Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by 42041

uh, because one is a crappy barebones MPEG2 disc?

To all the mpeg-2 snobs out there (and judging by this board most of you who want this new release are) I ask you this:

Where are all of the supposed anomalies associated with mpeg-2 on
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang?
Kingdom of Heaven?
Mission: Impossible III?
Crank?
Good Night and Good Luck?
Black Hawk Down?
... the list goes on and on...

Mpeg-2 seems to be the 'go-to' excuse when people have it explained (over and over again, I might add) that Predator's dark, grimy, grainy look is exactly how the film was shot. I keep hearing references to video noise, macroblocking, etc., with no proof or examples and then they wrap it all up by blaming the supposedly useless mpeg-2 codec.

Guess all of us early adopters who were so wowed by the early mpeg-2 offerings at the beginning of all this were just a bunch of easily duped rubes (no, we weren't).

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

if you don't mind me asking, what is you sharpness set at on your display?

4

[mars396]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The medium on which you're watching it doesn't have anything to do with whether a movie looks the way it's intended or not.

so then a VHS tape with no digital manipulation is closer to how a movie is intended look than a Blu-ray ?

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

And yes, if they're available, I listen to the original sound mix. Remixes often are horrible, replacing sounds in the process to make it more 'modern'.

I must agree with you there - the original soundmix MUST be included as an option on every release. If one wants to hear digitally enhanced 7.1 surround sound, then that should be the choice of the viewer (I mean listener).

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The problem is that some studios listen more often to people like you and don't think they need to include the original sound track, or make the picture look the way it was when it came out.

Please enlighten me. Is there any way right now, in 2010, to replicate the movie theatre picture at home (without using a projcector and screen) ??? Aren't ALL home presentations, by definition, a digital manipulation of the original film ?

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by persuazion

4

Out of 10 or 100?

I ask only because I didn't find the grain distracting in either film save for a few select scenes(the indoor sequences of ghostbusters stand out). Perhaps lowering the sharpness would reduce the distracting nature of the grain and any artifacts the processing could be creating.

I personally have my display set at zero(out of 100) for the blu-ray input.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by mars396

so then a VHS tape with no digital manipulation is closer to how a movie is intended look than a Blu-ray ?




I must agree with you there - the original soundmix MUST be included as an option on every release. If one wants to hear digitally enhanced 7.1 surround sound, then that should be the choice of the viewer (I mean listener).




Please enlighten me. Is there any way right now, in 2010, to replicate the movie theatre picture at home (without using a projcector and screen) ??? Aren't ALL home presentations, by definition, a digital manipulation of the original film ?

Nope, just a digital presentation, and countless past releases have proven that Blu-ray is an excellent form of faithful preservation.

Seriously people, is everything on this board going to be arguments about semantics?

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Yeah maybe they just wanted to sell to the general public .......how dare people not know about DNR and bitrates!!

What I said was very innocuous. The public at large also doesn't understand EE, banding, OAR or a whole host of things that can go awry with a release. To say the public doesn't fully understand the technology, does not mean they deserve what ever possibly flawed product they get. Everytime there has been a recall of a flawed blu-ray or DVD release based on video quality issues, it was because of the video snobs throwing a hissy fit and people taking notice.

If you are to infer that DNR was placed on this release as big gift to the general public, then does that mean every release without it is flipping them the bird?

Neither you or I are in a position to speak on behalf of the general public.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Right but the cropping would need to be from the sides not from the top and bottom. The only films that would be open matte are flat films (1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 but then that is open matte so that's not really the point). Any film that is scope unless it was shot with Super 35mm (which exists but is probably pretty rare) has no extra head room. Prints for 2.35:1 (scope) are anamorphically squeezed onto a 1.33:1 frame (maybe it's 1.37:1 but that's just nitpicking). Therefor my point is still very valid. Before you ask how I know this, I was a projectionist for 7 years so I have quite a bit of knowledge about actual film.

Also sorry OP for getting off topic.

You're right, I didn't think of that. Well I guess it's moot since any of these release will be abortions to most purists anyways right? Ones that would be bothered by cropping.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Out of 10 or 100?

I ask only because I didn't find the grain distracting in either film save for a few select scenes(the indoor sequences of ghostbusters stand out). Perhaps lowering the sharpness would reduce the distracting nature of the grain and any artifacts the processing could be creating.

I personally have my display set at zero(out of 100) for the blu-ray input.

its actually out of 30....I usually have it set from 1-4. And I tried all kinds of settings with Ghostbusters but it is one of the grainiest blurays I have and I actually have close to 600 blu's but havent got around to adding them all on here.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

What I said was very innocuous. The public at large also doesn't understand EE, banding, OAR or a whole host of things that can go awry with a release. To say the public doesn't fully understand the technology, does not mean they deserve what ever possibly flawed product they get. Everytime there has been a recall of a flawed blu-ray or DVD release based on video quality issues, it was because of the video snobs throwing a hissy fit and people taking notice.

If you are to infer that DNR was placed on this release as big gift to the general public, then does that mean every release without it is flipping them the bird?

Neither you or I are in a position to speak on behalf of the general public.

Your right but all Im saying is people have different taste in what they think looks good.....if somebody wasnt a brightened less grainy picture despite losing some detail then whos to say their wrong?

[42041]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Mpeg-2 seems to be the 'go-to' excuse when people have it explained (over and over again, I might add) that Predator's dark, grimy, grainy look is exactly how the film was shot.

I'm perfectly aware that Predator is a dark, grainy film. But is it a state-of-the-art transfer of a dark, grainy film? Predator's MPEG2 encode is certainly not helping...

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I would rather take a wrinkle or two away then have a swirling grainstorm distract you from the movie.

Correct. However, overkill is overkill. There are plenty of Blu-ray releases where grain is kept intact while being cleaned up enough to not detract from the viewing of the film (like Kill Bill vol 1/2).

[Q?]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Your right but all Im saying is people have different taste in what they think looks good.....if somebody wasnt a brightened less grainy picture despite losing some detail then whos to say their wrong?

A director and director of photography.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Q!

A director and director of photography.

Too bad everybody isnt qualified......

[42041]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Your right but all Im saying is people have different taste in what they think looks good.....if somebody wasnt a brightened less grainy picture despite losing some detail then whos to say their wrong?

If you're applying those enhancements at the mastering stage, then obviously the people who enjoy the natural presentation of these movies can no longer do so.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm perfectly aware that Predator is a dark, grainy film. But is it a state-of-the-art transfer of a dark, grainy film? Predator's MPEG2 encode is certainly not helping...

And once again I ask: how did mpeg-2 hinder the transfers of all of the other titles (and countless others) I mentioned in that post?

[Post Prod]

any modern HD display should have their sharpness set to zero on any input receiving an HD signal.

Anything above 0 is adding noise to the picture.

Which is of course pretty ironic, that someone who appreciates the wonders of DNR, also likes to add noise to their picture.


There are no shortage of test pattern discs out there for you people to learn this on your own.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

There are no shortage of test pattern discs out there for you people to learn this on your own.

terrific ! where can one get one of these discs ?

[42041]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

And once again I ask: how did mpeg-2 hinder the transfers of all of the other titles (and countless others) I mentioned in that post?

I haven't seen any of those discs recent enough to be remotely fresh in my memory, but if they also have difficult source material, they probably aren't compressed as cleanly as they might've been with a modern codec. Many MPEG2 discs also have higher bitrates than this one.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mars396

terrific ! where can one get one of these discs ?

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Digit...s-Blu-ray/551/

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by 42041

If you're applying those enhancements at the mastering stage, then obviously the people who enjoy the natural presentation of these movies can no longer do so.

So the Bluray industry has a decision to make....... picky videophiles who complain about mpegs and dnr or clueless consumers who just thinks it looks good and could care less about how it looked in the theatre