Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[SynGamer]

Originally Posted by meehan

I still can't quite get my head around this attitude. How is destroying part of the image not a travesty?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I might be in the minority here but this release doesn't sound bad at all. Unless Im walking through a sandstorm the real world does not have grain around me. A transfer scrubbed of grain isn't a problem for me at all. This release is a must buy for me.

Exactly! Seems to me some people just don't think films should look like the real world, they want it to be all grainy for nostalgic reasons in the same way that some people think vinyl records are better than cd's because their ancient record players makes those awful scratchy sounds which somehow to their minds enhances their music listening experience.

[meehan]

Originally Posted by SynGamer

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

That saying is only ever used to reference something that is unattractive.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Beast

You're free to post your dislike of the transfer.

Harassing people cause they like it or because they're buying it is the problem.

Harrassing me for "supposedly" harrassing others is acceptable though?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Exactly! Seems to me some people just don't think films should look like the real world, they want it to be all grainy for nostalgic reasons in the same way that some people think vinyl records are better than cd's because their ancient record players makes those awful scratchy sounds which somehow to their minds enhances their music listening experience.

Actually nostalgia has nothing to do with it. The Pirates films came out recently and have grain in the transfers. It has to do with preserving the amount of detail that was filmed in the first place. This looks ridiculous right here:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...375&position=2

The detail in Arnold's face has been scrubbed away. No lines, no pores. Looks like a CGI character.

[SynGamer]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Exactly! Seems to me some people just don't think films should look like the real world, they want it to be all grainy for nostalgic reasons in the same way that some people think vinyl records are better than cd's because their ancient record players makes those awful scratchy sounds which somehow to their minds enhances their music listening experience.

Exactly. This just about sums up the mentality of certain people in this thread.

[Blu Titan]

Lets not forget that the first transfer is atrocious. And, no it does not have huge amounts of detail...just so much grain that it looks like a sandstorm and not a movie. I am not going to make a final judgement on this release until I actually watch it, but it looks like Fox failed twice...somewhere in the middle would have been nice.

[TokyoLee]

Originally Posted by deadhatetheliving

So............Should I get the old version or this new version???

Same here which should I pick up the Old or New Version?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by TokyoLee

Same here which should I pick up the Old or New Version?

Neither.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by TokyoLee

Same here which should I pick up the Old or New Version?

sounds like neither-- I have the first release and it's mediocre at best-- and yes there can be such a thing as too much grain...

Blu ray. com-- where the DNR debates never end

[42041]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Exactly! Seems to me some people just don't think films should look like the real world, they want it to be all grainy for nostalgic reasons in the same way that some people think vinyl records are better than cd's because their ancient record players makes those awful scratchy sounds which somehow to their minds enhances their music listening experience.

Don't be ridiculous. Dust and scratches on vinyl records are the same as dust and scratches on film, they have nothing to do with the original master tapes.

[JediFonger]

ok, to all the grain-haters. when you watch a film in the cinema projected using 35mm and there's a lot of film grain... how do you react to taht? that's how the film was made and how it's meant to be seen. 1 that comes to mind is Shutter Island for example. as much filtering as there was, grain was also present.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

sounds like neither-- I have the first release and it's mediocre at best-- and yes there can be such a thing as too much grain...

Blu ray. com-- where the DNR debates never end

True. In the first realase there's so much grain that you can't discern the detail and in this one (have not see it personally) the detail has been DNRD until there's little left.

[meehan]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Exactly! Seems to me some people just don't think films should look like the real world, they want it to be all grainy for nostalgic reasons

One more time. Predator is not supposed to look the way it does on this new transfer.

Imagine, you make a film, you make your stylistic choices from where to shoot and what film stock to use in order to get a certain aesthetic and mood. It's not the best film in the world but it's a lot of fun and it garnered quite a big following. Then, some twenty years later, a chimp on a computer undoes all of that work with a few clicks on a mouse. Now, some people are angry, some are apathetic, some, bizarrely, are quite happy. Either way, the chimp must die.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by JediFonger

ok, to all the grain-haters. when you watch a film in the cinema projected using 35mm and there's a lot of film grain... how do you react to taht? that's how the film was made and how it's meant to be seen. 1 that comes to mind is Shutter Island for example. as much filtering as there was, grain was also present.

Shutter Island grain-- good!

Predator grain---- bad!

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

Shutter Island grain-- good!

Predator grain---- bad!

Once again I have to agree with you.

[deadhatetheliving]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

Shutter Island grain-- good!

Predator grain---- bad!

New Predator Video=Predator vs House of Wax.
I'm getting the 2008 version

[42041]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

Shutter Island grain-- good!

Predator grain---- bad!

With a high res scan from the OCN, and possibly some selective and subtle application of noise reduction, conveyed by a high bitrate AVC encode, they could've tightened up the grain considerably from the original.

I suspect Aliens will be more revealing of what can be done with grainy mid-80s films like this... doubt Cameron would sign off on such a transfer.

[deadhatetheliving]

Originally Posted by 42041

With a high res scan from the OCN, and possibly some selective and subtle application of noise reduction, conveyed by a high bitrate AVC encode, they could've tightened up the grain considerably from the original.

I suspect Aliens will be more revealing of what can be done with grainy mid-80s films like this... doubt Cameron would sign off on such a transfer.

O Jesus! I hope he doesn't decide to make it look like Avatar. I'm being serious.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by deadhatetheliving

O Jesus! I hope he doesn't decide to make it look like Avatar. I'm being serious.

I don't believe for even a second Cameron would do that-- ALIENS will look great!