Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[stadanko]

Originally Posted by HE1NZ

WTF is this shit?
http://pic.phyrefile.com/s/su/sunnad...10/06/12/1.png

Horrible transfer.

But... look how smooth his shirt looks. Neatly pressed with an iron.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by stadanko

But... look how smooth his shirt looks. Neatly pressed with an iron.

I've never heard of an iron that can remove detail from a shirt.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by HE1NZ

WTF is this shit?
http://pic.phyrefile.com/s/su/sunnad...10/06/12/1.png
Horrible transfer.

Man, that looks heinous.

[ScuseMe]

Alright. Enough of this waxy-ness. I found a picture of a wax Arnold and a real Arnold. I put them together for comparison.

Pick whichever one you like - I'll make sure that one's used in the Ultimate Hunter Edition.

Both-Arnolds.jpg

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by HE1NZ

WTF is this shit?
http://pic.phyrefile.com/s/su/sunnad...10/06/12/1.png

Horrible transfer.

Jesus Christ, that looks horrid!

[dcowboy7]

Yay no grain.

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

What's the age of each of the people who think the newer version looks better than the MPEG-2 version? Answer that and I think everyone in this thread will fully understand. The kids like the polished Avatar look while the adults want the film to look just like it was shot by the director.

27. It's not that I completely think that it's better but the point I was trying to make was that I noticed more details in the image unlike a typical DNR were details are lost. I didn't see that as the case here, which is what I was trying to understand why. The contrast increase was pointed to as why this version has stronger details, I played around with the original mpeg-2 screenshot as suggested, but I didn't see the detail get stronger.

In this screenshot of a close up of Arnold I see the hairs of his eyebrow better defined. I can see each strain better while the original looks murky and poorly defined.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/e3120984037007
http://www.imagebam.com/image/0cc18084037004


Same as with the Anna screenshot. You can clearly see the texture of her shirt much better on the new release while on the old release it's not as well defined. Also if you look at the ends of her hair on her right side, you will see that they have a blocky appearance on the old release while they are perfectly aligned on the new release. Similar this happens to some of the blood on her face. In any case, I think that the DNR should have removed these extra details which are more visible now, especially when you consider how much DNR they used with that waxy image of Arnold that is posted a lot. With that much DNR, these details should be far worse or almost non existent.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/d2a94184037017
http://www.imagebam.com/image/008fd184037009

It's not that I prefer either as I have not seen the new one and I already have the original, I don't like double dipping. It's not a clean or grainy thing issue for me, it's the extra detail I'm seeing in all these screenshots.

I'm trying to see if it's possible that the higher encode and the higher bitrate managed to get extra fine details that weren't captured in the original mpeg-2 low bit rate encode. Yes, DNR was applied, but why am I seeing extra things that I can't see on the original? Especially when you consider how much DNR was applied to this release, the extra detail should have been wiped out. I'm trying to get a good understanding for it but I doubt we are going to get anywhere completely based on speculation. Maybe we will get more information on how they did this.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Alright. Enough of this waxy-ness. I found a picture of a wax Arnold and a real Arnold. I put them together for comparison.

Which is the real Arnold?

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Which is the real Arnold?

They guy on the right looks like conan obrian.

Ok his hair isnt as stupid as usual but still.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

They guy on the right looks like conan obrian.

Ok his hair isnt as stupid as usual but still.

... did you really just call someone's hair stupid?

[Robert George]

There was a 720p rip of this posted in a place I had access to and all the comments and screen caps have me curious about this new transfer so I downloaded the MKV to see what it looked like. I also have the previous MPEG encode on Blu-ray.

This is undoubtedly a new transfer. It is also undoubtedly digitally processed. There is virtually no visible grain and the image is almost as smooth as CGI. That said, the image is also quite sharp without any visible edge enhancement and exhibits excellent fine detail for the most part. This transfer certainly does not look like "film", but neither is it what I would call a "botched" transfer. I would speculate this is exactly what its creators intended it to be, very smooth and clean yet still retaining all the sharpness and detail one would expect from a Blu-ray movie. Further, from the perspective of digital processing, I would say this is quite remarkable that a film image can be degrained to this extent and still have good detail. Kind of amazing in this regard.

Obviously, those that consider any film image to HAVE to have a very visible haze of grain over it (not always the case, BTW) will call this all the usual words like, "abomination", "unwatchable", etc., etc.

I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves, but I would recommend looking at a moving image rather than a handful of still frames before deciding how "unwatchable" this is.

[ClaytonMG]

Whew! Saved me some money after seeing the screenshots. I wasn't sure if it would look worse or not, but I'd say this is a step backwards from the previous release. Sure a brighter, more vibrant image would look nice, but not at the cost of things looking artificially enhanced. I wouldn't say this is a total disaster from the screen shots, but just not something I'd pay $20 for.

[DrNegative]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The original release has a more film like appearance and its grain intact. If you want to see it like it does on a 35mm print, buy the original blu-ray release.

Thanks Suntory. That is all I wanted to know.

[bleauboy]

You guys keep saying Arnolds face is wax looking in that one shot. Well he look like that in other movies too, regardless the transfer. Anybody see terminator, He looked kind of waxy in that. As a matter of fact a lot of people in movies look waxy. Maybe it is from makeup you know, I mean actors ware makeup and shit.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

You guys keep saying Arnolds face is wax looking in that one shot. Well he look like that in other movies too, regardless the transfer. Anybody see terminator, He looked kind of waxy in that. As a matter of fact a lot of people in movies look waxy. Maybe it is from makeup you know, I mean actors ware makeup and shit.

Except he doesn't look waxy in the original release where the grain structure is in tact...even with the makeup and shit.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

You guys keep saying Arnolds face is wax looking in that one shot. Well he look like that in other movies too, regardless the transfer. Anybody see terminator, He looked kind of waxy in that. As a matter of fact a lot of people in movies look waxy. Maybe it is from makeup you know, I mean actors ware makeup and shit.

Yeah, pretty waxy

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Yeah, pretty waxy

Yeah thats like a closeup so I would expect to wrinkles and pores. Plus he is older, with more wrinkles. That one shot of Arnold I agree his face is shiny, I wouldn't say waxy. Probably mostly do to lighting. The grain covered it up before.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

I'm trying to see if it's possible that the higher encode and the higher bitrate managed to get extra fine details that weren't captured in the original mpeg-2 low bit rate encode. Yes, DNR was applied, but why am I seeing extra things that I can't see on the original? Especially when you consider how much DNR was applied to this release, the extra detail should have been wiped out. I'm trying to get a good understanding for it but I doubt we are going to get anywhere completely based on speculation. Maybe we will get more information on how they did this.

It's just artificially sharpened. I'm a photographer and you can do this with any image. The same detail is there, but digital sharpening beings out the edges (edge enhancement). If it was a new transfer, we'd see a more substantial improvement in detail.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

Yeah thats like a closeup so I would expect to wrinkles and pores. Plus he is older, with more wrinkles. That one shot of Arnold I agree his face is shiny, I wouldn't say waxy. Probably mostly do to lighting. The grain covered it up before.

Eh, no. That's just loss of detail. Grain isn't a layer put on top of the picture, so it doesn't "cover up" anything. Plus, if you're standing behind your makeup argument, the makeup would stand out like a sore thumb in that screen cap, if there was indeed the same amount needed to cause the wax look seen in Predator.

Also, is he wearing a skin-tight red garbage bag? Cuz I've never seen cotton look like that.

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's just artificially sharpened. I'm a photographer and you can do this with any image. The same detail is there, but digital sharpening beings out the edges (edge enhancement). If it was a new transfer, we'd see a more substantial improvement in detail.

Doesn't edge enhancement create halos and stuff? Or is there a different thing?