Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

But how much better? Some people think that it will suddenly look like Blade Runner, if it's put on a BD-50 with a AVC encode. It might look better when it's remastered, but it probably won't be that much better.

well if it looks better at all and has the extras that's worth holding out for.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Q!

What is wrong with the tranfer in your words?
just curious.

I haven't seen in person but judging by how it's a mpeg2 encode with a low bit rate it's safe to assume it could have looked better. This disks bitrate averages around 18 which for a 1.85:1 scope is very low. Most blurays with bitrates that low are because they have black bars.

[tvine2000]

the question is ,will the studio do an upgrade. if your asking them to start from scratch,your all nuts.this is not one of the best 100 movies of all time and that s where there money seems to be going lately.
gone with the wind
wiz of oz
theres been others and some coming ,but come on guys get real. the cost to restore these films is enough where they got to select titles carefully.as someone already pointed out to think every title that comes out will look sharp and full of detail is nuts.

newer movies will look good,no doubt ,but don't think catalog titles will look like startrek[2009].with the title were talking about,it will never look any better.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Wait... you've never even seen it? How can you possibly have an opinion about the quality of something you've never seen?

By the way, you should pick up a copy of 28 Days Later. It's AVC with an average bitrate of 36 MBPS. It looks amazing! Don't take my word for it though, the specs obviously speak for themselves!!

I've never seen total recall on blu either and I know it's a bad transfer. It's called direct feed screen caps.
28 days is a horrible example because ...

1. it's supposed to look crappy.
2. the pq score was 4.5/5 despite look worse than predator

Now why is that? Hmmm I dunno.... maybe because predator can look better than it does and 28 days can't.

Next.

[richieb1971]

Just out of curiosity are there any other Fox presentations that are getting stick? I don't think Fox has a trend of screwing up.

Star Wars was made in 1977, is Fox, was made on a low budget. I bet that looks great

[brps3]

Predator is not a special effects heavy movie so how much better can they improve it?

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by brps3

Predator is not a special effects heavy movie so how much better can they improve it?

That's not the cause of why they can't improve on the transfer much, it's the film stock and the way the film was shot. It is a stylistic choise of the director and most of his films look similiar.

[Snikt]

Also, don't forget the fact that if it's re-released with an AVC transfer, chances are we'd see even more grain throughout the movie. Why you ask? Because as many have stated over and over again, that's the way the movie looks. Period. It will never be pristine and pretty and will never pop out on screen.

With that said, i'm still hoping for another release with extras and perhaps an AVC transfer would perhaps present a more film-like look and more grain would be present. Which is fine by me.

[PurpleJesus74]

I would love to see a re-release of Predator,maybe we'll see one when the new ''Predators'' gets closer to coming out on blu?In the meantime,you guys with HDTV's i'm assuming most of you,just compare the blu with the special edition dvd,i noticed a big difference right away,i think its definitely worth picking up especially when its around $10.Thats not a huge investment in case you have to double dip later

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I know you're all about the specs and nothing else, but don't just look at the score. Try actually reading both reviews. Martin says basically the same thing about the presentation of both movies (that any perceived issues are the result of the source and not the disc). Why he chose to score Predator lower for that is unknown (he doesn't say and you basically assumed- he never states it could look better, only that he wasn't as impressed as with Commando).

But since you're a specs only kinda guy, notice Martin also gave Wall Street (from the same studio and the same year of original release) a 3 out of 5 for picture despite it (unlike Predator) being an AVC encode on a 50GB disc. According to you, that should yield better than 3/5, shouldn't it? Unless, maybe, I don't know... the original source is more to blame.

How many different ways do you want me to keep singing this same song?

hey how about this? I read that review and several others. the movie can look better. period.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by drtre81

hey how about this? I read that review and several others. the movie can look better. period.

yeah it probably can. but marginally at best. it doesnt look far enough from the source to really warrant any overhaul. barring the use of detrimental touch ups like DNR and EE there isnt much you can do with predator. you cant polish a turd. the difference WONT be that noticeable.

the current blu-ray looks fine anyway.

[billzfan]

I got Predator on blu for $5. I have no interest in double dipping. I have the film and it looks and sounds very good. Supplements are fine but not enough to spend more cash.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by PurpleJesus74

I would love to see a re-release of Predator,maybe we'll see one when the new ''Predators'' gets closer to coming out on blu?In the meantime,you guys with HDTV's i'm assuming most of you,just compare the blu with the special edition dvd,i noticed a big difference right away,i think its definitely worth picking up especially when its around $10.Thats not a huge investment in case you have to double dip later

Thanks. Based on your statement and the reviews of Predator, I'm buying a copy now - $11.49 + free shipping from Amazon.

Michael

[PurpleJesus74]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Thanks. Based on your statement and the reviews of Predator, I'm buying a copy now - $11.49 + free shipping from Amazon.

Michael

No prob,i've also seen a blu ray 2 pack at Wal Mart with Predator and Commando for $20.Just in case you wanted both movies.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by csdot

yeah it probably can. but marginally at best. it doesnt look far enough from the source to really warrant any overhaul. barring the use of detrimental touch ups like DNR and EE there isnt much you can do with predator. you cant polish a turd. the difference WONT be that noticeable.

the current blu-ray looks fine anyway.

If it's better looking AT ALL with special features that's worth waiting for to me. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[csdot]

whats hard to grasp is why you are vehemently against a release you havent even seen. obviously the lack of extras is a bummer, but youve been attacking the PQ, with which there is nothing wrong. i wouldnt hold your breath for a better transfer, since i doubt they would spend the money to restore/remaster it when it wouldnt make that much of a difference. if you want to be hard-headed about it, knock yourself out. the rest of us can watch our predator blu-ray and be happy with it while you wait for something that probably isnt coming any time soon if at all. the predator blu-ray is so cheap if you are fan of the movie theres no reason not buy, even if a new version may come out down the line. ive already owned predator on 3 different formats and ill STILL rebuy it if its rereleased with extras. why dont you at least go rent it before you talk trash on it.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by drtre81

lol look...

predator is a mpeg2 transfer....meaning a vc1 or avc transfer will look better.

So, an AVC or VC-1 (which used to be the victim of the same baseless argument you're making here due to its prominent use on HD DVD), of say I, Robot or Shooter would make a difference? MPEG-2 can yield the same results as AVC or VC-1 when utilized correctly.

Magazine racers are always funny folk.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by BStecke

So, an AVC or VC-1 (which used to be the victim of the same baseless argument you're making here due to its prominent use on HD DVD), of say I, Robot or Shooter would make a difference? MPEG-2 can yield the same results as AVC or VC-1 when utilized correctly.

Magazine racers are always funny folk.

is that why both training day and coming to america vc1 transfers look better than the blurays?

oh and when that new predator transfer arrives and looks better I will be bumping this thread.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Because he's not really interested in how it actually looks and is instead completely obsessed with what the back of the packaging says.

No you just lack common sense and are trying to justify a bad purchase by attempting to trick yourself into thinking the movie can't look better.

I don't see why you guys have a problem with us waiting. It's our money and doesn't concern you at all. Give it a rest.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by drtre81

is that why both training day and coming to america vc1 transfers look better than the blurays?

oh and when that new predator transfer arrives and looks better I will be bumping this thread.

Is that why Shooter looks exactly the same? As I said, when utilized correctly . . . like Predator.

Also . . . Coming to America is AVC. Shot yourself in the foot with that one.

I really don't care what you do with your money. But, saying it's bad based on the specs on the box is pretty stupid. Your opinion would be a lot more valid if you actually had something to base it on. Plus, there have been quite a few people with valid qualifications who've said that Predator doesn't really have any room in which to grow. Based on your post above, I'm guessing you lack said qualifications to prove differently.