Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Daredevil666]

Some comparison (compressed jpg) posted on this site here
http://www.planete-hd.com/Predator-t...a3489e33994cc2

[Daredevil666]

[KarmaNL]

I don't know who's making all of these covers, sounds like a fun job , but they could be saving money by using the originals.

I mean just look at this and tell me which one's better.





Anyway, back on topic:

New release looks great imo. Best way to judge if you like it or not is to just buy it and watch it on your own system.

Thats what I usually do. If it's really that bad I just sell it.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by linger63

That's fair enough, you have already decided the new one is inferior (for you).

I will still check it out personally as for all I know the screen cap comparisons were done with cheap nasty gear.

I usually don't rely on anyone else's verdict for that very reason.

What if my or your own system is in the 50-100K range?
What if my or your own computer monitor/video card is crappy or out of whack?

Results would have to differ to some degree surely!!

Cheers

If the screen caps are done correctly it shouldn't matter. Though in the past I have always given the benifit of the doubt I shall look at the new transfer when and only if I can see it for free. I just dont see the point of buying this new version when the only point for me would be to get a better transfer, and all evidence points to a worse transfer as it seems they have just smeared some dnr over the old transfer.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by KarmaNL

I don't know who's making all of these covers, sounds like a fun job , but they could be saving money by using the originals.

I mean just look at this and tell me which one's better.

[IMG]http://tokyo5.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/black_rain.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://www.50statesclassifieds.com/uploadedimages/708058blu-ray_black_rain.jpg[IMG]

Anyway, back on topic:

New release looks great imo. Best way to judge if you like it or not is to just buy it and watch it on your own system.

Thats what I usually do. If it's really that bad I just sell it.

I like the top one more

[KarmaNL]

you win

[joenostalgia23]

^ aaaahhhh the new cover art, it burns my eyes.

I don't see much of a difference in both. I don't understand why there's so many complaints of DNR when it looks only slightly less grainy. The difference is almost unnoticeable, and I thought there was plenty of facial detail. People were saying this was worse than Gladiator and that is not true.

At the same time, I don't understand why they demanded a new transfer in the first place. I thought the comparisons made them both look very sharp and detailed. For the time it came out and its budget, Predator already looked great on Blu-ray and the new version is barely an upgrade nor a downgrade in my opinion based on the screenshots.

I think I'll but the Hunter edition for the special features since I'm not as bummed about the video transfer as I thought I'd originally be. I think it looks adequate, not necessarily better than the original, but I wanted better special features more than grainier video.

[KarmaNL]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I think I'll but the Hunter edition for the special features since I'm not as bummed about the video transfer as I thought I'd originally be. I think it looks adequate, not necessarily better than the original, but I wanted better special features more than grainier video.

Hear hear

[meehan]

The real proof is when you see it moving though. There's a lot of smoke in this film and with too much DNR that has the potential to look like a horrific blurry mess.

Some of the shots from the new version look cropped as well

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by meehan

The real proof is when you see it moving though. There's a lot of smoke in this film and with too much DNR that has the potential to look like a horrific blurry mess.

Some of the shots from the new version look cropped as well

Are you talking the shot in post 767? It's a different moment in the shot. If you look closely, you'll notice Dutch is looking at a different spot. I believe this shot was a zoom shot.

fitprod

[Porkchop Express]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Are you talking the shot in post 767? It's a different moment in the shot. If you look closely, you'll notice Dutch is looking at a different spot. I believe this shot was a zoom shot.

fitprod

It appears you're right. Good eye!

[Malik True]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

The remastered looks sharper to me. You can see more of the facial hair and the wrinkles in his forehead stand out more. Thanks for the comparison

C'mon the difference in both of the photos are b-a-r-e-l-y noticable, both look good to me and since I do not own either yet I will most likely get the UP Edition when it drops.

[meehan]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Are you talking the shot in post 767? It's a different moment in the shot. If you look closely, you'll notice Dutch is looking at a different spot. I believe this shot was a zoom shot.

fitprod

Well spotted, sir. My eyes were purely fixed on the edge of the frame. Should've probably checked the middle eh?

[ridergroov1]

I am just buying the new one for the free predator kisses.....

[DetroitSportsFan]

Ugh. Keeping my original release.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Ugh. Keeping my original release.

Never know. Might be good but I'd hold on to the original as well...

[retablo]

Bottom line is this : the film was a mess before it was released. when you re-edit and optically zoom into a wide to make a medium shot, and zoom into a medium shot to get a closeup, there's going to be a lot of grain when you blow up the image that much. It was there in the original and it SHOULD be there on the blu-ray.

The new edition looks waxy and smoother, sure, but I don't see much more detail, probably because it was sourced from the same master.

[Blaumann]

The most noticable thing between these low res screenshots is the boosted contrast. They made the image "brighter", thereby changing the tone of the film.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Blaumann

The most noticable thing between these low res screenshots is the boosted contrast. They made the image "brighter", thereby changing the tone of the film.

You got it buddy. Everything looks as if they shined an extra spotlight on each shot. Contrast and brightness are both running so hot it makes you wonder if the trees are even providing any shade at all.

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You got it buddy. Everything looks as if they shined an extra spotlight on each shot. Contrast and brightness are both running so hot it makes you wonder if the trees are even providing any shade at all.

But don't you see improved detail in the remaster between these two screen shots?

Original:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/e3120984037007

Re-master:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/0cc18084037004


I've been going back and forth between these two pics and I continue to see fine detail better defined on the re-master. Like the hairs on Arnold's eye brow and the rest of his facial hair seem to be better defined on the re-master than on the original. Even the very small pimples on Arnold's face are more noticable on the new release than the original. I'm not sure if I'm seeing things but I keep seeing better details on the re-master

I'm not saying that they didn't use DNR, but couldn't it be possible that with the higher encode and the higher bit rate of the new release, we are able to see more details that were lost in the original lower bit mpeg 2 encode? Maybe the with the DNR applied we are loosing the full benefits of this new encode but I continue to see the re-master as being better defined. Also the two specs of dirts in the original version are gone in re-master in these two comparison pics. Not sure if it's because of a different frame, they cleaned up the transfer or they did a new transfer.

I'm still sticking with my original version until I see more pics to compare them to, but even though the grain is reduced greatly, I see more detail on the new release for some reason