Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

I got a question for you guys, How do you know that dnr was applied to the movie? Isn't it possible to remove grain without using dnr?

By definition, removing grain via digital means is a form of digital noise reduction. The only alternative I suppose would be ANALOG noise reduction, which would have the studio altering the photochemical film to reduce the appearance of grain somehow, and then scanning that result into the digital domain - but somehow I doubt this is what occurred.... And even if, by some miracle, it WAS how they did it - the result is the same.

The only way to create a less noisy master of a film without some form of noise reduction is to somehow obtain a cleaner original source. There is a limit to this of course - the film was shot in 1987, and whatever the untouched film from that shoot looked like is the limit to how noise-free you can get without using noise reduction. So a less noisy Blu-ray doesn't automatically mean DNR. However, Predator simply could not have originally looked the way it is presented on this Blu-ray - no way, no how. I don't want to be one of those "I remember how such-and-such old film looked" types, but I do have a general understanding of the look of 80's film stock, and I also know that Arnold never wore a red metal shirt and a spray-on 5-o'clock shadow.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

I got a question for you guys, How do you know that dnr was applied to the movie? Isn't it possible to remove grain without using dnr?

The basis of a photographic film image is made up of grain. The grain literally MAKES the image. Take away grain, you take away detail/image. Plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason to remove portions of the image.

When you see a film in the theater there is grain, but people don't seem to complain about that. They don't use DNR on theatrical prints, and film has a higher resolution than digital, so why use it on blu-ray?

[Arkadin]

well dnr is certainly being used in films that are being digitally projected.
there's been a big debate regarding this issue for some time.
the bottom line is that the whole notion of watching a "film" in a theater has slowly been changed so much that it really isn't even the same thing anymore.
all the IMAX processes add dnr to the image from what I have read.
the whole notion of "watching actual film" barely even exists anymore.
and that's just the sad reality of the movie business in 2010.
I'm not trying to say that digital projection can't look great, but it's really becoming pointless to talk about "film" anymore as far as grain, etc. etc.
dnr is a part of EVERYTHING nowadays.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

well dnr is certainly being used in films that are being digitally projected.
there's been a big debate going on for some time.
the bottom line is that the whole notion of watching a "film" in a theater has slowly been completely changed so that it really isn't even the same thing anymore.
all the IMAX processes add dnr to the image from what I have read.

Many modern movies use DNR, yes - that is an artistic decision by the director / crew, and it is baked into the master before the film is distributed. It is part of the film, for better or worse (depending on your personal preferences), and any future release of the film should look similarly.

This, however, has nothing to do with a film being digitally projected. Digital theaters project movies from the digital copies they are sent - the digital projection looks like whatever the digital copy the studio sends looks like. And that digital copy should look exactly how it's supposed to, whether DNR has been used or not. It is perfectly possible to create a version of a film for digital projection purpose that retains film grain.

IMAX is a different beast. When normal resolution films (those intended for standard theaters) are projected in IMAX theaters, they undergo a "blow up" process (basically up-rezzed to IMAX resolutions, if I remember correctly). Yes, in this process a form of DNR is used. However, this is not the native form of the film. To see an un-DNRed version, simply go to a normal movie theater.

Movies shot with IMAX cameras are natively in IMAX resolutions, so no DNR or uprez process is necessary. The only movies for which the issue is less clearcut are those with some scenes in 35 mm and some in IMAX - only the 35 mm scenes are uprezzed, and you end up with an inconsistent look. I personally believe a proper Blu-ray of such a film would use a scan of the original 35 mm film elements (as shown in normal theaters) for such scenes and a scan of the IMAX film for those scenes - basically the best of both worlds. But that's certainly an open issue at this time.

[Arkadin]

yeah that's what I was referring to--
the digital files all contain dnr these days.
as far as the IMAX processes, I was referring to the IMAX-lite stuff--
not the "real" IMAX.
(I shouldn't have used the phrase "all processes");
that was my mistake.
good info!

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

yeah that's what I was referring to--
the digital files all contain dnr these days.
as far as the IMAX processes, I was referring to the IMAX-lite stuff--
not the "real" IMAX.

Well DNR (when it is purposefully used in the original creation of a film) is normally used to hide signs of age in actors/actresses that request it, and as a blending agent (to blend CGI and real life, and to blend scenes shot with various types of film or digital equipment). Plenty of modern films still have plenty of grain, so it's not like all the modern directors are using DNR in the manner studios are using it on catalogue titles.

[Arkadin]

yeah good point;
Certainly some directors continue to use a "grainy" look for artistic reasons, but I still feel that the traditional look of what one thinks about as far as "film" is almost extinct now.

[42041]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

I got a question for you guys, How do you know that dnr was applied to the movie? Isn't it possible to remove grain without using dnr?

Other than blurring the image, not really. The film scanner itself can affect the visibility of grain/scratches/dust/etc depending on how its light source illuminates the film, but I assume movie-industry-grade film scanners are engineered to minimize it.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

as far as the IMAX processes, I was referring to the IMAX-lite stuff--
not the "real" IMAX.

Just to kind of piggyback on this, this is why The Dark Knight Blu-ray looks kind of crappy in the non-IMAX scenes. The Blu-ray uses the IMAX master, which was tweaked with DNR and EE so that it didn't look bad on the huge screen. It worked in that context, but on the small screen it's another story. Just a bit of random info, in case ya didn't know

[Arkadin]

exactly.
and I don't think a lot of people realize that that is the reason why the bd looked as it did.

[42041]

As far as I know that's just speculation rather than confirmed fact, the IMAX DMR process is proprietary.

[BStecke]

There was an article about it when the disc first came out that explained the process and what exactly went into the IMAX version of the film.

Of course now I can't find it.

[Inspector Toschi]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

I got a question for you guys, How do you know that dnr was applied to the movie? Isn't it possible to remove grain without using dnr?

It's not the lack of grain that people are complaining about. It's how they removed it that is the problem. Had they done a real restoration of the film there could be a lot less grain then the first BD had, and no noise. And it would still retain all it's detail and not look like a wax museum. Heck, had they just re-encoded the first BD, it would look a lot less noisy. Grain is supposed to be there. I understand excessive amounts of it can get annoying for some. But digitally scrubbing it away is not the way to do it.

We know DNR was used because we can see plain as day the after effects of it, at least in the numerous screenshots that everyone has posted. Honestly, anyone who knows anything about film can tell DNR was applied. If not DNR, then what did they do to the print? Rotoscope it with wax?

I really hope this BD turns out to be great. But all the screenshots are saying other wise. Nobody is against anyone buying it and enjoying it. But 90% of those screenshots DO NOT look like the original film at all. The excuses for it are almost mind boggling too. I always wondered how a gorgeous 70mm film like Patton (Also released by Fox) could get so royally f'd up with DNR. Now I know why; A bunch of people simply lack knowledge in the subject.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

I really hope this BD turns out to be great. But all the screenshots are saying other wise. Nobody is against anyone buying it and enjoying it. But 90% of those screenshots DO NOT look like the original film at all. The excuses for it are almost mind boggling too. I always wondered how a gorgeous 70mm film like Patton (Also released by Fox) could get so royally f'd up with DNR. Now I know why; A bunch of people simply lack knowledge in the subject.

The bluray.com review of Patton has nothing but praise for the video quality and makes zero mention of the digital noise reduction used on that print, so its a little hard to take you seriously when you describe it as "royally f'd up". You say 90% of the Predator: Ultimate Hunter screenshots show it to be a travesty; I say 90% if the screenshots show it to be an improvement. Yes, the overuse of digital noise reduction is a shame, but this is likely the last Predator release we'll ever see on physical media so it's not like they'll release a "new and improved now with more grain!" version anytime soon.

[FT-86]

I say hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

The bluray.com review of Patton has nothing but praise for the video quality and makes zero mention of the digital noise reduction used on that print, so its a little hard to take you seriously when you describe it as "royally f'd up". You say 90% of the Predator: Ultimate Hunter screenshots show it to be a travesty; I say 90% if the screenshots show it to be an improvement. Yes, the overuse of digital noise reduction is a shame, but this is likely the last Predator release we'll ever see on physical media so it's not like they'll release a "new and improved now with more grain!" version anytime soon.

Patton was altered by DNR. FACT. Regardless of what you like better, what I like better, or what the Blu-ray.com reviewer likes better, Patton on Blu-ray simply does not look like it originally did. This isn't a matter of opinion - it's really quite black and white.

Predator now also appears to have been DNRed - I only say "appears" because I have not personally seen the disc, and don't want to jump to conclusions based on screenshots. But if the screenshots currently online are indeed indicative of what the disc looks like, then it will also be indisputable that Predator had a degree of DNR applied to it. You can like the new version better - but that does not mean it is more faithful to the source.

Even if there are a few instances of better detail (I've yet to see one, but I entertain the possibility), all that means is that the new Predator had the POTENTIAL to be great (whether by means of a new scan or just by virtue of better AVC encoding). DNR does not create detail, so any added detail you see is IN SPITE OF the DNR. If I did see screens with added detail, that would just make me sad as it would mean Fox snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. As it stands, if the disc is indeed as screenshots indicate, I'll be sticking with the original release. I'd personally rather have a BD that looked natural than one that looked waxy and unnatural, regardless of the encode itself being slightly better. If you prefer the new look, then hey, enjoy! Just don't try to tell me that it's more correct, because it's not.

[Inspector Toschi]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

The bluray.com review of Patton has nothing but praise for the video quality and makes zero mention of the digital noise reduction used on that print, so its a little hard to take you seriously when you describe it as "royally f'd up"

Oh please, don't be a sheep. Just look at it for yourself: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...303&highlight= and try to honestly tell me there's no DNR.

A reviewer is just like you or I. Some know what they're talking about, and some don't. I've owned the BD since it's release, I've watched it 3 times. Yes, it's better then all the DVDs and home video incarnations I've seen. It even looks pleasing to my complaining eye. But anyone with a shred of knowledge in the subject would know that 70mm film does not look like that. It's clear as day that DNR has been applied.

I'm amazed I'm having this conversation right now.

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

this is likely the last Predator release we'll ever see on physical media so it's not like they'll release a "new and improved now with more grain!" version anytime soon.

More grain? I think you mean "more detail". Sorry, when every other studio (Minus Universal) is able to release near flawless prints of their older films, I don't see why Predator should be different. If the studio wants me to spend money on their product, especially when it's a double dip, I expect a level of quality. Fox is not showing that quality. I bought the Running Man for 7.50. It's a budget title for Walmart bins. And yet, somehow it managed to have a splendid film-like image that wonderfully represented it's original print without digital manipulation.

By settling for less, you're saying it's okay for studios to grab whatever old print they have and filter it with DNR. People aren't complaining for nothing.

[dspin]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

...and how does it look in motion?

Commenting on 3rd party screen shots without seeing it for yourself is ridiculous.

I agree, one must view it for themselves. I will have it day one, but will not post a review. Seems most people have already made up their minds, no matter what anyone else says. I will say, it will be a matter of perspective. Everyone views things differently

[Stu123]

the highdefdigest review of predator 2 will probably be similar to the review of the new predator transfer as it says

The problem is that Digital Noise Reduction has obviously been applied, which sometimes leaves surfaces and facial features a little artificially smooth. Most of the film grain in bright scenes has been wiped away, even where it would be appropriate. When grain does appear, such as in dark scenes, it looks too noisy and freezes in place unnaturally. This isn't the worst application of DNR I've seen on Blu-ray, but the movie has lost some of its film-like textures.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Patton was altered by DNR. FACT. Regardless of what you like better, what I like better, or what the Blu-ray.com reviewer likes better, Patton on Blu-ray simply does not look like it originally did. This isn't a matter of opinion - it's really quite black and white.

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

Oh please, don't be a sheep. Just look at it for yourself: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...303&highlight= and try to honestly tell me there's no DNR.

A reviewer is just like you or I. Some know what they're talking about, and some don't. I've owned the BD since it's release, I've watched it 3 times. Yes, it's better then all the DVDs and home video incarnations I've seen. It even looks pleasing to my complaining eye. But anyone with a shred of knowledge in the subject would know that 70mm film does not look like that. It's clear as day that DNR has been applied.

I'm amazed I'm having this conversation right now.

Guys, I wasn't trying to suggest that Patton didn't have DNR applied — it obviously does. My point was that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

By settling for less, you're saying it's okay for studios to grab whatever old print they have and filter it with DNR. People aren't complaining for nothing.

This is by no means my ideal Predator release; the film could have used a little DNR (it was an excessively dirty film) but they should have applied at least half of what they did. Between the only two Blu-Ray's we'll probably see come to market though, I think the pros of this disc outweigh the cons.