Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[HeavyHitter]

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 said "largely" video game players - not everyone. Exceptions for sure.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by mars396

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.

So the few people you talk to is the basis for your posts here?

Show them this movie, then Braveheart and get back to me. Or show them The Godfather.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mars396

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.

Yes, I understand that, but you missed my point.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Yes, I understand that, but you missed my point.

not at all

I got your point completely, which was:

Originally Posted by 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.

I got it, and I agree, which is why I did not quote that part.

[Daredevil666]

On a side note to answer a question a page back, Crying Freeman will be redone entirely in the future from the original negative (we used an IP transfered to HD for the DVD release but it's 10 years old now, so it will be freshly redone).

The difference between the film prints and the HD version, thought, is about the same a Predator, the prints were very, very grainy, while the IP and neg are free of any grain, except a few under-exposed shots.

PS my sig is part fun, part serious.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Q!

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

just taking notes from what people are saying on here....people are saying how much the 1st version is selling and how they arent supporting it and instead or buying the older version....again,Im just going off what people on this thread are actually saying...not really a conspiracy.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Rob71

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.

Do you think if you showed both versions of Predator to a 1st time bluray or high def tv buyer who knew nothing about dnr,grain,directors intent or quality film like presentations,that they would choose the older version over the new one? Be honest now......

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Do you think if you showed both versions of Predator to a 1st time bluray or high def tv buyer who knew nothing about dnr,grain,directors intent or quality film like presentations,that they would choose the older version over the new one? Be honest now......

Who cares about people who don't know better? What is your point? A child who doesn't understand nutrition would choose candy over an apple any day of the week. Does that mean we should let them have candy whenever they want a snack? Be honest now...

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Do you think if you showed both versions of Predator to a 1st time bluray or high def tv buyer who knew nothing about dnr,grain,directors intent or quality film like presentations,that they would choose the older version over the new one? Be honest now......

From what I have seen, there is a group who prefer plasticized HD images. There is an even larger group who prefer the less manipulated images. Then you have the masses that will lap up whatever is put in front of them. Why not cater to the enthusiasts?

[Q?]

Originally Posted by persuazion

just taking notes from what people are saying on here....people are saying how much the 1st version is selling and how they arent supporting it and instead or buying the older version....again,Im just going off what people on this thread are actually saying...not really a conspiracy.

It wouldn't matter much anyways, if we were able to organize such a thing succesfully total sales wouldn't budge noticably anyays.

Also, I had no complaints about grain as a first time experience, 300 being the first one I ever saw on Blu-ray, never knew anything about grain as well, totally ignorant on the matter. But that's just me.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Then you have the masses that will lap up whatever is put in front of them. Why not cater to the enthusiasts?

Because (my opinion) the masses will not "lap up" whatever is put in front of them. In most cases, a catalog release on Blu-ray represents a 2nd or 3rd purchase of the same film. Because, right or wrong, educated or ignorant, if it doesn't look better to their eyes, they will not "lap up" a Blu-ray of a movie they already own, just to own it on Blu-ray.

[al cos.]

But they're gonna buy it before even seeing it. Grain has been almost totally avoidable in major movies for many, many years now. And yet we still see it in brand new movies and TV shows because some artists like it and want it and always will, if only because no one is going to deliberately throw away tools from their own toolbox. It's rarely accidental or unintended, sometimes they even add more. If you are old enough to read this, it is not going away in your lifetime.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by mars396

Because (my opinion) the masses will not "lap up" whatever is put in front of them. In most cases, a catalog release on Blu-ray represents a 2nd or 3rd purchase of the same film. Because, right or wrong, educated or ignorant, if it doesn't look better to their eyes, they will not "lap up" a Blu-ray of a movie they already own, just to own it on Blu-ray.

Again, where is your proof that the masses prefer Botoxed images as opposed to film-like ones. Isn't the point of HD to have more detail? I think if you showed a J6P a film like Braveheart, then showed them a scrubbed version, they would pick the one with more detail. The problem is there aren't any good A/B comparisons to show them.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by al cos.

But they're gonna buy it before even seeing it.

agreed, but if they feel that the Blu-ray they did buy was not worth it, that will effect future purchases.

I've seen it and heard it myself: "I ain't buyin' that; all those old movies look like crap in HD" "Awe, man, I was so excited to get this on Blu-ray, but its not THAT much better than the DVD I already own. I'm not re-buying any more. Done"

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Again, where is your proof that the masses prefer Botoxed images as opposed to film-like ones. Isn't the point of HD to have more detail? I think if you showed a J6P a film like Braveheart, then showed them a scrubbed version, they would pick the one with more detail. The problem is there aren't any good A/B comparisons to show them.

Again, where's your proof to your comment ? (I intentionally put "my opinion" in my post, btw)

And we do have an A/B comparion: think about which thread you are posting in.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Do you think if you showed both versions of Predator to a 1st time bluray or high def tv buyer who knew nothing about dnr,grain,directors intent or quality film like presentations,that they would choose the older version over the new one? Be honest now......

I would expected an uneducated person who is new to the hobby to probably prefer the new release.

And what would this first time BD/High def buyer think in a year or so when they become more educated about the hobby?

I'm sure there were many people who bought fullscreen DVDs over the widescreen version who regretted it later after becoming more knowledgeable.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by mars396

Again, where's your proof to your comment ? (I intentionally put "my opinion" in my post, btw)

I think if you showed a J6P a film like Braveheart, then showed them a scrubbed version, they would pick the one with more detail. The problem is there aren't any good A/B comparisons to show them.

I guess in your rush to respond you missed this.

And we do have an A/B comparion: think about which thread you are posting in.

I would not consider the first Predator a proper restoration. Not saying that the second is a massive travesty, but the first one is better imo.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by persuazion

just taking notes from what people are saying on here....people are saying how much the 1st version is selling and how they arent supporting it and instead or buying the older version....again,Im just going off what people on this thread are actually saying...not really a conspiracy.

Still trying to pigeonhole the "other side" and put words in people's mouths, I see.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

And we do have an A/B comparion: think about which thread you are posting in.

I believe one of the insiders confirmed a new scan was made, with some mild sharpening applied, and obviously it's a better encode, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
DNR can only decrease detail. You simply can't get something from nothing if it's not in your source.

Anyway, this argument is still going in circles with the same 3 people, and if they don't get it after 207 pages, another 100 likely won't make any difference, so I suggest finding a better use your time folks

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by mars396

I've seen it and heard it myself: "I ain't buyin' that; all those old movies look like crap in HD" "Awe, man, I was so excited to get this on Blu-ray, but its not THAT much better than the DVD I already own. I'm not re-buying any more. Done"

"Gee, I WAS going to buy Gremlins, but Rocky III wasn't smooth enough. So no." Exactly how often do you picture this scenario happening?