Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Daredevil666]

My dear Quasidodo, some of us happen to do, or have done, HD mastering for a living...

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

My dear Quasidodo, some of us happen to do, or have done, HD mastering for a living...

Then prove yourself to the site administrators and they'll change your title. Otherwise, I can call myself the Prime Minister of France and my claim would be just as valid.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by Alpha Sixx

I paid 30+ tax at best buy a few years back before I started buying from amazon and the transfer wasnt even that great. That is some BS!!!!

That's why sites like the one you're on right now exist: so you can check the video and audio rating — or look at the screenshots and decide for yourself — before dropping $30 on a crappy-looking movie.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by MCT

You don't have to wait

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Total-Recall...4076289&sr=8-2

only about $14 shipped, and it look and sounds 5x better than the US Lionsgate release. Get it.

Thanks for the tip! I've been wanting to pick up Total Recall, but I've been put off by the quality of the US release. I just ordered it from Amazon UK. I'll be one happy camper once Total Recall and Twister UK hits my mailbox

[danman227460]

Isn't there ANOTHER Total Recall release coming soon? There is a SB rumored for it. Wonder what the difference will be?

[42041]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

Well, gee. I'm glad you're the authority on high definition mastering.

If the new blu comes out and has all the same exact "problems", don't say none of us warned you.

No need to be an authority when it comes to the obvious. It's a fact that MPEG2 is a very old video codec. It's a fact that AVC is far newer and more efficient.

[42041]

Originally Posted by YodasFootPowder

And as I said, I don't think it can look much better than it already does, which is why I'm kind of surprised everyone is drooling over the idea of a remaster. Do people really think it's going to look that much better over the current version? Not to mention, look that much better that it's worth another $20 dollar purchase? As it is, this film was grainy, and dark and not very flashy to begin with. What are people expecting to be so great about a remaster?

I'm not expecting it to look like Avatar, but I have no reason to suspect a crappy old single-layer mpeg2-encoded transfer is limited by the 35mm negative rather than the other way around.
Of course, chances of this getting the Spielberg movie treatment are nonexistent.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by 42041

No need to be an authority when it comes to the obvious. It's a fact that MPEG2 is a very old video codec. It's a fact that AVC is far newer and more efficient.

That still does not prove that one will automatically give a better picture. Last time I checked, it was the work of the engineer who did the compression, not the program used.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

That still does not prove that one will automatically give a better picture. Last time I checked, it was the work of the engineer who did the compression, not the program used.

Show me one bluray where a vc-1 or avc version didn't look better than the mpeg2 version.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Show me one bluray where a vc-1 or avc version didn't look better than the mpeg2 version.

Which title comparisons are you referring to?

[bigrob]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm not expecting it to look like Avatar, but I have no reason to suspect a crappy old single-layer mpeg2-encoded transfer is limited by the 35mm negative rather than the other way around.
Of course, chances of this getting the Spielberg movie treatment are nonexistent.

you mean by erasing all the guns in this movie and replacing them with walkie talkies?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Mission: Impossible III
Four Brothers
World Trade Center
Shooter
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Oh wait, that's not one, that's five. Do you want more or less?

Those were released on BLURAY with both VC-1/AVC AND mpeg2 versions?

Oh wait... no they weren't. Do you know how to read?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I can read and, better yet, I know how to read between the lines... You got spanked! I thought we were talking about MPEG2 vs VC-1/AVC. Besides, I gave you exactly what you asked for. Those are five Blu-rays where a VC-1 or AVC version didn't look better than the MPEG2 version.

Back stroke all you want in Lake Semantic, you're not fooling anyone.

You really can't read...

You are comparing hddvd to bluray.

None of those had mpeg2 to VC-1/AVC BLURAY double dips. Fail.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by cliff

no, i was comparing mpeg2 to vc-1/avc, which is exactly what you asked for until i gave you an answer that didn't support your opinion. So you back-peddled to try and change the question rather than attempt to refute the examples i gave you. By the way... Redefining the question still doesn't flip the examples i gave you from right to wrong.

Ask around... Nobody else is probably buying it but you.

Originally Posted by drtre81

show me one bluray where a vc-1 or avc version didn't look better than the mpeg2 version.

fail

[Hi-Def Steve]

Originally Posted by drtre81

fail

Actually I'd say you failed.

[El_Burro]

so even according to another (italian) site these new Hunter edition will have a new master in high definition and like 5 hours of extra.
You can find the cover and these info HERE
Cover is the same as the one that will be released in Germany:
http://www.cinefacts.de/blu-ray-film...r-edition.html
(there is info about the extras and the audio tracks inside)

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by 42041

No need to be an authority when it comes to the obvious. It's a fact that MPEG2 is a very old video codec. It's a fact that AVC is far newer and more efficient.

But we have no way of knowing for sure it will look better. Again, it just seems to be a lot of wishful thinking. If it's a new master, it might look marginally better. If it's just an AVC encode, it may end up looking (nearly) identical. As soon as we hear from an official source (straight from FOX) what's been done, I'd say stay the excitement.

Unless you're excited about the special features being added.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Mission: Impossible III
Four Brothers
World Trade Center
Shooter
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Those are 5 examples of MPEG2 Blu-rays where the VC-1 or AVC versions (which happened to be released to HD-DVD) were of little to no discernible improvement.

Seems I can read just fine (when you said 'version' you never specifically said Blu-ray- The HD-DVD of World Trade Center could very loosely be considered a 'version' when held up next to the same movie's Blu-ray- the BD is one version and the HD-DVD is another - how's that for semantics?)

I did specifically state bluray. Add to the fact that the reason those even looked identical is probably because of hddvd's lack of space.

I asked FOR A BLURAY that it available with a mpeg2 version AND VC-1/AVC version available where the VC-1/AVC version did not look better. You failed to provide this... and will continue to fail, because it's never happened.

Total Recall
T2
Stargate


All look better with VC-1/AVC encodes.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Mission: Impossible III
Four Brothers
World Trade Center
Shooter
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Those are 5 examples of MPEG2 Blu-rays where the VC-1 or AVC versions (which happened to be released to HD-DVD) were of little to no discernible improvement.

Seems I can read just fine (when you said 'version' you never specifically said Blu-ray- The HD-DVD of World Trade Center could very loosely be considered a 'version' when held up next to the same movie's Blu-ray- the BD is one version and the HD-DVD is another - how's that for semantics?)

I really don't want to get involved in the semantics wordplay lawyer argument but I actually understood what he meant and you clearly found a loophole to prove your point, which even then, is 100% semantics and unrelated because even if DTRe didn't explain himself in a manner clear enough for you, within the context of the Predator BD debate its quite obvious he meant a title using MPEG 2 on a BD 25 then being encoded with any of the other codecs on a BD 50...I mean, thats what he has been saying all along...

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

But we have no way of knowing for sure it will look better. Again, it just seems to be a lot of wishful thinking. If it's a new master, it might look marginally better. If it's just an AVC encode, it may end up looking (nearly) identical. As soon as we hear from an official source (straight from FOX) what's been done, I'd say stay the excitement.

Unless you're excited about the special features being added.

Of course we don't...but like I have said all through this thread, even if the new edition has minimal to non existent improvements at least we know Fox actually put forth the effort this time and at least gave the film a better encode on a larger disc with tons of extras AND movie money for Predators...

Its a no brainer if you haven't already bought it and its tempting even if you have...