Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

Shutter Island grain-- good!

Predator grain---- bad!

Very true. This is good film grain. It makes the picture feel organic and alive. But this just looks like digital noise from a poorly encoded file.

[RocShemp]

So is there a release from another region that doesn't look like it was coated in vaseline but has a better encode than the 2008 release?

[deadhatetheliving]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

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

You know he's dieing to make it a 3D movie

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by deadhatetheliving

You know he's dieing to make it a 3D movie

lol-- now that I could see happening but hopefully as a separate release at a later date!

[Jimmy Smith]

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.

Haven't watched a 35 mm film projection in a long time. My cinema has converted entirely to digital projecters. On rare occassion I watch a movie on the $2 show which does you old film stocks and can't stand the constant scratches and black dots. They take me out of the movie.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by 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.

*Taps his nose* Exactly.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by deadhatetheliving

You know he's dieing to make it a 3D movie

Something I can't wait to see I might add

[deadhatetheliving]

Originally Posted by jimmy smith

something i can't wait to see i might add:d

you go away now!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by deadhatetheliving

you go away now!!!!!!!!!!!

No

I like clean 3D movies and Im not alone

[Marcus Wright]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Haven't watched a 35 mm film projection in a long time. My cinema has converted entirely to digital projecters. On rare occassion I watch a movie on the $2 show which does you old film stocks and can't stand the constant scratches and black dots. They take me out of the movie.

To all grain lovers and not lovers.
I think I love both approaches to movie viewing experience, some movies are better off with grain, and some movies are made with little and no grain as thats the movies stylic approach.

They both are legitimate ways of movie watching, but if I was pushed to the edge to make a decision, I would vote in favour of little grain.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

To all grain lovers and not lovers.
I think I love both approaches to movie viewing experience, some movies are better off with grain, and some movies are made with little and no grain as thats the movies stylic approach.

They both are legitimate ways of movie watching, but if I was pushed to the edge to make a decision, I would vote in favour of little grain.

Exactly.

Fox could have found a nice middle ground for Predator. Some DNR and a higher bitrate to make it look fantastic.

Neither of the releases are a bullseye in quality. But I think I prefer the new one myself. Less sandpaper.

And considering I'm getting it for free, plus getting movie money for Predators. I can't complain.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by 42041

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.

Cameron has abandoned Aliens. He's said time and time again that he's not interested in doing anything more with it.

[deadhatetheliving]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Cameron has abandoned Aliens. He's said time and time again that he's not interested in doing anything with it.

He'd rather have Avatar bend him over and make him its bi*ch then give us a BD of True Lies.

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

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.

Here's a comparison of that shot:
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/65043

Pores are gone (although with so much grain I have a hard time telling what's a pore and what's a grain) but I still see his lines. In the new version you can see more detail in his eyes, hair and facial hair, ear, shirt, and the light bulb.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wright

To all grain lovers and not lovers.
I think I love both approaches to movie viewing experience, some movies are better off with grain, and some movies are made with little and no grain as thats the movies stylic approach.

They both are legitimate ways of movie watching, but if I was pushed to the edge to make a decision, I would vote in favour of little grain.

Your post makes perfect sense, but it doesn't really apply to this release. Some movies are indeed made with little to no grain, but that is due to how the movie was filmed/made, not how much DNR the studio decided to apply to a movie's Blu-ray re-release. I'm not criticizing either "side", as whatever makes a person happy is their business. I'm just making a point.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Beast

Exactly.

Fox could have found a nice middle ground for Predator. Some DNR and a higher bitrate to make it look fantastic.

Neither of the releases are a bullseye in quality. But I think I prefer the new one myself. Less sandpaper.

And considering I'm getting it for free, plus getting movie money for Predators. I can't complain.

I agree. Maybe Fox overdid it this release but I prefer a transfer thats overscrubbed to one thats so grainy it looks like a sand storm. Shame Fox had to give us a choice between two extremes. Still from everything Ive seen this seems like the better option then the previous transfer. The expanded extras and Predators money doesn't hurt either.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Here's a comparison of that shot:
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/65043

Pores are gone (although with so much grain I have a hard time telling what's a pore and what's a grain) but I still see his lines. In the new version you can see more detail in his eyes, hair and facial hair, ear, shirt, and the light bulb.

Thanks for the comparison. While neither are perfect the new images is without a doubt the preferable one.

[phildeiner]

both versions of the film look like shit. overly dnr'd transfers suck and overly grainy transfers suck its really as simple as that.

that being said i am not giving fox any money for the new version seeing as i got the old one for 5 bucks and that will suffice quite well until someone gets their head outta their ass at fox.

[McCrutchy]

I don't think I've ever been so startled in my life by DNR. This release, along with seeing several repertoire screenings of 35mm prints the last several years, has made me come down strongly in favor of the 2008 release over this travesty. Arnold does indeed look like a CGI character, and the muscles in the arm shot look like globs of ice cream melted together that are somehow managing to remain solid. The skinned bodies look like strawberry fruit roll-ups to me.

The film was shot in a jungle on mid-80s film stock--it would seem that while Fox slapped a compressed transfer from an unrestored print on the 2008 Blu-ray, that they have gone overboard in the opposite direction and made the 2010 BD look somewhere between an HD news broadcast and an SD video PBS after school special from the 1990s--I didn't know Predator was really about standing up to bullies in school...

[Lincoln6Echo]

OK, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Grain lovers like grain because it preserves the way film (presumeably 35mm) displays the imagery it captures to the screen.

Now then, let's update this arguement to the future....if that's possible. Well, first of all, some movies now are being shot with HD digital cameras, (the Crank films come to mind, and even some parts of District 9) and they have this extremely clean and polished look without the post-production processa where they color correct and add in artifcial grain and whatnot. But let's sat that in the future, movies are shot with 4K cameras and they all have that extremely clean look. Well then films that have grain or extensive amount of grain still have that "yeah, grain! I love it!" feel to it to those who do prefer it? Or will films with grain structure look as outdated as early B&W films.

Becaue when you get right down to it, grain itself is just a limitation of the medium, (film) that these movies were filmed on.

In fact, I've always wondered, even up to 15 years ago, why films have this dreary grainy look yto them while their behind the scenes stuff that waas sfilmed on handheld cameras look pretty clean and grain free. Again, this goes back to the arguement that there is no grain in the real world, so why would you want it or prefer it in your film?