Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Arkadin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

That's the image you want to use? I've seen mannequins that are more lifelike than Arnold in the new transfer. Stubble isn't the only thing you should be able to see. Skin has texture, that texture should be visible.

trust me, I'm not thrilled by any means with what some studios seem to think makes the perfect bd, i.e. new master+ lots of dnr=perfect bd.
both releases have issues, and it's a shame.
but I certainly want to watch this new disc before I make a final determination as to what I think of it's overall quality.
it just seems clear that some studios are never going to embrace leaving in all the grain after they create a new master.
I agree it is totally wrong and very unfortunate.
Blue Underground has clearly proven quite well that you can leave all the grain in and get a gorgeous picture that is totally pleasing to look at with incredible detail left intact.
I have no idea why the major studios can't see this.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

And incredibly fake.

Because movies are real ...

Oh wait.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

This looks like something Lionsgate would have crapped out in 2006, not a 2010 release from 20th Century Fox.

If you want your movies to look like HDTV then watch HBO HD, leave the Blu's for us who want it to look like FILM (you know, that stuff the movies were shot and released on).

Again, that's only one shot the whole movie which happens to also look like crap on the original version. It's the worst looking part of the movie. Always has been...always will be.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Why would one person's opinion change minds?

SEE: Tombstone release thread.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Beast

Not everyone is going to consider it a "bad job". It's a manner of taste.

And people double dip all the time. And this release actually at least has the extras.

It's NOT a manner of taste though. There should be ONE way to transfer a film — and that's the way it was intended to look. They don't smooth out the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa because everyone likes how digital art looks.

And I'll wager the majority of average consumers don't double dip, especially on titles that looked fine to begin with. Cinephiles, sure... but the average Joe in this economy... nope.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's NOT a manner of taste though. There should be ONE way to transfer a film — and that's the way it was intended to look. They don't smooth out the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa because everyone likes how digital art looks.

And I'll wager the majority of average consumers don't double dip, especially on titles that looked fine to begin with. Cinephiles, sure... but the average Joe in this economy... nope.

+1

In a rational world, that statement alone would end the "debate".

[dcowboy7]

Then why do directors let tv pan n scan n crop movies & not do OAR.

Thats evidently ok.

Because they want their precious $$$.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Then why do directors let tv pan n scan n crop movies & not do OAR.

Because until just a few years back, almost all TVs were 4:3, meaning OAR movies had those "evil black bars" that the ignorant masses didn't like.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Because until just a few years back, almost all TVs were 4:3, meaning OAR movies had those "evil black bars" that the ignorant masses didn't like.

But they still do non OAR now on the HD channels.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's NOT a manner of taste though. There should be ONE way to transfer a film — and that's the way it was intended to look. They don't smooth out the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa because everyone likes how digital art looks.

And, we have a winnah!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's NOT a manner of taste though. There should be ONE way to transfer a film — and that's the way it was intended to look. They don't smooth out the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa because everyone likes how digital art looks.

And I'll wager the majority of average consumers don't double dip, especially on titles that looked fine to begin with. Cinephiles, sure... but the average Joe in this economy... nope.

Sorry, but it's still a matter of opinion and a manner of taste. But thank you for playing.

And funny that you bring up "Intent". So it's perfectly fine if the DNR the hell out of something if the Director intended it to look pristine, but got stuck with crappy film stock due to the film's budget. Or just getting stuck with it, because that's what was delivered. Righty-o. We should keep that in mind also now.

In the end it's still a matter of taste and manner of opinion. Just like everything in regard to art.

[BStecke]

But . . . adding DNR doesn't have the same look as if the film were shot to look "pristine." It looks quite the opposite of pristine in most cases. Whether you like it or not is a matter of opinion . . . the way it's supposed to look is not.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

From what i've read, Digital Noise Reduction in terms of Home Video was created for Digital Masters for DVD and TV, because the resolution of TV screens at the time could not resolve the grain information present within the film masters. DNR was applied to smooth out the image and remove information which could not be resolved at the then current resolutions.

1080P HDTVS and Blu-ray Tehcnology have sufficient resolution to resolve the grain present in the film masters and all the fine detail found at the same level as the grain structure of the film.



Consider yourself forewarned.

DNR is also used on many if not most films to smooth out grain between shots, it's justr used more effectively and taistfully (for example Casino Royale had some dnr use for both the blu ray and its theatrical release, but you would be hard picked to be able to tell where it was used). So it can be used as a tool and when it is it is :thumbsuip: However in casses such as Gladiator, Patton and Predator it's disguisting how they have used it.

[Home Th3atre]

Maybe they added fake grain on the previous release to please the "purists" but this release finally shows the movie the way it looked when I saw it at the theater in 1987.

[krazeyeyez]

I was so excited to get this new release, i should never have clicked on this thread. That screenshot a few pages back .... please tell me this is not gonna be a wax fest.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Beast

Sorry, but it's still a matter of opinion and a manner of taste. But thank you for playing.

And funny that you bring up "Intent". So it's perfectly fine if the DNR the hell out of something if the Director intended it to look pristine, but got stuck with crappy film stock due to the film's budget. Or just getting stuck with it, because that's what was delivered. Righty-o. We should keep that in mind also now.

In the end it's still a matter of taste and manner of opinion. Just like everything in regard to art.

Disagree. Again, they won't ever take the brush strokes out of the Mona Lisa, because that's the way it was made. Should be the same with movies, as all art. It's not "opinion" if it was shot one way, it's FACT. And the fact is, Predator was always grainy. When you ZOOM in shots to make closeups, you get even more grain and loss of clarity, because it's a blow-up. Scrubbing that grain out is simply not correct with how it looked. And that's also a FACT. Your opinion, as you say, is how you PREFER it. But until you make films yourself and have a say in your own art, it's up to the director. But armchair directors will never learn, I guess.

Thank YOU for playing though, to give you back your snide remark.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by retablo

Disagree. Again, they won't ever take the brush strokes out of the Mona Lisa, because that's the way it was made. Should be the same with movies, as all art. It's not "opinion" if it was shot one way, it's FACT. And the fact is, Predator was always grainy. When you ZOOM in shots to make closeups, you get even more grain and loss of clarity, because it's a blow-up. Scrubbing that grain out is simply not correct with how it looked. And that's also a FACT. Your opinion, as you say, is how you PREFER it. But until you make films yourself and have a say in your own art, it's up to the director. But armchair directors will never learn, I guess.

Thank YOU for playing though, to give you back your snide remark.

Awesome post.

[Snikt]

I really see this debate just going round and round and round. Can't we all just get along ?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Snikt

I really see this debate just going round and round and round. Can't we all just get along ?

The debate about grain is no different than the debate about colorizing black and white films. It will never end. People argue that the director's intent was to shoot the film in black and white so leave it in black and white. Then those who don't like to watch movies in black and white will argue that color film had been available at that time the director would have shot it in color and colorization is simply providing what the director would have done in the first place. Which is complete nonsense since color film has been around since the 20's and used for full length feature films since the 30's...and yet filmmakers continued to make movies in black and white more consistently than in color for another 20-25 years.

Filmmakers use grain the same way they do lighting - to create a mood and an atmosphere. Filmmakers also used grain to hide effects like wires and painted backdrops. Completely intentional. Just like when Hitchcock shot Psycho in black and white, or Scorsese shot Raging Bull, or Spielberg shot Schindler's List. These are all carefully planned, aesthetic choices.

If you prefer your movies colorized and DNR'd, fine. But the studios should at least offer both versions in every case.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Beast

Sorry, but it's still a matter of opinion and a manner of taste.

No it's not, because the choice is taken away from people who enjoy a natural presentation of films. If you hate grain, you have the option of getting a TV/player/video processor with a good denoising algorithm. I have no such option with degrained transfers.