Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Beast]

Originally Posted by HE1NZ

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

Horrible transfer.

Thanks for the link. I'm sold. It doesn't look nearly as bad as I expected from all the complaining.

That and the other pic a few pages later comparing the new and old still still look better than the original.

And yes, I am well aware the original film didn't look like this. But in this case, I think I prefer this version.

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You're right they don't, but we do and that's what matters since the hardcore collectors make up the bulk of the studios' optical disc revenue.

Are you saying people like us are the majority of sales. I would say the opposite.
We are 10-20% of the market and the non hardcore enthusiast are 90-80%.

[pchin]

Good thinng I managed to sell off my existing original copy. Now I'll wait for this new Predator edition.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The new release is being advertised as having been "remastered." Applying DNR and scrubbing the image of detail is not a remaster...

Really? I think you should ask some of the people that do this kind of work for a living. You will find that noise reduction, de-graining, dustbusting, scratch removal, gamma correction, color correction, and any number of other processes are all part of the digital toolbox used on a daily basis by every post house doing work for any of the major studios. The simple fact is that film in its raw form is almost never suitable for high definition video mastering without some form of digital manipulation. The problem, when there is one, is not the use of these tools but the misuse. BTW, the people twiddling the knobs are rarely the people making the decisions about how something will look. They can offer suggestions, but it is ultimately the client that makes these decisions.

If the new issue of Predator looks a certain way, it is virtually a certainty that someone in the technical division of Fox Home Video, or even quite possibly the filmmaker or someone associated with the production of the film, has made the decisions that have led to this transfer looking the way it does.

[Spike Killer]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You're right they don't, but we do and that's what matters since the hardcore collectors make up the bulk of the studios' optical disc revenue.

How can you agree with my statement that most conusmers (people who purchase optical discs in this case) don't care about DNR and other technical jargon, but counter that with an argument that the hardcore collectors make up a bulk of the revenue?

I would agree with you that hardcore collectors do make up the vast majority of the studios profit and not revenue. Blu-rays are over-priced IMO. $24.99 - 29.99 for a single movie set is madness. Not only that - but the studios must have hit a goldmine when it started spending a few cents more on packaging and charging $10 - 20 more for the same disc.

$10 - $15 dollars seems like a good price for a single disc.

[bleauboy]

The daytime scenes appear to be brighter on the new release and the night shots look darker. I know its hard to tell with out comparison, but i don't remember it being that dark. I think I will pre-order this next week. I will keep my older blu just in case I don't like the new one.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Robert George

The simple fact is that film in its raw form is almost never suitable for high definition video mastering without some form of digital manipulation.

Huh? not sure where you'd get that idea Digital manipulation can be used to enhance the image in some way but it's hardly necessary.
I think when a studio advertises something as an "all-new restoration", real improvement is a reasonable expectation. No new scan was done here, or if it was, there was no point to doing it the way they did since it's yielded a negligible difference.

[singhcr]

I know Criterion does use DNR from their release inserts but it is very, very judiciously applied. So either you know what you are doing or you err on the side of caution and not use it at all. Here's an interview with Bret Wood who did the restoration for Buster Keaton's The General on BD, which looks amazing IMHO.

http://www.doblu.com/2009/12/19/inte...al-on-blu-ray/

What specific challenges did this movie present when transferring it to Blu-ray?

Preparing silent films for Blu-ray is proving to be a daunting challenge. Even when we are able to locate the best surviving film elements of a particular title, these elements have considerably more grain and printed-in wear than one finds in a studio-preserved negative that is, say, twenty years old.
When a film is mastered in HD, the image is sharper than it has previously been, but as a consequence the film grain becomes more pronounced. When we first transferred The General, a minimal amount of digital grain reduction was applied and it is this version that was released on DVD. Upon close inspection of the Blu-ray test discs, we found that even that small amount of digital noise reduction had created visual artifacting, a slight blurring and ghosting of the image. We brought the film element back to the lab (Crawford Communications) and re-transferred it specifically for Blu-ray, without DRS or any artificial grain reduction. So the film was remastered specifically for the Blu-ray release.

It is Kino’s new policy that films should be released on Blu-ray without digital noise reduction, so that what the viewer gets is an accurate representation of what the 35mm film looks like, grain and all. Hopefully a system will be developed that clarifies the image without reducing the sharpness or creating visual artifacts, but so far we haven’t seen it.

The DVNR technology of the DVD era is not subtle enough for the 1080 requirements of the Blu-ray age. In fact, when I look back at some silent films that were released on DVD, heavily treated with digital noise reduction, I cringe. I now recognize the degree to which the film’s natural grain and sharpness have been glossed over for the sake of a smooth image. I worry that this has spoiled the consumer, who will now expect every film to look this way when the actual film never looked that way to begin with!

So the big question that is yet to be answered is whether or not Blu-ray users will be satisfied with an HD copy of a film that is not pristine, but looks like an 80-year-old film actually looks.

So when you are scanning in a film for a catalog release, it is best to not use DNR at all or use it very sparingly without disturbing the grain structure and detail of the image. If you have access to a DI (digital intermediate) that the studio used for theatrical release, you just have to downgrade the resolution to 1080p and leave it alone!

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I think the studios and BD player manufacturers should be touting the DNR controls available on a person's TV or BD player as a way to watch movies with the "crystal clear HD look", rather than ruining the movies for everyone.

A rousing Hear! Hear!

Although most people are too uninformed or lazy to even know how to adjust DNR, EE, etc. on their HDTV's. They just turn on the TV, put in a BD, set the TV to Vivid, and watch the movie.

p.s. - present company here excluded, of course

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Really? I think you should ask some of the people that do this kind of work for a living. You will find that noise reduction, de-graining, dustbusting, scratch removal, gamma correction, color correction, and any number of other processes are all part of the digital toolbox used on a daily basis by every post house doing work for any of the major studios. The simple fact is that film in its raw form is almost never suitable for high definition video mastering without some form of digital manipulation. The problem, when there is one, is not the use of these tools but the misuse. BTW, the people twiddling the knobs are rarely the people making the decisions about how something will look. They can offer suggestions, but it is ultimately the client that makes these decisions.

If the new issue of Predator looks a certain way, it is virtually a certainty that someone in the technical division of Fox Home Video, or even quite possibly the filmmaker or someone associated with the production of the film, has made the decisions that have led to this transfer looking the way it does.

Uh...really? And who in the industry have you asked? Because we're not talking about scratch removal or gamma correction or color correction or any of the things that I do on a daily basis.

This new release, and the decision to apply a ridiculous amount of DNR to smear the grain structure that was present within the original film negative because of the way it was shot, was made by the studio alone without the supervision of the director or cinematographer. Prove me wrong.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Predator was the First DVD I ever bought. I hope this new release looks good enough to buy. I've been holding out for it.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Uh...really? And who in the industry have you asked? Because we're not talking about scratch removal or gamma correction or color correction or any of the things that I do on a daily basis.

This new release, and the decision to apply a ridiculous amount of DNR to smear the grain structure that was present within the original film negative because of the way it was shot, was made by the studio alone without the supervision of the director or cinematographer. Prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong? You didn't disagree with what I posted.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The new release is being advertised as having been "remastered." Applying DNR and scrubbing the image of detail is not a remaster.

Originally Posted by Robert George

Really? I think you should ask some of the people that do this kind of work for a living.

Sounds like we disagree.

Originally Posted by Robert George

You will find that noise reduction, de-graining, dustbusting, scratch removal, gamma correction, color correction, and any number of other processes are all part of the digital toolbox used on a daily basis by every post house doing work for any of the major studios.

If that's your definition of a "remaster" then I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Robert George

If the new issue of Predator looks a certain way, it is virtually a certainty that...the filmmaker or someone associated with the production of the film, has made the decisions that have led to this transfer looking the way it does.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

the decision to apply a ridiculous amount of DNR...was made by the studio alone without the supervision of the director or cinematographer.

Now maybe I'm not reading what you wrote right, or you didn't write what you meant, but it sounds like I disagree with what you posted.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You're right they don't, but we do and that's what matters since the hardcore collectors make up the bulk of the studios' optical disc revenue.

Actually no. We are the early adopters which are a small part of their revenue.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

Talked to the guy who has this said it was the best he has seen it. Still it is personal preference. He even posted some screen caps of the predator. there is no comparisons though.
http://img25.imageshack.us/f/p11ed.jpg/
http://img25.imageshack.us/f/p12f.jpg/
http://img810.imageshack.us/f/p13c.jpg/
http://img59.imageshack.us/f/p14b.jpg/
http://img819.imageshack.us/i/p15.jpg/
http://img52.imageshack.us/f/p16n.jpg/

Sold.

[QuasidodoJr]

I personally don't care for the overly "digital" look this new transfer appears to have, so far. I keep leaning more and more towards just holding onto my current BD. I'll still wait for a final word from some of the review sites I follow, however.

[ln32b530]

Originally Posted by Nick666

...I dont see no detail loss.

I see loss of details...



...and a lot of wax.

[bleauboy]

I think I may prefer the new version more, since I don't like heavy grain. The new one seems to have a lot of detail intact, and looks slightly more detailed.

[bogo5]

when looking at the thumbnail the Left looks better, but up close it looks fake, like wax figure. almost looks like video game graphics.

[Daredevil666]

OK got a test disc this morning (I'm reviewing it for my sampler magazine) -- first impressions, there is grain, only it will obviously be invisible if you watch a downloaded, recompressed bootleg, that's certain.

I don't think there's a race between the two versions, this one looks way better -- I compared and it looks like it's the same old HD master, re-encoded, DNRed a bit, with some scratch and dust removal on top. I can now make out, without the mosquito noise, that all close ups on Carl Weathers use slight diffusion on the opening briefing scene -- the DNR do look unsettling in that shot posted above, but it's only one shot, and I assume they applied the same amount of DNR on all the scene, that one just look bizarre because it was probably shot softer -- there's not a lot more detail on the original in that shot, (in fact I think there's less). The grain probably helped to hide the imperfections.

The rest of the film looks natural with just a slight amount of fine grain in it.
Overall it's at first disorienting to watch a so clean copy of the film after having seen it countless times over a wall of grain and mosquito noise, but you quickly get used to it. The film look shining brand new. The DTS HD tracks sounds good.

These are just quick impressions. I will watch it complete tonight.