Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Daunty]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Film's evolution (faster stocks, color, etc) is separate from presentation media's evolution (DNR, edge enhancement, etc.). When watching a film on BD, the media is there to replicate the creative team's vision, not to use the movie as a canvas to show off "cool" or "neat looking" technology.

Most of us who fear an Ultimate Hunter DNR trend understand this and have respect for all artists visions (weather or not people view one movie or another as art is irrelevant, ALL movie are works of art). Thusly we won't "do the reverse" and contribute to the mutilation of things made by others, especially when it is by no means necessary. That is true respect.

I agree. I just bought the old barebones edition because I couldn't stand the new transfer. The old one has it's flaws, but it's more movie like than the abomination they are releasing now.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

i DISAGREE WITH THAT, IM NOT A TECH PERSON AND I DONT MIND GRAIN IN FILMS BUT THE 2008 EDITION WAS JUST TOO BAD AND OVER INTRUSIVE. NEW EDITION IS SPARKLING CLEAN AND I LOVE IT. YEEEEEE HAAAAA

i THINK WE,RE ALL MOVIE BUFFS

I know what you are, I just can't say.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Good one .......see what happens when I actually try to talk about grain and dnr on a sensible level. Purists cant help but to resort to the inner film snob within them.....

And people losing an argument always try to shift the focus to attacking the person they're arguing with, not sticking with the subject at hand.

[Blu-Moon]

Since Blu-ray can use branching routines, why didn't Fox allow the end-users the choice to select the version they want to watch on this newest pressing? You want to see Predator as you remember it from the Cineplex? Click here. You want to see the new DNR'd-to-death version? Click there. I think the choice should be made available on every Blu-ray that Fox (or anybody else) releases from here on out.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Collateral does not have grain (except for the one scene in the jazz club) because it was shot on HD Videotape, not film. Video does not give you grain, it gives you noise. This showed up on the BD because DVD could not handle information that complex. Same thing with Predator, you think the barebones looked bad because the dvds could not accurately replicate the detail of the grain, so when it finally did show up on the BD it seemed "bad" to so many people's eyes.

So this reviewer is wrong on dvdtalk?
"Those who have already seen the movie will know that the film is coated in a sheet of intentional grain, and the Blu-Ray replicates it in all of its glory."

Im still losing right?

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

So this reviewer is wrong on dvdtalk?
"Those who have already seen the movie will know that the film is coated in a sheet of intentional grain, and the Blu-Ray replicates it in all of its glory."

Yes. It is video noise, not grain.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by persuazion

So this reviewer is wrong on dvdtalk?
"Those who have already seen the movie will know that the film is coated in a sheet of intentional grain, and the Blu-Ray replicates it in all of its glory."

Im still losing right?

wrong in his symantecs at least. It's coated in it's sheet of Video noise (no film no grain) and the blu ray does replicated it in all it's glory

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Yes. It is video noise, not grain.

Well somebody needs to be fired.

[42041]

Originally Posted by persuazion

So this reviewer is wrong on dvdtalk?
"Those who have already seen the movie will know that the film is coated in a sheet of intentional grain, and the Blu-Ray replicates it in all of its glory."

A movie shot on video does not have "film grain" by virtue of physical impossibility
People who think digital cinematography will solve all their grain woes seem to forget that their digital cameras have a built-in flash for a reason... you still need light to get a clean image.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Yes. It is video noise, not grain.

No it isn't. I'm not saying it isn't inherent to the technology, but come on!

Collateral would appear to have artificial grain on BD, as the trailers on the disc are from before the movie was correctly color-timed, etc and they look like a cheap soap opera.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Well somebody needs to be fired.

That seems a bit extreme. I see tons of inaccuracies in reviews from many different sites. People are human and make mistakes, no need to FIRE people over errors. Sheesh...

[jukejoint]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Well somebody needs to be fired.

By your metric every single reviewer on this website should be fired since they have all made errors.

Reviewers are not infallible. I know this might come as a surprise to you, but not everybody is 100% correct 100% of the time.

Shocking, I know.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

That seems a bit extreme. I see tons of inaccuracies in reviews from many different sites. People are human and make mistakes, no need to FIRE people over errors. Sheesh...

Just kidding....I dont really want the guy fired. So its easy to confuse Grain [which is good] with noise[which is bad].....right?

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by jukejoint

By your metric every single reviewer on this website should be fired since they have all made errors.

Reviewers are not infallible. I know this might come as a surprise to you, but not everybody is 100% correct 100% of the time.

Shocking, I know.

I guess that purist logic is rubbing off on me....

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Just kidding....I dont really want the guy fired. So its easy to confuse Grain [which is good] with noise[which is bad].....right?

So now digital noise is "bad"?

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Just kidding....I dont really want the guy fired. So its easy to confuse Grain [which is good] with noise[which is bad].....right?

Noise is not bad if the director wanted it there. Michael Mann purposefully shot Miami Vice and Collateral on HD Videotape so he could utilize HD's ability to shoot at night with low or no lighting. The trade off is that you get a noisy image, but that is inherent in the technology (just like grain is to film). In no way does the noise make the image bad. If Michael Mann thought it was bad, he would not have shot it that way. You may not like the image, but it is what Mann shot and wanted released.

No, I don't easily confuse grain with noise.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Noise is not bad if the director wanted it there. Michael Mann purposefully shot Miami Vice and Collateral on HD Videotape so he could utilize HD's ability to shoot at night with low or no lighting. The trade off is that you get a noisy image, but that is inherent in the technology (just like grain is to film). In no way does the noise make the image bad. If Michael Mann thought it was bad, he would not have shot it that way. You may not like the image, but it is what Mann shot and wanted released.

No, I don't easily confuse grain with noise.

When did I say I dident like the image? I just said I noticed the grain/noise more in the bluray version then in the dvd. I like the way Collateral looks.....and I wasnt talking about you of course....but an everyday Joe 6 pack such as myself and the 10 or so reviewers who said Collateral had grain throughout.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

No it isn't. I'm not saying it isn't inherent to the technology, but come on!

Collateral would appear to have artificial grain on BD, as the trailers on the disc are from before the movie was correctly color-timed, etc and they look like a cheap soap opera.

Saw it projected digitally in the theater and the BD was the first time I saw the Video Noise replicated naturally. Video does not have grain, it has video noise. When you shoot those night shots around the city with almost no source light, you get noisy pixels from the camera. That stuff was not added in later (why would it be?).

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

So now digital noise is "bad"?

just what somebody has told me on this site.....this is where I get all my technical info on films. If it werent for this site I wouldnt even know what DNR and grain and noise were....now when I watch my fav movie I can break it down and analyze every aspect of it like I should have been doing in the first place...

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Noise is not bad if the director wanted it there. Michael Mann purposefully shot Miami Vice and Collateral on HD Videotape so he could utilize HD's ability to shoot at night with low or no lighting. The trade off is that you get a noisy image, but that is inherent in the technology (just like grain is to film). In no way does the noise make the image bad. If Michael Mann thought it was bad, he would not have shot it that way. You may not like the image, but it is what Mann shot and wanted released.

No, I don't easily confuse grain with noise.

Yet you have in a way. Again, I'm not completely disagreeing with what you're saying, but Collateral has artificial grain added to the BD. Not all of it was shot on digital. Obviously Mann wants to have a consistent look throughout. Check out the trailers on the disc. Trailers are usually not representative of a film's final look, etc and that is most certainly the case here.