Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[mars396]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And the rest of us say let the ignorant turn on the Noise Reduction functions of their TVs and leave our Blu-ray films alone.

and there's that word again: "ignorant"

Is it a requirement of this Forum that the word "ignorant" must appear at least once per page ???

How is it ignorant to want a beautiful, clear HD picture ?

Couldn't it be called "ignorant" to still, in 2010, want to watch a movie through layers of grain ?

Isn't it "ignorant", given the amount of detail that is LOST when a film is converted into a Blu-ray to then claim that what is presented on Blu-ray is "film-like" ?

Couldn't it be called "ignorant" to be on a forum that (supposedly) supports Blu-ray, yet continue to post about keeping its full potential hidden behind layers of grain ?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

Isn't it "ignorant", given the amount of detail that is LOST when a film is converted into a Blu-ray to then claim that what is presented on Blu-ray is "film-like" ?

You calling this guy ignorant http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...93dc77297ac82b

Movies viewed in the HD format boast a "film-grain quality," Scorsese said, adding Blu-ray "allows the film to be seen as closely as possible to how it was intended to be."

[Q?]

Dotpattern, the link is incomplete, please fix!

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

You calling this guy ignorant

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...93dc77297ac82b

no

I am just tired of being called ignorant

Everyone here on this Forum is here because they love films, and love Blu-ray.

This insulting of members crap is childish.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

Isn't it "ignorant", given the amount of detail that is LOST when a film is converted into a Blu-ray to then claim that what is presented on Blu-ray is "film-like" ?

What in the world are you talking about A good Blu-ray on a high-quality setup is quite capable of matching or exceeding the detail found in your average 35mm release print.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by mars396

no

I am just tired of being called ignorant

Everyone here on this Forum is here because they love films, and love Blu-ray.

This insulting of members crap is childish.

Calling someone "stupid" for example is insulting, calling someone "ignorant" is not.

And you didn't even read the link, which means you have no interest in researching.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Q!

Dotpattern, the link is incomplete, please fix!

Fixed! Thanks!

[mars396]

Originally Posted by 42041

What in the world are you talking about A good Blu-ray on a high-quality setup is quite capable of matching or exceeding the detail found in your average 35mm release print.

Alrighty then


I Googled "What is the "resolution" of a film ?"

I saw all kinds of numbers from 2K all the way to 10K

and this:
Traditional film projectors' resolution aren't measured the same way as digital projectors but they are roughly equivalent to 4,000 x 4,000.



OK

So, last time I checked, Blu-ray was capable of, what was it again ? Oh yeah 1080p.

And now the math: 4000-1080 = 2920

Uh oh ! That's 2920 lines of picture that is not on any Blu-ray !

73% of that Director's work has been digitally removed to fit onto Blu-ray !

WOAH ! 73 % ?!??!?!?!? I'd say that the integrity of that content has DEFINITELY been compromised.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

73% of that Director's work has been digitally removed to fit onto Blu-ray !

WOAH ! 73 % ?!??!?!?!? I'd say that the integrity of that content has DEFINITELY been compromised.

Wow, 73% is a lot!! So why would we want EVEN MORE removed by excessive DNR?? Or are you saying since it's already compromised by the limitations of the medium, we might as well jack it up even more?

Your logic really baffles me.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Q!

And you didn't even read the link, which means you have no interest in researching.

I have read tons of materials spouting the value of grain.

I have come to my own conclusions on the matter, not by ignoring what has been said (and said and said) about the matter.

I understand and respect the need alot of you seem to have to want grain on your Blu-rays. But none of you have ever given a second of thought to understanding the other side. "That's the way it's always been, so that's the way it should be now" is a terrible, anti-progress mindset. If we all thought that way, we'd still be riding horses and performing surgery with leeches.


But I absolutely understand why you people need grain on a Blu-ray. Take a a second and realize there are many of us who do not. Why not work together to get what we both want - it will only result in selling more Blu-rays.

oh, and the link wasn't working last time I tried.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

Why not work together to get what we both want - it will only result in selling more Blu-rays.

Saving Private Ryan doesn't need your help.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Saving Private Ryan doesn't need your help.

OK, thanks for keeping an open mind to opinions other than yours, and giving it sufficient time for some honest thought.

you're the best !


Let's get back to the topic of Predator UHE, then.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

OK, thanks for keeping an open mind to opinions other than yours, and giving it sufficient time for some honest thought.

you're the best !


Let's get back to the topic of Predator UHE, then.

It's hard to keep an open mind to an uninformed opinion.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

I Googled "What is the "resolution" of a film ?"

Shouldn't believe everything you read on Google

Fact: the majority of new films are mastered at 2K resolution. So only a bit above 1080p in the horizontal dimension. Many movies are shot right at 1080p, like the new Predators or Avatar.
Film resolution assessments tend to be nonsense anyway, often with a partisan bias. It's an analog format, and the frequency response of a (modern) 35mm movie negative drops off pretty rapidly above 2K.

Fact: before digital post production, a photochemical release print would still be several generations removed from a camera negative. You lose sharpness with every generation. And then it still has to be projected through a lens on a screen. By that time, you're likely below 1080p.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

It's hard to keep an open mind to an uninformed opinion.

Originally Posted by mars396

I have read tons of materials spouting the value of grain.

I have come to my own conclusions on the matter, not by ignoring what has been said (and said and said) about the matter.

I have never been content to be spoon-fed something and just to take it as Gospel. I research and study and give SERIOUS THOUGHT before I form an opinion about anything. Please stop calling me uninformed

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

I have never been content to be spoon-fed something and just to take it as Gospel. I research and study and give SERIOUS THOUGHT before I form an opinion about anything. Please stop calling me uninformed

You mean like this?

Good work!

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

You mean like this?

Good work!

This back and forth bickering is childish, pointless, and clogging up the Forum with nonsense.

If you want to believe that a Blu-ray looks as detailed (i.e. resolution in HD terms) as a film in a movie theatre, than that's on you.

Or perhaps it honestly does look better to you, because you have really high-end equipment, which if that is the case, good for you.

For the rest of us, a Blu-ray on our little 37" LCDs just does not look as good as a film in a theatre. (And grain really, honestly ruins the whole presentation) I merely used Google as a quick way to get something in HD terms of resolution to relate to film, rather than continue to post just my opinion, which from Day One has been immediately attacked.

And, of course, someone here IMMEDIATELY had information ready in his head to dispute that, and once again attack my opinion.

So, I really cannot continue this silly bickering anymore at 1:00am on a worknight. you win

[Sith]

Maybe it's time for the first bluray.com mma event.

We'll call this something like "The battle for forum supremacy". It'll be super cheesy.

[mr. b]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Since we are the majority, the ones who put Predator UHE in the top 20 BD purchases for week ending 4 July, it doesn't matter. We are making it profitable for the studio.

Here's a reviewer that understands.

http://www.theblurayblog.com/2010/07...y-disc-review/

No need to "GET TO DA CHOPPA". There are more of us than there are of them.

I think the only reason the UHE sold so well initially was simply because it is a fairly popular movie, Predators was about to hit theaters the following week, it had free movie cash to see Predators, and the overall dislike of the initial release (well, prior to UHE anyway). You have to remember, not everyone that buys blu-rays reads forums or reviews on the 'net before deciding to make a purchase.

And the way I take that review you linked, it reads more like it favors those that hate the UHE than love it. The reviewer does give it praise for the features, but when he says, "you might not notice how artificial Predator looks on this Blu-ray – complete lack of grain structure, waxy complexions, loss of detail" or "It’s one CGI Jabba the Hutt away from a George Lucas Special Edition," I don't think he is singing high praises for the UHE release the way others here are. It almost seems like he wrote that review to please both the UHE Lovers and Haters alike, but it does seem like his preference out of the two different releases is the 2008 version (that is, until a less DNR'd version is released) for the actual film, and the 2010 release for the features.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

This back and forth bickering is childish, pointless, and clogging up the Forum with nonsense.

If you want to believe that a Blu-ray looks as detailed (i.e. resolution in HD terms) as a film in a movie theatre, than that's on you.

Or perhaps it honestly does look better to you, because you have really high-end equipment, which if that is the case, good for you.

For the rest of us, a Blu-ray on our little 37" LCDs just does not look as good as a film in a theatre. (And grain really, honestly ruins the whole presentation) I merely used Google as a quick way to get something in HD terms of resolution to relate to film, rather than continue to post just my opinion, which from Day One has been immediately attacked.

And, of course, someone here IMMEDIATELY had information ready in his head to dispute that, and once again attack my opinion.

So, I really cannot continue this silly bickering anymore at 1:00am on a worknight. you win

From my perspective people here originally weren't trying to attack you. They, myself included, were trying to educate you on many of your misconceptions on which you formed your opinions.

But you refused to allow that! Even going so far as to mock those that were trying to help (putting "enlightened" in quotes for instance) and then flat out spreading misinformation (eg, "grain is a flaw") and eventually getting so far out of control you got yourself suspended...TWICE! And now going so far as trying to make a statement with your avatar.

I've said it before - if you like the UHE, go enjoy it. You don't see me "attacking" or criticizing anyone who simply offers their opinion that they like it and they're happy with their purchase. That's their opinion and their preference and more power to them. But when you debate so relentlessly with so much bad information and mock and attack others because they DO know what they're talking about, you'll have no credibility and no one will respect what you're trying to bring to the table.