it being a good conversion or not as it is mostly singular to people's equipments dependent, but from the start to finish i didn't noticed any conversion errors besides said scene mentioned.

If i had bought the 2D and done an autoconversion with my 3D TV it would have looked really gross and not worthy to watch again, but this 3D "auto conversion" is tremendous.

And if the movie weren't from the year of 1987 i'd say it is almost as good as any good to great MCU conversion.

Thanks for your thoughts on the 3D, Jlardonio.
Would you say the conversion of Predator's 3D is ranked right up there with the 3D of Thor Ragnarok, or Avengers Infinity War?

[Jlardonio]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks for your thoughts on the 3D, Jlardonio.
Would you say the conversion of Predator's 3D is ranked right up there with the 3D of Thor Ragnarok, or Avengers Infinity War?

Yes, i believe so. But i'd give Thor Ragnarok advantage because of the color composition. But for an 1987 movie with an auto conversion made in 2013 that it was really well done.

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks for your thoughts on the 3D, Jlardonio.
Would you say the conversion of Predator's 3D is ranked right up there with the 3D of Thor Ragnarok, or Avengers Infinity War?

I know this question isn't for me and I don't know if the question is in jest. But I think the conversion is quite well done and if it is an auto conversion then it's the best one I've seen. I have watched almost every single MCU 3D movie before optimizing my setup. But I have seen Predator on my newly optimized setup and there is still no comparison. This conversion doesn't come close to the.average MCU conversion never mind Ragnarok which is the best. It is watchable and the 3D gets better in the jungle, but a more realistic comparison is the first Thor movie or "maybe" First Avenger.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jlardonio

Yes, i believe so. But i'd give Thor Ragnarok advantage because of the color composition. But for an 1987 movie with an auto conversion made in 2013 that it was really well done.

I was able to rewatch Predator 3D again in my spare time, and all I can say is, for the fun challenge of it, please consider watching Predator 3D, then immediately put in Thor Ragnarok 3D immediately after, and see if you still feel the same about the advantage mostly being because of Thor Ragnarok's colorful composition, if they're both equal in 3D strength. Thanks.

You have the absolute right to stand by how you feel about the 3D comparison of Predator 3D to Ragnarok 3D being almost equal, I'm only politely agreeing to disagree.

Originally Posted by cdx47

I know this question isn't for me and I don't know if the question is in jest. But I think the conversion is quite well done and if it is an auto conversion then it's the best one I've seen. I have watched almost every single MCU 3D movie before optimizing my setup. But I have seen Predator on my newly optimized setup and there is still no comparison. This conversion doesn't come close to the.average MCU conversion never mind Ragnarok which is the best. It is watchable and the 3D gets better in the jungle, but a more realistic comparison is the first Thor movie or "maybe" First Avenger.

Thank you CDX47, I agree regarding Predator being a good effort for an Auto-computer assisted 3D conversion, but in no way a match for the strong 3D of Thor Ragnarok for example.

Predator 3D blu ray review:
Viewing on 100" 3D projection screen, great brightness and contrast setting in dark room. Sitting about 9 feet away.

3D Layering: 6/10. Mild to low medium layering for much of the film, with some high medium layering on rare occasions.
In the jungle, the layer separation looks minimal, so a foreground object seems less than a foot away from a midground object, and the midground less than a foot from the flat background forest. The 3D effect is clear, but not realistic for what's onscreen most of the time. Everything is too close to each other more often than not.
3D Depth into the Screen: 4/10. With few exceptions, much of the depth into the screen does not go very far back compared to the further depth of the 2D scenery in relation to the foreground, mid and background.
3D Conversion Errors: It's subtle, but when the camera moves through the thick jungle left or right, the layers sometimes merge together to the same layer depth, even though one plant should be further back. And when seeing through the Predator's heat vision, confused, milder 3D of the trees tends to happen.
3D Pop Outs: Mild, Slight impression of maybe a hand popping out, or some objects slightly. A gattling gun at 48:45 should have really pushed outwards, but it looked no more than an inch away from the guy holding it.
Favorite 3D Shots: 55:44 into the film, high medium 3D shot of the group sitting in the forest, a branch on the left side, nice layering. And them crossing the giant log at 1 hour 14 minutes in, with medium/high medium 3D.
Overall 3D: 6/10. For an auto-conversion, a decent range of mild, low medium 3D layers and sometimes high medium 3D. My biggest concern is the milder depth, where flatter background objects look only a few feet away from foreground objects in most shots.
So when Arnold tosses his first fire grenade, the explosion only looks a few feet away in 3D layering instead of many meters away as the 2D scenery suggests in relation to Arnold's motion position.

All that said, the complexity of this conversion for a movie set in a jungle goes up to a 10/10 for the challenge involved, so credit to this team for trying their best with the auto-conversion technology they had at that time. I believe they also converted the generally mild 3D efforts of I Robot 3D, Gamer 3D and Jumper 3D, of which I also own on blu ray 3D.



Thor Ragnarok 3D Quick Review:
Viewing on 100" 3D projection screen, great brightness and contrast setting in dark room. Sitting about 9 feet away.
3D Layering: 10/10. Medium to mostly strong 3D layering and separation of those layers. A far distance in between each layer relative to the onscreen sense of 2D depth cues, it matches nicely.
3D Pop Outs: Some strong 3D pop outs.
3D Depth into the Screen: 10/10. Goes very far back so objects in the background look very far away from foreground objects.
Overall 3D: 10/10. An excellent, strong 3D conversion and one of the best.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Doesn't Thor Ragnarok have an advantage as every shot only has 3 physical layers (actor, bit of a set, massive green screen for CGI composition) which enhance the film's depth as CGI that looks awful (ie:doesn't blend with the live action) in 2D has the side effect of enhancing 3D depth?

In that respect, Predator is hampered by having real locations with properly jibing live action & set.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Doesn't Thor Ragnarok have an advantage as every shot only has 3 physical layers (actor, bit of a set, massive green screen for CGI composition) which enhance the film's depth as CGI that looks awful (ie:doesn't blend with the live action) in 2D has the side effect of enhancing 3D depth?

In that respect, Predator is hampered by having real locations with properly jibing live action & set.

Any manually converted 3D film automatically has an advantage over Predator's auto-3D conversion, yes. In terms of conversion, apples to oranges. Both fruits, but both different capabilities/goals.

Real world locations like a jungle, versus virtual locations like a CGI world. But what about a real world location jungle of Jumanji 3D, to the real world location jungle of Predator 3D?

Also the real world forests in Black Panther, which were converted into medium to strong 3D layers for much of that film, a great conversion overall.

I won't say Avatar's 3D forests which were at times, CGI with all of the alien vegetation, but rendered natively in the computer no doubt, though some shots were admittedly converted.

Or any other strong 3D converted film with real world locations?

[Jlardonio]

We can't lose our focus here... it's a 1987 movie, without the tech of today and 3D remastered mostly by a machine with few human elements to supervise in 2013.

By those standards that's why i say it is on par with good to great MCU movie conversions, done with millions of dollars and dozens of human elements supervising and magnify the effect. And Thor Ragnarok colors are the most important factor to its 3D because the colors gives it more depth, that's why Predator can't be on the same level as i stated.

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Any manually converted 3D film automatically has an advantage over Predator's auto-3D conversion, yes. In terms of conversion, apples to oranges. Both fruits, but both different capabilities/goals.

Real world locations like a jungle, versus virtual locations like a CGI world. But what about a real world location jungle of Jumanji 3D, to the real world location jungle of Predator 3D?

Also the real world forests in Black Panther, which were converted into medium to strong 3D layers for much of that film, a great conversion overall.

I won't say Avatar's 3D forests which were at times, CGI with all of the alien vegetation, but rendered natively in the computer no doubt, though some shots were admittedly converted.

Or any other strong 3D converted film with real world locations?

There is some foreshortening which I didn't notice until you mentioned it but I also see some shots where the distance looks properly rendered. I am watching on a very large screen so maybe it isn't as noticeable? But I see that you are also watching on a large screen too. The weird thing about this movie is that it somehow looks bigger than other movies of the same size.

[Telegram Sam]

I just watched this one again (as per old Levcore’s prompting a couple of days ago in the I Robot thread - cheers mate..!), first time in almost a decade.

Thought the conversion was pretty poor, and overall would say the same thing I’ve said about I Robot: This is not how I think 3D is supposed to look. It’s one of those movies that certainly looks “dimensionalised” but for the most part looks very little like real 3D (and when I say “real 3D” I don’t mean just native).

Of all the conversion errors, I thought the most ridiculous was when a shot of Arnold’s face fades into a view of the moon - and the part of the moon that overlaps his face actually is placed in the same z-space as his cheekbone!

I’ve seen plenty of bad movies with good 3D that are far more watchable that way, but a good movie with bad 3D has the opposite effect for me: I’ll only ever watch this one in 2D again.