Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Volume11

Except grain is a natural quality of the film making process and DNR is not.

Im not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp.

Its not hard to grasp buddy....just pointing out that people really do LOVE that aspect of the film....so grain lovers is not really an insult when you have certain threads dedicated to the grain itself and not the film...

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Q!

Don't tell me, tell that to persuazion, which didn't make any sense anyways.

I mean that people are buying the old one hoping that Fox sees a spike in sales despite the new version being out causing them to realize their mistake with the transfer and thus never adding a drop of dnr to any future bluray releases........isnt that the plan?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Now which one offers better detail ?

Using the 20th Century Fox logo is not a good comparison shot as there is little detail in that to begin with. Some from the actual movie especially faces, etc. would serve as a much better comparison as we've seen.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Using the 20th Century Fox logo is not a good comparison shot as there is little detail in that to begin with. Some from the actual movie especially faces, etc. would serve as a much better comparison as we've seen.

Exactly.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I mean that people are buying the old one hoping that Fox sees a spike in sales despite the new version being out causing them to realize their mistake with the transfer and thus never adding a drop of dnr to any future bluray releases........isnt that the plan?

What plan?? None of us "purists" are having meetings or strategizing or whatever. Read my original reply to your conspiracy.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

As I already said about 5 times, HD cannot look like 35mm theaters print films because HD is generally sourced from the negative (or an IP, depending on the condition of the neg), which always looks NOTHING like a 35mm theater print.

The true problem of Predator is that the film was post-processed heavyly, and that once the grain is gone, all the kinks of the movie (blurred shots, shots with no details due to the way it was filmed and stock used and the post processing which included zooming of dozens, if not hundred of shots) are revealed.

Who here has ever said they want HD to look like a "print"? I keep reading people say they want it to look like the intended "look". And like I've posted 5 times before, this guy disagrees and thinks Blu-ray can look film-like.

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

By the way, Penton already confirmed that the film stock used wasn't some low grade stock.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/3496726-post3874.html

[CH108]

It's releases like this which make me wish Criterion was releasing every blu-ray, but not at Criterion prices.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by CH108

It's releases like this which make me wish Criterion was releasing every blu-ray, but not at Criterion prices.

I'd buy probably every Criterion title if they weren't so expensive and renting them is darn near impossible since it's hit or miss on whether Netflix will carry them. If they do carry them you have to wait 2-6 months after release just to get it and to me it's just not worth it most of the time.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

As I already said about 5 times, HD cannot look like 35mm theaters print films because HD is generally sourced from the negative (or an IP, depending on the condition of the neg), which always looks NOTHING like a 35mm theater print.

Seriously, I really question some of the things you say. There are LOTS of Blu-rays that look very, very film-like. Anyone with a properly calibrated, quality display knows this. Any movie that was shot on analog film should look very film-like on Blu-ray. If it doesn't, something went wrong during the process. No excuses.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

By the way, Penton already confirmed that the film stock used wasn't some low grade stock.

He also didn't say it wasn't mega grainy.

He also noted the natural light, which would cause extreme grain in nearly any film stock in those shooting conditions.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by 42041

Where do I find them amidst the overwhelmingly positive response?
Get this through your head: YOU are a minority. MOST people are clever enough to realize the grain in SPR is part of the look of the film.

Of course, most of the people understand that. But, the fact that SOME people complained about it, particularly on this forum, where the videophile is the majority (I think that, too is changing) illustrates my point. Even where the use of grain, flaring, etc is obviously intentional, there were complaints about it in the SPR thread.

Get this through your head. (An entirely unnecessary element of your response) If you describe yourself as a videophile, you are in the minority outside of forums like Bluray.com. The videophile is a shrinking subset of the BD target market. I take no pleasure in that, but there it is.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I mean that people are buying the old one hoping that Fox sees a spike in sales despite the new version being out causing them to realize their mistake with the transfer and thus never adding a drop of dnr to any future bluray releases........isnt that the plan?

Fox would be happy to see a spike in the sales of the 2008 version and it will have no effect whatsoever on their happiness with the top 20 position in sales of the UHE version for the last two weeks.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He also didn't say it wasn't mega grainy.

He also noted the natural light, which would cause extreme grain in nearly any film stock in those shooting conditions.

Understood. For me the point is that people can stop making claims that the film used was some low grade stock due to the budget.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

If you describe yourself as a videophile, you are in the minority outside of forums like Bluray.com. The videophile is a shrinking subset of the BD target market. I take no pleasure in that, but there it is.

agreed




I can totally their faces the day they read “sub $200.00 Blu-ray players coming to WalMart this Black Friday”

They were all “Oh no, there goes my elite status. I am no longer cutting edge and niche. Blu-ray has gone mainstream – every Joe 6 pack will get one now….. Damn…..”


And yes, once Blu-ray went mainstream the power of the market shifted away from the big screen, expensive equipment, movie theatre seats crowd to the 40” LCD WalMart shoppers.


I am not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing; it is just natural progression.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by mars396

agreed




I can totally their faces the day they read “sub $200.00 Blu-ray players coming to WalMart this Black Friday”

They were all “Oh no, there goes my elite status. I am no longer cutting edge and niche. Blu-ray has gone mainstream – every Joe 6 pack will get one now….. Damn…..”


And yes, once Blu-ray went mainstream the power of the market shifted away from the big screen, expensive equipment, movie theatre seats crowd to the 40” LCD WalMart shoppers.


I am not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing; it is just natural progression.

I'm sorry to say, but overdone manipulation looks bad at 40" also. I also can't remember reading a post here where someone lamented mass adoption of the format. Mass adoption isn't the problem. Especially when no one can point to anything that proves the "masses" prefer bland, plastic images over quality film-like presentations.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Mass adoption isn't the problem. Especially when no one can point to anything that proves the "masses" prefer bland, plastic images over quality film-like presentations.

nor can anyone point to anything that proves the "masses" prefer grainy, film-like presentations.

Everything I have overheard out in the World, and with talking to fellow Blu-ray owners, points to the opposite conclusion.

[HeavyHitter]

I think it's largely the video game crowd that has the problem with film-grain. Almost every single video game player I've seen seems think movies are supposed to be as clean as their games and that they should be one of the same. One of the negatives about BD going to the PS3 I guess. The general masses don't care either way.

[HD Goofnut]

What part of film has film-like qualities do people not understand? Film is film and video is video. Why anyone would want a film looking video is beyond comprehension. It would be no different than saying: well that painting was originally done on canvas, but I think it looks better on paper.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I think it's largely the video game crowd that has the problem with film-grain. Almost every single video game player I've seen seems think movies are supposed to be as clean as their games and that they should be one of the same. One of the negatives about BD going to the PS3 I guess.

last time I played a videogame on my TV was my Atari VCS 2600; I certainly don't want films to look like that.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

well that painting was originally done on canvas, but I think it looks better on paper.

if the consumer wants to buy a COPY of that art on paper because it looks better, than that is what that consumer will buy to display in their HOME.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mars396

last time I played a videogame on my TV was my Atari VCS 2600; I certainly don't want films to look like that.

I play games from time to time and I even had an Atari 2600 back in the day, but I agree that video games and films should not look remotely like one another.