Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

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.

Yes, I think both Predators are probably not "ideal," (pick your poison?) but I think it's possible this new version might be better at least to my eyes. Make no mistake, I not a fan of DNR (although I do realize most releases contains a bit of it, so if it's used therapeutically and properly, I'm okay with it I guess), however, I am going to keep an open mind until I actually get to see what this new Predator looks like in motion on my ISF'd 60" SXRD display.

I really think the original Predator has a tremendous amount of compression artifacting and macro-blocking which is giving the perception of real film grain at times. I've watched the original BD a couple of times and I think this is often the case. It's a bit similar to how many people thought they were seeing real film grain on 480i DVD when it was largely noise. Now, on the original Predator, some of it might also be real film grain that the low bit MPEG-2 just couldn't handle making the grain patterns look so blocky and digital.

In addition, I think the color timing, gamma, and contrast is notably superior on the new version and I am looking at the entire picture (literally).

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I really think the original Predator has a tremendous amount of compression artifacting and macro-blocking which is giving the perception of real film grain at times. I've watched the original BD a couple of times and I think this is often the case. It's a bit similar to how many people thought they were seeing real film grain on 480i DVD when it was largely noise. Now, on the original Predator, some of it might also be real film grain that the low bit MPEG-2 just couldn't handle making the grain patterns look so blocky and digital.

In addition, I think the color timing, gamma, and contrast is notably superior on the new version and I am looking at the entire picture (literally).

Agreed and agreed.

[Chrysagon]

Funny -- I was a blu ray newbee when I bought Patton. I thought it looked exceptionally good. Then I learned about the DNR applied and watched it again. I could see the DNR and while I wished it was not there and knew it was wrong to alter it as they did, I still thought the movie looked good on my 52 inch Sammy. It may be that smaller screens don't emphasize the problem as much as the large screens. I once read that the standard for editing blu-rays at the studio was with a relatively small screen, and if true, no wonder they DNR it and not notice how bad they look on larger screens.

Regarding Predator, I'll defer judgement until the reviews, although I pretty much know what to expect, as the BD community is usually right on for catching this type of problem.

I have to wonder if some of the studio BD editors are like the Hollywood women who get facelifts. They lose perspective and come to think that beautiful is a stretched face, and soon they look like freaks. Do studio guys have a warped perspective and actually think that a DNR'd waxy face looks good?

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by spa

Funny -- I was a blu ray newbee when I bought Patton.

I once read that the standard for editing blu-rays at the studio was with a relatively small screen, and if true, no wonder they DNR it and not notice how bad they look on larger screens.

I have to wonder if some of the studio BD editors are like the Hollywood women who get facelifts.

Still a newbee... Exactly, WTF is a BD editor?

Do you mean a video compressionist? Do you mean the video technician who is in charge of transferring the films? Do you mean the BD-J or HDMV author?

fitprod

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by spa

I once read that the standard for editing blu-rays at the studio was with a relatively small screen, and if true, no wonder they DNR it and not notice how bad they look on larger screens.

There's no way such a standard exists because movies aren't edited at the studio, nor are the blu-ray masters created at the studio. There are countless vendors and post-houses used for the actual editorial and creation of the content, and they all have their own setups.

[Chrysagon]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Still a newbee... Exactly, WTF is a BD editor?

Do you mean a video compressionist? Do you mean the video technician who is in charge of transferring the films? Do you mean the BD-J or HDMV author?

fitprod

I'm referring to the technicians who edit the master and decide how much DNR etc. to use for the BD. You focused on my lack of professional expertise and jargon when referring to the people who apply the DNR and missed the point of my post -- that some of these people may be losing perspective of what looks good or not.

[dcowboy7]

All i want to know is anyone think this will be <$17 anywhere release week ?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

All i want to know is anyone think this will be <$17 anywhere release week ?

I won't be buying it, but I'd be willing to guess it's going to be about $19.99 for a couple weeks and then it will drop to $15-17.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by spa

I'm referring to the technicians who edit the master and decide how much DNR etc. to use for the BD. You focused on my lack of professional expertise and jargon when referring to the people who apply the DNR and missed the point of my post -- that some of these people may be losing perspective of what looks good or not.

The term is "colorist", or telecine colorist. The colorist rarely makes the dcisions about how something is to look. They can make suggestions, or offer advice, but it is usually either the filmmaker, someone designated by the filmmaker (DP usually), or a video producer from the studio in the case of most older catalog remasters, that makes the decisions affecting how a transfer will look.

I can guarantee someone somewhere thinks/thought the process used on the Predator remaster is an improvement and made these decisions based on that.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Robert George

I can guarantee someone somewhere thinks/thought the process used on the Predator remaster is an improvement and made these decisions based on that.

That someone, whoever they are, needs to be drawn-and-quartered.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by retablo

When you see a film in the theater there is grain, but people don't seem to complain about that.

Guess thats why i never go to the movies....well along with the insane $$ for tix, food, soda.

[Inspector Toschi]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

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.

Since I don't want to stray anymore off topic, I'll let this be my last comment on Patton.

First. You may not have meant to, but you were definitely implying that there was no DNR on Patton. If you truly weren't, then you weren't. Not much more I can say on the topic.

Second. Whether it bugs a reviewer or not, isn't it their job to make the reader aware of these things? There are plenty of reviews where they mention the use of DNR and the amount used, and whether or not it detracted from their overall experience. For a professional reviewer to not even mention the use of DNR in a Patton review makes them completely unreliable IMO. It's lying by omission. A review shouldn't lie to it's reader.

[42041]

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"

Why do people keep invoking online reviews as some kind of absolute metric of blu-ray quality
The only difference between the official reviewers' opinions and anyone else's on this forum is that they're published on the front page.

[GunRanger]

Originally Posted by 42041

Why do people keep invoking online reviews as some kind of absolute metric of blu-ray quality
The only difference between the official reviewers' opinions and anyone else's on this forum is that they're published on the front page.

I only have Patton on dvd, but I looked at the caps on the front page of the blu ray, and they look great.

What is the problem exactly?

[Darkthrone]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I won't be buying it, but I'd be willing to guess it's going to be about $19.99 for a couple weeks and then it will drop to $15-17.

Yeah i bet amazon will drop the price down to $14.99 in a couple of weeks.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by 42041

Why do people keep invoking online reviews as some kind of absolute metric of blu-ray quality
The only difference between the official reviewers' opinions and anyone else's on this forum is that they're published on the front page.

Right. I don't see them hiring you and putting reviews on the front page.

Then again they don't publish reviews based solely on screenshots and 3rd hand opinions.

(FYI to other posters: there's a pretty good metric reviewers have to adhere to on this site)

[BStecke]

So you're saying the review of Patton is spot on, and it looks like it's supposed to, ie, DNR'd to death?

[jjbsn5192]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Guess thats why i never go to the movies....well along with the insane $$ for tix, food, soda.

33 dollars for a soda please and we want another dollar for the sticky floors

its ridiculous the prices now days

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

Since I don't want to stray anymore off topic, I'll let this be my last comment on Patton.

First. You may not have meant to, but you were definitely implying that there was no DNR on Patton. If you truly weren't, then you weren't. Not much more I can say on the topic.

I didn't mean to imply there was no DNR; I looked at the screenshots before responding to you and could tell it had DNR applied; then I read the review and found nothing but praise for the picture. I read your post to mean that it was a known fact Patton was a travesty of a transfer, and was surprised to find this site's review stating the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

Second. Whether it bugs a reviewer or not, isn't it their job to make the reader aware of these things? There are plenty of reviews where they mention the use of DNR and the amount used, and whether or not it detracted from their overall experience. For a professional reviewer to not even mention the use of DNR in a Patton review makes them completely unreliable IMO. It's lying by omission. A review shouldn't lie to it's reader.

Yes, they probably should have mentioned it. Perhaps they didn't realize at the time that DNR had been utilized. Or perhaps they felt it looked so good regardless, there was no need to cry wolf. I dunno.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

I read your post to mean that it was a known fact Patton was a travesty of a transfer, and was surprised to find this site's review stating the exact opposite.

"Travesty" is exactly the type of hyperbole that gets people labeled fanboys and the type of rhetoric studios ignore.

It's a terrific transfer marred by unnecessary DNR.