Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[42041]

Originally Posted by Mike1981

That's all well and fine, but anyone who says they remember how it looked in theaters is wrong.

I can remember very well how most movies I've seen in the last several months have looked in theaters, and some people have seen prints quite recently.
Regardless... now you've got digital intermediates and whatnot, but 1987 had no such luxuries, this movie was shot on 35mm and printed on 35mm, and thus could only look like 35mm.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

Any word yet from John McTiernan on this "debacle"?
How about the DP, Donald McAlpine?
Well then, anybody got any reports that they can link to about mass consumer demand for a recall?
No?
Oh thats right, the only people up in arms about this release are a vocal minority of self proclaimed " film enthusiast" who crusade for the director's intent (except when they want to revisit their works and have Greedo to shoot first, or for government agents to carry walkie-talkies) while watching their films w/ the DTS HD Master Audio 5.1 track at reference volume.
Here's the thing, I'm not gonna insult you if you feel like venting about this release, but I gotta tell ya that the reports about this title have been grossly exaggerated, seemingly by those who feel that even the slightest digital manipulation is an affront to the filmmakers intentions. I picked up the new edition for the same reasons that alot of you have - it was $15 and came w/movie cash to see Predators. I popped the disc in preparing myself for a horrible transfer along the lines of True Romance or Hannibal. What I got instead was an impressive, albeit not perfect catalog release that blows my 2 disc DVD out of the water.
I should point out that I'm not a "grain-hater" (I love my BDs of Ghostbusters and the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre), but to say that all the detail has been "scrubbed out" of this release is just not so.
I'm quite satisfied with my purchase, so if that means that I'm not a true film fan, or that I must not have a properly calibrated set (which mine is), or whatever belittlements you wish to hurl in my direction, so be it. I love films (movies, flics, or whatever the #$%^ you wanna call them), and I will continue to partake in my hobby, and will save my venom for releases that truely deserve it (I'm talkin' to you, Dog Soldiers).

P,S,: The ire over this BD reminds me of the newspaper headline from the Simpsons, "Old Man Yells At Cloud".

Heavily DNR'd titles deserve venom.

[Abacab]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

Any word yet from John McTiernan on this "debacle"?
How about the DP, Donald McAlpine?
Well then, anybody got any reports that they can link to about mass consumer demand for a recall?
No?
Oh thats right, the only people up in arms about this release are a vocal minority of self proclaimed " film enthusiast" who crusade for the director's intent (except when they want to revisit their works and have Greedo to shoot first, or for government agents to carry walkie-talkies) while watching their films w/ the DTS HD Master Audio 5.1 track at reference volume.

Most directors are not intimately involved with their films when they are released on a home entertainment format. The latest edition has been out for three days, give it some time for them to say something. I am not expecting them to, but it may happen. No doubt directors have busy lives that preclude them from noticing every new release of their work.

Per the director's intent, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. For this consumer, I don't mind if directors want to change their movies down the road. Just let the originals be available too.

If you need proof of the missing detail, just check out Arnold's red shirt. I am fairly sure it was a pique shirt and it has absolutely no texture.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

Oh thats right, the only people up in arms about this release are a vocal minority of self proclaimed " film enthusiast" who crusade for the director's intent (except when they want to revisit their works

I don't think much has really been said about director intent, just about being accurate to the actual movie. (and what is with this whole idea of being satisfied that a disc is "not-terrible" or "good enough"? What am I, the Fox executive's mom?) Anyway the director's got much bigger problems right now.

[Roy Batty]

One of the things that sadden me the most when studios screw up a release is how many people are willing to settle for the fiasco as long as they found it cheap enough, even those discriminating enough to know the edition for the disaster it is.

I can't honestly fathom the rationale behind that.

I can understand that kind of distinction when it comes to fork out some extra bucks for a good, bonus-ridden special edition, or settling for a vanilla edition at a cheaper price, as long as both offer a good audio/video presentation.

But a terrible edition priced at $25 is still the same terrible edition priced at $15, just cheaper, and I don't want a bad presentation of a movie I like, no matter the price. I'm simply not interested.

Me, I wouldn't touch this "Ultimate" travesty even though it was free.

That quality/price ratio that makes unacceptable products acceptable just by lowering the price is certainly one of the dreadful maladies of our times.

[hostelmovies]

The VQ was way better than the 2.5 that they gave here for a review. Very little grain. kinda dark. the SQ is driving me insane. the snare drum score is loud as hell, and I cant hear the voices. sq sucks.

[Grubert]

Excerpts from thedigitalbits:

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

(...)

The new Blu-ray is an unmitigated disaster. You remember how awful Patton looked? Well, the new Predator disc is every bit as bad. So much Digital Noise Reduction (the infamous and dreaded 'DNR') has been applied to this disc, that even the sky looks like it was molded from shiny plastic. Fox has actually managed to take a dark, gritty film and make it look like video. Not even high-def video, but old analog video. There is not a speck of grain to be seen anywhere, and hardly a speck of fine image detail either. The subtle textures of clothing, walls, hair, skin - they're nearly all gone. And Fox did this deliberately.

(...)

Predator does not look crisp and clean like Watchmen, and it's not meant to look like that.

(...)

The word "perfect" with regard to Blu-ray does not and should not mean 100% sharp, crisp and completely blemish free - that everything should look like it was shot with an HD video camera yesterday. It means that the film on the disc should look as good as it did in the very best theatrical screening on Day One. If you were sitting in the director's private screening room on opening day, that's how good the film should look - THAT'S the experience that Blu-ray should work to recreate in the home.

(...)

Modern audiences aren't used to seeing film grain, and modern HD display technology is capable of showing every flaw in an image. Coarse film grain can be distracting for some, and I understand that. So if grain can be reduced without compromising fine image detail and without removing so much of it that the film look is actually lost, that's one thing. But it's very subtle work and should be done by trained digital film restoration technicians with a light, careful touch. Dialing up the DNR knob to '11' and heavy-handedly stripping every bit of grain away in a process that is actually destructive not only to the film look but also to the integrity of the image is absolutely wrong and downright APPALLING.

And to the extent that ANYONE - fan, digital technician or studio employee alike - thinks that's okay or a good thing, all I can say is shame on you!

Sadly and predictably, there are far too many "expert" online reviewers (based on a sampling of comments about the disc on the Net today) who clearly don't understand any of this and are all but raving about how clean and wonderful Predator now looks, and what an improvement this disc is over the original Blu-ray.

Guys, you are actively undermining EVERYTHING that a lot of good film preservation people in this industry have worked so hard for over so many years. You are doing yourselves, the film, the legacy of classic, pre-digital cinema, your fellow movie fans, and the Blu-ray format as a whole a terrible, TERRIBLE disservice.

In any case, as someone who personally put their reputation on the line to see high-def discs get a chance to thrive, and to ensure that movie fans would get to enjoy the very best quality versions of their favorite films in high-definition... well, for me, seeing a disc like this is just truly depressing. After all that - after fighting for anamorphic-enhancement of DVDs and slogging through two format wars - is this REALLY "The Look and Sound of Perfect" we were fighting for? God, I hope not...

(...)

You want to see DNR, you want to see a perfect example of everything that Blu-ray SHOULDN'T be? Exhibit A: The new Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition Blu-ray. The other sad thing is that all the previous DVD extras that SHOULD have been included on the first Predator Blu-ray? They're all here... on a double-dip disc that TRUE fans of the film should want to run over with their cars. I don't mind a double-dip that really gets things right. But this isn't one of 'em.

To all of you readers of The Digital Bits who care about presentation quality and about the Blu-ray format, it's time to make some noise. Do it politely, but do it loudly and don't stop until the industry responds. Don't let those who are misinformed or apathetic decide the future of film presentation quality in this new digital age. Let the studios know that this is a HUGE problem and that your Blu-ray spending will reflect your desire for the proper A/V treatment of films on disc. And for goodness sake, PLEASE DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN to educate yourself and others as to what exactly a "perfect" quality film presentation on Blu-ray should be, and what it should really look like! This is even more important than the debate about Pan and Scan vs original aspect ratio presentation of films on DVD, or of colorization vs. original B&W presentation of vintage films on DVD, or of anamorphic enhancement of widescreen films on DVD.

Demand a higher standard... or the likes of Spartacus, Patton and Predator will become the new, all-too-easy normal on Blu-ray.

[Daredevil666]

Jeez, this thread is as ridiculous as all the "Avatar will suck and lose money" threads when the first trailer came out. It's not about the release anymore, it's about a movement of internet posters getting pressure off about the DNR thing using this release as an example (which is far from disasters like Patton).

I'm astounded people like Bill Hunt and Mr Harris generalise things about DNR, when they know each and every movie is particular when it comes to this. I worked on HD transferts before, I did True Romance unrated, Crying Freeman and Brotherhood of the Wolf. One rule on a film doesn't apply to another because each film is shot differently on a different stock. I have seen director's go crazy over how different their movie look on HD from the theaters prints. Some go for the new look, other want to preserve the lossy prints look at all costs. Brotherhood of the Wolf, or Crying Freeman, are both totally different looking from the theaters print because the director adapted to the new support.

I'm not saying Predator looks like Blade Runner Final Cut, nor that this release is perfect, but it's clearly revealing what the image looks behind all the grain that plagued it for years. And lo and behold, it's a soft focus film with no detail, that was all masked by grain.

Apart from working for three months using an 8K scan at high cost, there's no way more detail could be extracted from the image, and this would probably be marginal (ie 7 to 10 %) Detail increase. That's the law of diminishing returns. The more you put money in, the less the improvement is evident.

Sure they could have held off a bit on the grain removal. But hey, this release is the best this movie will look for the next 15 to 20 years until DataSpirit software get new features.

Like it or lump it, it stays.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Excerpts from thedigitalbits:

I have to agree with Bill on this one.

[KarmaNL]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

I worked on HD transferts before, I did True Romance unrated, Crying Freeman and Brotherhood of the Wolf.

What the hell, there's a Crying Freeman hd transfer out there? On Blu-ray?

[The Rock]

I have the 2008 predator release already but i am going to buy this just because it comes with $10 movie cash to see the movie

[retablo]

Originally Posted by simmer55

I have the 2008 predator release already but i am going to buy this just because it comes with $10 movie cash to see the movie

Yeah, let's pour money into something mediocre, which basically lets the studio know that releases like this are fine, and they can release more shoddy transfers.

Great logic. Thanks for helping.

[28BlusLater]

I'm happy with my 2008 release. I only will double dip on Predator if they did another remaster that looked even better.
I don't buy movies for the movie cash inside. I'll be keeping mine and will see Predators in theaters and just use my own cash. It's cheaper to buy my own ticket than to buy the Blu-Ray and then use the movie cash anyway.

[Stu123]

The new bit rate used is 33mbps seems pretty impressive.Even avatar was only 28mbps.So what would it of looked like just increasing the bit rate and not using DNR,would it of made much of a difference?

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by simmer55

I have the 2008 predator release already but i am going to buy this just because it comes with $10 movie cash to see the movie

Sooo...you're going to spend $15 to get a $10 movie ticket?

[RBBrittain]

This is even more important than the debate about Pan and Scan vs original aspect ratio presentation of films on DVD, or of colorization vs. original B&W presentation of vintage films on DVD, or of anamorphic enhancement of widescreen films on DVD.

Bill, did you have a little too much whine with your cheese today? The DNR debate is NOWHERE near the importance of those.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

I'm astounded people like Bill Hunt and Mr Harris generalise things about DNR, when they know each and every movie is particular when it comes to this. I worked on HD transferts before.

Neither Mr. Hunt nor I have anything against digital manipulation of an image if, and where necessary. I've used it numerous times, know when it's needed, and how to control it. Neither of us generalize in referring to anything regarding their use or impact.

The majority of the time, digital manipulation of an image is not worth mentioning, and is a problem solver. Grain reduction and the generically referenced DRN are not problems in and of themselves.

They become problems when used improperly, especially by people who may have no concept of the differences between a film image, a video image and data, or even worse have a personal like of a clean video image and an aversion toward anything that contains grain.

Digital tools used by the uninitiated are dangerous weapons that can and have destroyed the originality and look of films on video -- as well as occasionally in theatrical release.

As to "each and every movie" being different, the situation can be far more detailed, going to the shot and occasional frame.

RAH

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

Sooo...you're going to spend $15 to get a $10 movie ticket?

He's saying he's getting the new blu ray for $5 after movie money since he's going to go see Predators anyway. Exactly what I did. You can't tell me the new blu isn't worth $5 even just for comparison fun. Pretty simple and logical concept and pretty much why this release even exists.

[mars396]

While I was shaving this morning, my reflection really made me look like a Wax Museum figure – waaaay too clear. I threw some water on the mirror, and got the pepper shaker from the kitchen, and threw tons of pepper on the wet mirror. Much better – THAT’s what I am supposed to look like !

[Porkchop Express]

Originally Posted by mars396

While I was shaving this morning, my reflection really made me look like a Wax Museum figure – waaaay too clear. I threw some water on the mirror, and got the pepper shaker from the kitchen, and threw tons of pepper on the wet mirror. Much better – THAT’s what I am supposed to look like !

You must have been shaving against the grain.