Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

I date a lot of older men.

Is that really your answer?

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

Next time can I speak to the organ-grinder and not the monkey?

Please answer the questions/provide some facts. You can call me a monkey all you want but one thing hasn't changed: You will not own up to your claims.

Do you know that they added grain to Collateral as a fact? Where can we see this information to corroborate it?

[persuazion]

It would be a very interesting situation if everybody on here could meet up.....a lot of different kind of people on here.

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by persuazion

its funny (re:sad) that people can label others as "grain haters" "joe 6 packs" "art haters" and still feel insulted in anyway when the tables are turned. Nothing wrong with being a purist or whatever you want to call yourself...you can do that and at the same time leave people alone who have different opinions....

Blu-ray was created precisely for the purest market. "The look and sound of perfect" - or so it says.

Anybody who doesn't like what blu-ray is capable of doing - and should be doing every single time - should just buy DVDs where grain and other pesky picture details aren't so much of an issue!

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Blu-ray was created precisely for the purest market. "The look and sound of perfect" - or so it says.

Anybody who doesn't like what blu-ray is capable of doing - and should be doing every single time - should just buy DVDs where grain and other pesky picture details aren't so much of an issue!

Grain is not much of an issue to me....only on certain ones do I find it distracting. Ghostbusters and Gremlins....but at the same time DNR is not much of an issue with me either and I think thats where some people have the problem.

[persuazion]

And imagine how sells would be for Blu right now it was bought by only the purist market.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by persuazion

And imagine how sells would be for Blu right now it was bought by only the purist market.

not that much different. 80% of the market is only fueled by about 15-20% of buyers

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

Certainly more credible than "Maybe they cleaned up the trailers LULZ!!"

Where are your facts? I never said my claim was a fact (just a highly plausible theory), but you seem so certain of your alteration claim. With such big talk, it is not unreasonable to request information to back this up.

Also, pretty much the entire movie (sans the Jazz Club scene) had "that odd look that can sometimes be associated with HD footage", so to what end did that 'grain addition' you speak of accomplish?

From experience, shooting with HD cameras at night with low lighting will give you an incredibly noisy picture, you cannot avoid this. Collateral was shot at night, under low lighting circumstances, resulting in a very noisy source image. Fact.

Watch some of the behind the scenes footage and you will see incredibly pared-down lighting kits in use for such an A-list project. Low light + HD Video at night = Noisy source image.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by wormraper

not that much different. 80% of the market is only fueled by about 15-20% of buyers

I guess Im hanging with the wrong circle. Out of everybody I know that buys Blurays......the only time I have ever talked to a purist is on the internet.

[42041]

Originally Posted by persuazion

And imagine how sells would be for Blu right now it was bought by only the purist market.

The truth is, the average J6P doesn't care about grain EITHER WAY. At least the sort of people I know. They may not enjoy it but they'll probably figure it's just how the film is. The people who howl about grain are a minority like the people vocally opposed to DNR.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Where are your facts? I never said my claim was a fact (just a highly plausible theory), but you seem so certain of your alteration claim. With such big talk, it is not unreasonable to request information to back this up.

Also, pretty much the entire movie (sans the Jazz Club scene) had "that odd look that can sometimes be associated with HD footage", so to what end did that 'grain addition' you speak of accomplish?

From experience, shooting with HD cameras at night with low lighting will give you an incredibly noisy picture, you cannot avoid this. Collateral was shot at night, under low lighting circumstances, resulting in a very noisy source image. Fact.

Watch some of the behind the scenes footage and you will see incredibly pared-down lighting kits in use for such an A-list project. Low light + HD Video at night = Noisy source image.

I claim nothing as facts. You clearly know more than me an I apologize. I still want to know why the film doesn't look like pre-release materials. Could this be to do with different frame rates between film and video?

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

I claim nothing as facts. You clearly know more than me an I apologize. I still want to know why the film doesn't look like pre-release materials. Could this be to do with different frame rates between film and video?

You would have to ask someone at Dreamworks/Paramount about the pre-release materials looking the way they do, but the noise on screen is a result of the camera and lighting conditions.

[Q?]

SpotOn & Spy Captain
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/technical
Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
HDCAM (1080p/24) (source format)
Super 35 (source format)

A helpful member here explained to me that source format means it was shot with both digital and film, also as I understand it digital cameras can still have "grain" in darker shots. Also trailers and such doesn't always show what movies really looks like.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Q!

SpotOn & Spy Captain
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/technical
Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
HDCAM (1080p/24) (source format)
Super 35 (source format)

A helpful member here explained to me that source format means it was shot with both digital and film, also as I understand it digital cameras can still have "grain" in darker shots. Also trailers and such doesn't always show what movies really looks like.

We already discussed the small portion of it that was shot on film.

The majority of our discussion at the beginning was about "grain" vs "video noise". Digital cameras produce video noise in those darker shots. The noise does bear a sharp resemblance to grain, but is not actual grain. Grain is inherent to film and is part of the photochemical process of the format.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

We already discussed the small portion of it that was shot on film.

The majority of our discussion at the beginning was about "grain" vs "video noise". Digital cameras produce video noise in those darker shots. The noise does bear a sharp resemblance to grain, but is not actual grain. Grain is inherent to film and is part of the photochemical process of the format.

Why I said " "grain" "

[retablo]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

I have dozens of blu-rays you silly billy! but just felt that the bad attention this new predator edition is getting is very unfair. and yes the picture quality is good enough for me considering the age of predator.

The age of Predator? Have you even seen blu-rays of, say, The General from 1927? Or Sunrise, also 1927? Both of which look 100x better than Predator, which is only 23 years old. That's not old, and age has nothing to do with it.

[davidjjanderson1981]

Originally Posted by retablo

The age of Predator? Have you even seen blu-rays of, say, The General from 1927? Or Sunrise, also 1927? Both of which look 100x better than Predator, which is only 23 years old. That's not old, and age has nothing to do with it.

Well no i havent seen these, but will have a look at them, age does cum in to it mate of course older movies are going to look different to new movies. Bet these two movies were shot in black and white? next you will be saying that has nothiang to do with it either! plus what conditions where they shot in? moisture, heat conditions which surely will affect the look of film! Where thesde films shot in the jungle? really intense heat etc.

[42041]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

plus what conditions where they shot in? moisture, heat conditions which surely will affect the look of film! Where thesde films shot in the jungle? really intense heat etc.

While heat likely does have some minor effect on the image, I think you're missing the obvious factor: light

[retablo]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

Well no i havent seen these, but will have a look at them, age does cum in to it mate of course older movies are going to look different to new movies. Bet these two movies were shot in black and white? next you will be saying that has nothiang to do with it either! plus what conditions where they shot in? moisture, heat conditions which surely will affect the look of film! Where thesde films shot in the jungle? really intense heat etc.

Age really has nothing to do with it.. the only consideration is what shape the negative is kept. Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, hell look at any of those if you think anything older than 23 years looks bad.

What does really intense heat have to do with grain? Sorry, but moisture and heat don't affect the picture. I shoot outside all the time and there is no difference. Predator was supposed to look grimy and gritty, that's the look chosen by the director and cinematographer. Unfortunately, all that mood has been washed away by DNR.

[davidjjanderson1981]

Originally Posted by 42041

While heat likely does have some minor effect on the image, I think you're missing the obvious factor: light

Well a cobination of all these elements then! must affect every film! YES and even of course light. smarty pants