Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

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

Keeping in mind that we can't compare sharpness or grain from these tiny images, from what I see here I think I prefer the new transfer; I always felt the original seemed too dark and grey, honestly, and they minimized the red hue in the daylight shots. So far I'd say it's an improvement, whether it's true to the director's intent or not.

[kono]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

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

Based on the above two screenshot, the different is actually more have to do with re-master version being sharpening a bit more and a bit of extra help in contrast boost. Hence, that explained why you seeing the image being more refined and greater separation of depth. Hopefully, they really jazz thing up with the re-master edition, as I'm a fan of this movie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

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

Brighter areas or highlights doesn't reflect finer detail in this case. At times like these additional brightness can make objects stand out more, which could make you think there's more detail when there is actually not. I don't see more detail, but I do see brighter areas and some are simply too bright.

[BStecke]

So, judging by those screen shots, the final fight scene takes place during the day time now? Was the remaster handled by George Lucas?

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Brighter areas or highlights doesn't reflect finer detail in this case. At times like these additional brightness can make objects stand out more, which could make you think there's more detail when there is actually not. I don't see more detail, but I do see brighter areas and some are simply too bright.

It could be, but I'm not sure. Just look at Arnold's right eyebrow for example. In the original version all the hairs blend in together, but in the re-master I'm able to see many more individual hairs. It seems as if they are smudge together in the original.

I guess I'll just need to wait until more comparison pics are posted.

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

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


[...]

Cheers for the screenshots. Ok, it can't be any more obvious than this, that a lot of "noise" reduction has happened.

I've stopped obsessing over screenshots. I leave it to others to derive from screenshots alone, how much this has affected fine detail (besides grain, which obviously has been removed).

What i see however doesn't suggest a night and day difference (wrt details). So i don't think, they've actually gone back to the film elements. But rather used something existing and used some state of the art video post processing tools.

I'll have to rent this and decide then, if i'll consider this an video upgrade.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by 42041

some of that french review's shots are almost the same frames as cinemasquid's:

here I think the detail is in the original's favor. Both look pretty blurry.

old version: http://media.cinemasquid.com/m00344/m00344_lrg_01.png
new version: http://img.filmsactu.com/datas/dvd/p...04ad91c613.jpg

Hmm. I like the contrast of the new one better (there's no way the director intended the movie to look as drab, red and dark as it does in the original), but I wish they'd left off the DNR because there are obvious areas where detail has been scrubbed out. Look at the round piece that connects the front and back halves of his gun; it has vertical lines in the original and is completely smooth in the new transfer. Look at the leaves just over the sight of his gun. So they definitely went overboard with the noise reduction.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

So they definitely went overboard with the noise reduction.

As they so often do, unfortunately.

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by kono

Based on the above two screenshot, the different is actually more have to do with re-master version being sharpening a bit more and a bit of extra help in contrast boost. Hence, that explained why you seeing the image being more refined and greater separation of depth. Hopefully, they really jazz thing up with the re-master edition, as I'm a fan of this movie.

Maybe, but wouldn't the DNR counter attack the artificial sharpening? It's not like I can't see the small pimples or the individual hairs on Arnold's face in the original Predator Blu-ray screenshot because it's dark, I see them, but with the screenshot of the new Predator Blu-ray I can see many more individual hairs on Arnold's mustache.

This isn't appearing to me like the Lord Of The Rings (First Part) where the HD cable version clearly had more fine detail while the Blu-ray washed it out because of the DNR. With this screenshot, I'm seeing the original Predator containing more grain with less detail while the remaster contains less grain but it is better defined.

[xander]

Originally Posted by BStecke

So, judging by those screen shots, the final fight scene takes place during the day time now? Was the remaster handled by George Lucas?

That's almost what I'm more concerned with at this point that the DNR debate. I'm afraid the contrast lean is going to be a bigger detriment to the presentation than anything else, like the recent Tombstone release.

[Bishop_99]

Couldn't it be possible that the new higher encode and higher bitrate of the new Predator reveals details that were lost in the original mpeg-2 lower bit Blu-ray Predator? DNR was used, no doubt, but I'm thinking that the DNR prevented this release from living to it's full potential but it didn't come out with less detail because of the superior encode?

I guess I'll just have to wait for more screenshots.

[Marcus Wright]

Whats all the fuzz about this movie.
Is it worth this much discussion?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

Hmm. I like the contrast of the new one better (there's no way the director intended the movie to look as drab, red and dark as it does in the original), but I wish they'd left off the DNR because there are obvious areas where detail has been scrubbed out. Look at the round piece that connects the front and back halves of his gun; it has vertical lines in the original and is completely smooth in the new transfer. Look at the leaves just over the sight of his gun. So they definitely went overboard with the noise reduction.

Excellent points. These are two obvious parts of the shot that have been wiped away by DNR. More reasons to stick with the original MPEG-2 version.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Whats all the fuzz about this movie.
Is it worth this much discussion?

Says the Terminator Salvation fan.

[xander]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

Whats all the fuzz about this movie.
Is it worth this much discussion?

I'm going assume that's sarcasm. This is Predator we are talking about here. SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Says the Terminator Salvation fan.

Oh snap! Beat me to it

[kono]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

Maybe, but wouldn't the DNR counter attack the artificial sharpening? It's not like I can't see the small pimples or the individual hairs on Arnold's face in the original Predator Blu-ray screenshot because it's dark, I see them, but with the screenshot of the new Predator Blu-ray I can see many more individual hairs on Arnold's mustache.

This isn't appearing to me like the Lord Of The Rings (First Part) where the HD cable version clearly had more fine detail while the Blu-ray washed it out because of the DNR. With this screenshot, I'm seeing the original Predator containing more grain with less detail while the remaster contains less grain but it is better defined.

DNR does not necessarily counter artificial sharpening. It is possible that DNR is done prior to sharpening. Then, with careful sharpening, it can bring back the details with less noise. Therefore, DNR does not necessarily counter sharpening. If incoporated correctly, the result can be quite mesmerizing.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by kono

DNR does not necessarily counter artificial sharpening. It is possible that DNR is done prior to sharpening. Then, with careful sharpening, it can bring back the details with less noise. Therefore, DNR does not necessarily counter sharpening. If incoporated correctly, the result can be quite mesmerizing.

The problem is that this was not done with Predator and it looks far from mesmerizing.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by kono

DNR does not necessarily counter artificial sharpening. It is possible that DNR is done prior to sharpening. Then, with careful sharpening, it can bring back the details with less noise. Therefore, DNR does not necessarily counter sharpening. If incoporated correctly, the result can be quite mesmerizing.

Neither should be applied to begin with. Both processes result in artifacts not inherent to film.

IMO, the new releases appears to have been scrubbed and either the contrast has been pushed or the the image brightened.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Neither should be applied to begin with. Both processes result in artifacts not inherent to film.

IMO, the new releases appears to have been scrubbed and either the contrast has been pushed or the the image brightened.

I think both have been boosted substantially and then DNR was applied after that. The grain hating minority makes it sour for the rest of us and that's for sure since Fox and Universal is apparently on their side.