Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Arnold have his face covered with vaseline in Terminator. Cameron made this in order to give him a plastic like look. Same in T2, and I suspect he had his face sightly oiled in most movies from this era. That made him look good, it was just a make up trick.

I agree. Thank you

There is a screen cap where his face is shiny and I said it could possibly be make up, because in some of his movies he has shiny skin also, and I got bashed for that reply and the guy said my explanation was lame. I am really starting to dislike the forum here because you cant really have a respectable debate, or even post a reply without being criticized. Most on here act like experts and never admit they are wrong. Basically some of the people on the forum are real as* holes.

[42041]

Some things really aren't worth debating. It's quite obvious that make-up has nothing to do with the look of that shot.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdre...y/HF7Y1074.jpg shiny, but still looks like human skin. (edit: argh, dvdbeaver direct links don't work)

Is that shot even confirmed to be from the blu-ray?

[bleauboy]

Yeah I admit he looks shiny, but in the other shots it doesn't look that bad. It looks shiny in the old one too, just not as bad.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

Well, I thought the DNR would have further diminished the detail from the original mpeg-2 encoding. So even with the EE, it would have been harder to see. Like with the first Lord Of The Rings, the HD Cable version had more details than the Blu-ray version because of the DNR. Unless the HD version was artificially sharpened to begin with.

Even if there was a new transfer, wouldn't the heavy amount of DNR that was applied counter attack the extra fine detail and ultimately there would only be a slight improvement in detail? There seems to be specs of dirt on this picture of the original Blu-ray and they are gone in the pic of the new version

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

Would that be digitally removed as well? I'm not familiar, that is why I ask.

The specs of dirt probably aren't gone, they are just blurred out of focus so much that you cant see them. That's a HEAVY amount of DNR to take an image that was originally that grainy and remove pretty much all the grain.

I can take an photographic image, heavily blur it, then heavily sharpen the edges to bring that detail back. I tried it earlier when i was reading the thread. Granted, when I do it to a low res photo still, the sharpening adds BACK digital artifacts. But again, I was only trying it on a very low res sample.

[md99]

Originally Posted by HE1NZ

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

Horrible transfer.

Christ that's bad. He looks as fake as he did in the infamous eye removal scene from The Terminator!

[Stu123]

Ive put these onto my ps3 to look at them properly in 1080 res on my HDTV and the new version is lighter but when it comes to detail its basically gone and its turned blurry.SCRUB THE GRAIN AND THE DETAIL GOES WITH IT im far from an expert but you'd think they'd know this at FOX

Original mpeg2

New version

[Rusty100]

Shit. Okay okay. My internet was/is capped before so I didn't load all of the pictures. Some of them do look pretty strange. But I think that it might look a lot better in motion.

Buying this anyway because I'm just so in love with predator. Hell I'd buy it for the cover alone and put the old disc in there. Screw y'all, money is money. Predator is Predator. Fox wants my cash? God damnit fine they can have it. But only for Predator.

Anyone got a pic of the Dutch/Dillon arm slap from the new one?

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by retablo

The specs of dirt probably aren't gone, they are just blurred out of focus so much that you cant see them. That's a HEAVY amount of DNR to take an image that was originally that grainy and remove pretty much all the grain.

I can take an photographic image, heavily blur it, then heavily sharpen the edges to bring that detail back. I tried it earlier when i was reading the thread. Granted, when I do it to a low res photo still, the sharpening adds BACK digital artifacts. But again, I was only trying it on a very low res sample.

Ok, lets say that was done here. They heavily DNR'd it to remove the dirt, scratches, grain and fine detail, then they added a lot of EE to make it seem sharper and bring back detail. Wouldn't that same EE that brought back the fine detail, also would have brought back the specs of dirt? I don't fully see how the EE would bring back or increase fine detail yet it will completely ignore the specs of dirt. Like you said, that was a heavy amount of DNR, so much so that it should have completely wiped out what fine detail the original one had. In my opinion.

The print damage is highlighted in red and the extra detail is highlighed in blue

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

But that wasn't my main focus though. I will have to see other key screenshots that I know contained these print damages to better determine that. What I was thinking was that maybe they got the original scan of the movie and encoded it with AVC at a higher bit rate. Maybe this higher encode was able to better capture fine detail that the lower bit mpeg-2 encode couldn't. Because there was way too much DNR applied to have any increase in detail if they got it straight from the mpeg-2 encode, applied DNR, EE and then encoded it in AVC. Also the disappearance of the dirt is suspect.

[aussiebalboa]

new one looks awesome. ive just pre-ordered it.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

I agree. Thank you

There is a screen cap where his face is shiny and I said it could possibly be make up, because in some of his movies he has shiny skin also, and I got bashed for that reply and the guy said my explanation was lame. I am really starting to dislike the forum here because you cant really have a respectable debate, or even post a reply without being criticized. Most on here act like experts and never admit they are wrong. Basically some of the people on the forum are real as* holes.

You may have missed my reply to your original "makeup" comment, but basically the problem with that theory is that he doesn't look like that (in that shot) in the original release which has the film grain intact. So, using logic, if he doesn't look "waxy" in any previous release (including DVD) then that shot is not a result of makeup, it's a result of the DNR applied. Plus the fact that makeup wouldn't suddenly effect the detail (or lack thereof) in his shirt.

[Daredevil666]

There's no question DNR was used, but the sightly "sweat" look of Arnie, especially during the briefing scene, was in the original as well as in the trailers.

- "You're looking good Dutch"
- "Waid dill U see me wid grain indacd Genairal"

I can't wait to see this one in motion to compare.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

There's no question DNR was used, but the sightly "sweat" look of Arnie, especially during the briefing scene, was in the original as well as in the trailers.

- "You're looking good Dutch"
- "Waid dill U see me wid grain indacd Genairal"

I can't wait to see this one in motion to compare.

No one who is referring to the "waxy" look is referring to his sweat. Come on now.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Buying this anyway because I'm just so in love with predator. Hell I'd buy it for the cover alone and put the old disc in there. Screw y'all, money is money. Predator is Predator. Fox wants my cash? God damnit fine they can have it. But only for Predator.

At least you admit it, without trying to say this release is something that it's not. Congrats.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

You may have missed my reply to your original "makeup" comment, but basically the problem with that theory is that he doesn't look like that (in that shot) in the original release which has the film grain intact. So, using logic, if he doesn't look "waxy" in any previous release (including DVD) then that shot is not a result of makeup, it's a result of the DNR applied. Plus the fact that makeup wouldn't suddenly effect the detail (or lack thereof) in his shirt.

Careful about presenting information. Apparently if you do, "your" a troll, and an "a**hole".

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Careful about presenting information. Apparently if you do, "your" a troll, and an "a**hole".

I noticed that.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

They heavily DNR'd it to remove the dirt, scratches, grain and fine detail, then they added a lot of EE to make it seem sharper and bring back detail.

The debris was probably removed with some automated scratch removal algorithm, not the DNR. I think in that shot the old MPEG2 encode just struggles to compress the detail in that frame cleanly. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's not there at 24fps.

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by 42041

The debris was probably removed with some automated scratch removal algorithm, not the DNR. I think in that shot the old MPEG2 encode just struggles to compress the detail in that frame cleanly. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's not there at 24fps.

I was not familiar with that, I thought they had to clean that up from the actual film they are getting the transfer from, I didn't know they could digitally remove it after they captured the film. How do they fill in the space though?


Just look at this pic of Gladiator posted at AVS. You can clearly see the DNR and EE on the Blu-ray, but you don't gain detail, it loses it. All it really is that it gives the impression that it's sharper yet when you look at it you see that fine detail is gone. On the HD Cable version, you clearly see more detail than the DNR and EE Blu-ray version. The EE didn't do anything to increase the details on the Blu-ray version. It is the opposite with this new release of Predator

HD Cable

[Show spoiler]

Blu-ray

[Show spoiler]

Now I can see what you are saying about the frame shot, but the problem is that I've seen this with all the screenshots comparing the old and new predator. If all the 24 frames in each second have the same problem because of the mpeg-2 encoding, I would think it will be the same when the movie is in full motion. But I guess we will need even more screenshots to compare.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by md99

Christ that's bad. He looks as fake as he did in the infamous eye removal scene from The Terminator!

That particular shot has to be the worse looking amount of DNR I've ever seen. He literally looks like he's CGI'd.

[D_M]

I just placed my preorder on Amazon for this. This was my first original blu-ray purchase years ago/ I'm very excited to hear/see the difference with the new edition.

[D_M]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

Ok, lets say that was done here. They heavily DNR'd it to remove the dirt, scratches, grain and fine detail, then they added a lot of EE to make it seem sharper and bring back detail. Wouldn't that same EE that brought back the fine detail, also would have brought back the specs of dirt? I don't fully see how the EE would bring back or increase fine detail yet it will completely ignore the specs of dirt. Like you said, that was a heavy amount of DNR, so much so that it should have completely wiped out what fine detail the original one had. In my opinion.

The print damage is highlighted in red and the extra detail is highlighed in blue

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

But that wasn't my main focus though. I will have to see other key screenshots that I know contained these print damages to better determine that. What I was thinking was that maybe they got the original scan of the movie and encoded it with AVC at a higher bit rate. Maybe this higher encode was able to better capture fine detail that the lower bit mpeg-2 encode couldn't. Because there was way too much DNR applied to have any increase in detail if they got it straight from the mpeg-2 encode, applied DNR, EE and then encoded it in AVC. Also the disappearance of the dirt is suspect.

Well I'm looking forward to the grain being removed. I am a grain hater.