Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Q?]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Unless it's reviewed by the same person, it won't mean much.

I would suspect that reviewers are more educated today also.

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Unless it's reviewed by the same person, it won't mean much.

I'm pretty sure whoever does the review will have a paragraph comparing the original video quality to this new release.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by Q!

I would suspect that reviewers are more educated today also.

Yea the old version would realy get just a 2.0 rating today.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Yea the old version would realy get just a 2.0 rating today.

You need to research the phrase "Director's intent" and then the term DNR.

[Spike Killer]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You need to research the phrase "Director's intent" and then the term DNR.

Oh please, I'm not certain you understand why DNR is applied. I believe I understand why DNR is used but I want to know what you think.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Spike Killer

Oh please, I'm not certain you understand why DNR is applied. I believe I understand why DNR is used but I want to know what you think.

DNR was not used in the theatrical release of the film, the film is one with alot of grain. Hence the blu ray should have alot of grain, and not a grain free wax feast that this new release appears to be.

[Arkadin]

well the screenshot comparison I have looked at is kind of strange because the "new" version shows more detail for sure; so that's not really consistent with the type of releases where the dnr takes away detail and gives the release a smeary look.
they obviously used a new master for this new version, and it definitely looks grain scrubbed to some extent when compared to the old release, but maybe what looked like grain on the old release was actually a bunch of noise because why would the new release have so much better detail?
it's confusing to me.
imo they may have done a lot of things right, but went a little too far with the final look.
this exact thing has happened on a few other releases.
the bottom line is that imo it is not as clear cut on this new release that they just "added a bunch of dnr" because that doesn't seem wholly consistent with the improved detail of the image.
I don't know enough about all the digital manipulation tools they have at their disposal, but from what I have see this new release is not "horrible" or "terrible" by any means especially from the point of view of improved clarity.
I just think they didn't get quite the final result they were looking for.
I'll have to do my own comparisons with the original release when this comes out.
no doubt in my mind though that may people will be thrilled with how this new release looks overall.

[42041]

it doesn't have "much better detail", why do people keep saying this
keep in mind that the original release is sub-20mbps MPEG2 trying to compress pretty strong grain, so some detail will be washed away in the compression mush.

[beanham22]

Originally Posted by 42041

it doesn't have "much better detail", why do people keep saying this

Well it certainly isnt worse, well I imagine the entire breifing scene is worse but every other screen shot looks either better, or the same w/o grain.

[Arkadin]

it certainly shows improved clarity to me.
take a look a the shot of Arnold's face--
his beard is so much more obscured in the previous release compared with the clarity of the new release.
I don't see how anyone could say you can't see the stubble on his chin better in the new version.
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...2745/picture:1
to me what has happened is the new master resulted in improved clarity and then they grain scrubbed it a bit.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by 42041

it doesn't have "much better detail", why do people keep saying this

Because except for a couple of very brief shots in the opening sequence, it's true. And I have compared actual motion video, not just screen caps. Detail and color delineations that are virtually lost in either crushed blacks or excessive compression noise on the previous Blu-ray are sharp and clear in this new transfer.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

it certainly shows improved clarity to me.
take a look a the shot of Arnold's face--
his beard is so much more obscured in the previous release compared with the clarity of the new release.
I don't see how anyone could say you can't see the stubble on his chin better in the new version.
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/...2745/picture:1
to me what has happened is the new master resulted in improved clarity and then they grain scrubbed it a bit.

there's a critical difference between being able to see the detail better, and more detail. First, that area is brighter in the new disc. And where screenshots fail to represent the disc is that the grain is random each frame, but the detail isn't, so your eye easily picks up on it in motion. For example, the wrinkles around Arnold's eyes are obscured in the screenshot, but viewing the original, they're very much there. So yes, you can see his stubble better in that comparison, but the difference in resolution is, at best, marginal.

This, to me, is "much better detail": http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post18428828

[Bishop_99]

After so many screenshots, there shouldn't be any question about detail presentation. The high encode and bitrate of the new release was able to represent the details available while the old mpeg-2 lost some fine detail and has macro blocking issues. They applied a HEAVY amount of DNR as it is plainly visible in that Arnold pic, yet the DNR heavy version didn't loose any details and it actually reveals more. In my opinion, this is a case where the studios applied heavy DNR and they didn't scrub fine detail. This was most likely do to the fact that the new release has a much higher bitrate and the AVC encode.

The only arguement that should be made here is that if you prefer to see grain or not, but saying that the new version loses detail because of the DNR doesn't seem to be a valid arguement with these screenshots, even with that Arnold pic.

I already have the mpeg-2 version so I don't have much need to buy another version of Predator for a long time.

[Plisskenetic]

Sorry buddy... picking Saving Private Ryan is a bit of a cheat considering that movie is far more recent, you might as well have compared it to a grainy shot from Transformers or something... Are you saying you expect the Predator remaster to look like that? Not even Blade Runner Final Cut's image is 'that' razor sharp. You best be comparing an 80s flick with another 80s flick since film stock had vastly improved by mid-nineties. Another movie btw that's bound to be stuffed with murky grain is 'Aliens'.... I think Predator used pretty much the same film stock.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Plisskenetic

Sorry buddy... picking Saving Private Ryan is a bit of a cheat considering that movie is far more recent, you might as well have compared it to a grainy shot from Transformers or something... Are you saying you expect the Predator remaster to look like that? Not even Blade Runner Final Cut's image is 'that' razor sharp. You best be comparing an 80s flick with another 80s flick since film stock had vastly improved by mid-nineties. Another movie btw that's bound to be stuffed with murky grain is 'Aliens'.... I think Predator used pretty much the same film stock.

I'm illustrating my idea of "much better detail", not saying anything about how Predator should look.

[Canada]

I don't know why but I don't care about Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition I don't consider it a seminal 80's movie.

Seminal 80's Films

Platoon
Born on the Fourth of July
Top Gun ( I know it's cheesy and not great, but it left a huge mark on the 80's)
Raging Bull ( always thought that should be a name of a political movie)
Terminator
Aliens

[Daredevil666]

Many interesting comments here, makes me think of Ridley Scott comments about grain needed to be put back in Blade Runner because the transfert was so crisp and clean.

Maybe they used a different source that was grain free, and they cleaned it up a bit with DNR, rather than trying to give it more texture back by putting in there artifical grain.

Just not to be confused by the comments from people who only have seen the caps and not the actual disc, the cap of Arnie looking plastic in the briefing scene is the only shot in the movie that looks that way. All the rest looks natural to me, thought just a slight bit to clean. I love grain, but I cannot watch the old disc anymore after seeing how good this new disc looks, warts and all. As I said, Predator as finally a new shine. I wouldn't trade that one with the mpeg2 version. It makes me want to watch the film again and again.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by Canada

I don't know why but I don't care about Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition I don't consider it a seminal 80's movie.

Seminal 80's Films

Platoon
Born on the Fourth of July
Top Gun ( I know it's cheesy and not great, but it left a huge mark on the 80's)
Raging Bull ( always thought that should be a name of a political movie)
Terminator
Aliens

not including Predator in that list is a crime against mankind

[Stu123]

New version looks so artificial though.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by stubiedoo

New version looks so artificial though.

Only in like one shot.