Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Everyone one of those screen captures from the new version show that it's far too bright. I swear some of you guys could be considered legally blind.

They are brighter, yes. But I disagree that they are too bright. The old encode is grey and flat, and not in a natural way, but in a "that looks drab and dirty" kind of way.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

For anyone in this thread or newcomer that reads this thread be sure that you understand your personal tastes when it comes to film. If you want everything to look shiny, too bright, and don't mind fine detail missing then by all means buy the newer version of Predator on BD. Otherwise buy the 2008 version before it goes out of print as it is much more indicative of the film's original theatrical release.

Again, based on the screenshots, there are most instances of additional detail in the new release than there are instances of lost detail.

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by rghuxley

Just picked it up for $14.99 from Best Buy online!!!! I dont know why this site doesnt reflect that awesome price!!!!!!!!

B/c they get royalties from Amazon.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

They are brighter, yes. But I disagree that they are too bright. The old encode is grey and flat, and not in a natural way, but in a "that looks drab and dirty" kind of way.

I suppose you could say it's a matter of opinion, but suffice it to say that this was not shot with Michael Bay levels of pushed contrast. Some people may like that style, but it is not reflective of the material.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

Again, based on the screenshots, there are most instances of additional detail in the new release than there are instances of lost detail.

Just because you can't see the detail doesn't mean it's not there. when I look at the original release I see more detail than is present in the new version. Don't confuse sharpness with detail, they are not one and the same.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I suppose you could say it's a matter of opinion, but suffice it to say that this was not shot with Michael Bay levels of pushed contrast. Some people may like that style, but it is not reflective of the material.

Exactly. This film was shot in the jungle under a canopy of trees that gives a look of subdued lighting. It's like someone decided that those trees were a nuisance and cranked up the brightness giving it an unnatural look.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Just because you can't see the detail doesn't mean it's not there. when I look at the original release I see more detail than is present in the new version. Don't confuse sharpness with detail, they are not one and the same.

Well said, sir.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I suppose you could say it's a matter of opinion, but suffice it to say that this was not shot with Michael Bay levels of pushed contrast. Some people may like that style, but it is not reflective of the material.

Good grief. The contrast of this new release is nowhere remotely close to a Michael Bay movie. The hyperbole from the people speaking out against this transfer is absolutely out of control.

[rghuxley]

Originally Posted by Deads3t

B/c they get royalties from Amazon.

Then they need to rename the link DEALS and call it AMAZON DEALS. That's friggin retarded.

[AlexG]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

What like this?

alright...u got me...thats what i meant...

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Just because you can't see the detail doesn't mean it's not there. when I look at the original release I see more detail than is present in the new version. Don't confuse sharpness with detail, they are not one and the same.

Don't confuse pixelated grain with texture.

There are places, here and there, where the original release has more detail. But there are far, far more instances where — again, based on the screenshots — the new release has more. The screenshots I compiled show this to be true.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by AlexG

alright...u got me...thats what i meant...

Any reason to post that picture is fine by me, even if it is a typo.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

Don't confuse pixelated grain with texture.

There are places, here and there, where the original release has more detail. But there are far, far more instances where — again, based on the screenshots — the new release has more. The screenshots I compiled show this to be true.

IYO.

IMO, everyone of those screenshots has more detail in the old version.

[Sky_Captain]

What exactly is the point of your crusade, Spambauer? A cut of the profits?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

Don't confuse pixelated grain with texture.

There are places, here and there, where the original release has more detail. But there are far, far more instances where — again, based on the screenshots — the new release has more. The screenshots I compiled show this to be true.

No, the screen captures you have compiled show that you know nothing about film or what the word detail means.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Amazon already shipped mine.

Oh well, I did not have the other one, so this'll do. Neither release is my choice, but I'd rather watch Arnold killinate the bad guys than not at all.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

Don't confuse pixelated grain with texture.

There are places, here and there, where the original release has more detail. But there are far, far more instances where — again, based on the screenshots — the new release has more. The screenshots I compiled show this to be true.

I've never understood how excessive appliyng of DNR means more detail.... That's just impossible you know.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Q!

I've never understood how excessive appliyng of DNR means more detail.... That's just impossible you know.

Edge Enhancement FTW.

[ryoohki]

Well after seeing the screenshot i now know that i'll save 14$ for another release. Excessive DNR look fulgy at 106'.

After seeing this and a couple of release from Fox Back catalog, i won't preorder Alien and wait for the result, they might just do the same threament to the 2nd one..

[Filmmaker]

Neither--the original has artifacts galore, is dirtier, murkier and has immense grain spikes that take the viewer out of the film. To counter some of these concers, the UHE has been too de-grained and over-waxified. Both versions have major failings. That said, I still say the UHE is the winner between the two because it carries over all of the Special Edition DVD's extras.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

Well after seeing the screenshot i now know that i'll save 14$ for another release. Excessive DNR look fulgy at 106'.

After seeing this and a couple of release from Fox Back catalog, i won't preorder Alien and wait for the result, they might just do the same threament to the 2nd one..

I really really hope that both Alien & Aliens won't have any of that CRAP. I simply won't buy them if so, though it would tear my heart straight out.

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

Edge Enhancement FTW.

lol