Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[drtre81]

I have a feeling the original vs "remastered" Predator pq debate will go on for years...

The new release has good qualities...
avc
30 mps vs 19
uses over 40 gigs

but they just HAD to apply DNR.

I would have been happy with the higher bitrate and file size.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

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.

It's disappointing, because I was looking forward to seeing what level of improvement we would get from the use of a newer codec. Guess I'll have to pay attention to the foreign releases to see if any of those offer different encodes.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by drtre81

I have a feeling the original vs "remastered" Predator pq debate will go on for years...

No need for a debate.

Fact 1) The original release is truer to the original film source.

Fact 2) The new release is filled with cranked up contrast, brightness, and DNR.

Hard to argue facts.

[kono]

Originally Posted by drtre81

I have a feeling the original vs "remastered" Predator pq debate will go on for years...

The new release has good qualities...
avc
30 mps vs 19
uses over 40 gigs

but they just HAD to apply DNR.

I would have been happy with the higher bitrate and file size.

Based on the two screenshot, the different is not that substantial. Just as long as they don't start cropping the frame. I'm very surprised that blu-ray.com don't talk much about those thing on their reviews. That's why I much prefere dvdbeaver when it come to review. As one can really see the different.

Well, only time will tell what Fox is doing with the new remaster version. A frame does not equal to seeing the movie in action in front of you. Yes?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

No need for a debate.

Fact 1) The original release is truer to the original film source.

Fact 2) The new release is filled with cranked up contrast, brightness, and DNR.

Hard to argue facts.

We haven't even seen the NA release yet.

And I've only seen a brightness boost in one shot. That other capture from the movies ending is brighter because it's not an identical frame. I think that one was taken right before the sparks fall on him. Could be wrong though.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by drtre81

We haven't even seen the NA release yet.

And I've only seen a brightness boost in one shot. That other capture from the movies ending is brighter because it's not an identical frame. I think that one was taken right before the sparks fall on him. Could be wrong though.

What makes you think it would be any different? If the same version that was used for the above screen captures then my facts still stand. I also seriously doubt there's two different versions of this new master.

[ln32b530]

More screenshots...


Old Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/d2a94184037017


"Remastered" Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/008fd184037009


For those of you who haven't been to Madame Tussauds Wax Museum -- I'd suggest that you buy the new one.

[RipleyLV426]

Originally Posted by ln32b530

More screenshots...


Old Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/d2a94184037017


"Remastered" Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/008fd184037009


For those of you who haven't been to Madame Tussauds Wax Museum -- I'd suggest that you buy the new one.

Thanks for the screenshots! I'm on the fence on this one. I have been holding off on Predator hoping for the inevitable ultimate re release that is coming shortly. I think I'll wait for more reviews. This new one does have DNE applied, however if you look, you can see the blood droplets in her hair more clearly...like I said, I'll wait for more reviews before pulling the trigger.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by ln32b530

More screenshots...


Old Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/d2a94184037017


"Remastered" Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/008fd184037009


For those of you who haven't been to Madame Tussauds Wax Museum -- I'd suggest that you buy the new one.

Again here the new version lacks grain but still isn't losing details...

Probably because the higher bitrate. Some parts actually show MORE detail. Look at her right shoulder. (technically her left)

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by ln32b530

More screenshots...


Old Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/d2a94184037017


"Remastered" Blu-ray: http://www.imagebam.com/image/008fd184037009


For those of you who haven't been to Madame Tussauds Wax Museum -- I'd suggest that you buy the new one.

Thanks for the screenshots! The DNR applied is evidently clear but I'm seeing the same thing once again. Looking at Anna's shirt, I notice that the texture is better detailed on the re-master than on the original. On the original it looks more blurred. The same thing with her lower teeth, in the original it seems smeared while in the re-master I can see each tooth better. Also some strains of her hair seem to be "blocky" in the original mpeg-2 version while they seem to be perfectly alinged on the re-master.

The DNR is unquestionable, but I'm seeing more issues present on the Original Predator than on the re-master. I keep thinking that the higher encode and higher bit rate of the remastered version allowed for a better defined picture than the original mpeg-2 release but the DNR applied to it prevented it from living up to it's full potential. Still it seems, to me at least that it is better defined than the original release. Strangely, I'm not seeing this new release having worse definition because of the DNR, unlike the obvious lose of detail because of the DNR applied to the Terminator 2 Skynet Edition when compared to the mpeg-2 original release.

[ln32b530]

I think it's all personal preference... Whether you like:

grain with natural looking human figures

or

DNR and sharp/more details with wax looking human figures.

[Chaka]

I ask those that think the new version looks better based on the screen captures to open both in photoshop and place one on top of the other and toggle between layers to see the difference. Do this for a minute. I find that the original looks way more natural and pleasing to the eye. I then ask you to use the original mpeg version and play with the contrast and brightness. You will then realize that the extra detail or definition you think you are seeing is really just created by bumping up the contrast.

Something to think about. Do you watch your movies in torch mode? Do you like watching regular broadcast in vivid mode? Do you sit close enough to really care about wrinkles and hair? Be honest, is your screen size large enough for you to really see this stuff? I think the new release will win over many purely for the fact that the normal consumer doesn't sit in a dimly lit room 7 feet away from a 60" screen.

What I think is stupid is that I am pretty damn sure I can get my original mpeg version to look very similar with certain settings on my tv. Its just that simple but it would be nearly impossible to mimic the original with the new release.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by ln32b530

I think it's all personal preference... Whether you like:

grain with natural looking human figures

or

DNR and sharp/more details with wax looking human figures.

except the pictures shown above don't look waxy.

[bleauboy]

Yeah the new one does look sharper. In the other shot with Arnold holding his gun, some one mentioned the ring part and the leafs on the right being less detailed than the new release. Those two screen capts are a few frames apart, maybe thats why it looked more blurred or maybe some scenes have been altered in different ways. A big thanks to everyone for those comparison shots, and reviews

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by drtre81

except the pictures shown above don't look waxy.

I think the picture of Anna's chin looks incredibly waxy on the new one. No?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by ridergroov1

I think the picture of Anna's chin looks incredibly waxy on the new one. No?

Not to me... I'm on the ps3 looking at the side to side.

“ unlike the obvious lose of detail because of the DNR applied to the Terminator 2 Skynet Edition when compared to the mpeg-2 original release. ”


Huh? Skynet ed. didn't lose any detail from the mpeg2 transfer...it looks noticeably better. The japanese version is another story.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Not to me... I'm on the ps3 looking at the side to side.

Really? Look under her nose in the new one. Looks super waxy.

[ln32b530]

Originally Posted by drtre81

except the pictures shown above don't look waxy.

Maybe you'll see what I'm seeing from this screenshot from the "Remastered" Blu-ray:


http://www.imagebam.com/image/606b8b84038010

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by ln32b530

Maybe you'll see what I'm seeing from this screenshot from the "Remastered" Blu-ray:

http://www.imagebam.com/image/606b8b84038010

Yeah I agree with you. Anna's face is terrible looking in that still in the remaster as well. Yuck.

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I ask those that think the new version looks better based on the screen captures to open both in photoshop and place one on top of the other and toggle between layers to see the difference. Do this for a minute. I find that the original looks way more natural and pleasing to the eye. I then ask you to use the original mpeg version and play with the contrast and brightness. You will then realize that the extra detail or definition you think you are seeing is really just created by bumping up the contrast.

Something to think about. Do you watch your movies in torch mode? Do you like watching regular broadcast in vivid mode? Do you sit close enough to really care about wrinkles and hair? Be honest, is your screen size large enough for you to really see this stuff? I think the new release will win over many purely for the fact that the normal consumer doesn't sit in a dimly lit room 7 feet away from a 60" screen.

What I think is stupid is that I am pretty damn sure I can get my original mpeg version to look very similar with certain settings on my tv. Its just that simple but it would be nearly impossible to mimic the original with the new release.

Ok, I just did that comparison and adjustment with the pic of Anna on Photoshop. I increased the contrast and the brightness to bring it closer to the that of the re-release. Again, the detail didn't increase with that for me. I still saw a better definition with each line of shirt on the re-release. Also, the blocky image on her hair were still very present on the mpeg-2 encode while each strain of hair is perfectly aligned on the re-master.

I sit 6 feet away from my 65 inch tv. While it's true that you can change the setting of your tv to make the mpeg-2 encoding resemble that of the new encode, you can also adjust the settings of the new version to resemble a more natural look. It's what I do with my Friday Blu-ray. I'm not arguing that the new encode is perfect, but I see a stronger definition in it even though DNR was very noticably applied. Fine details in the original version seem smeared while they are better presented in the re-release.