Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[mars396]

Originally Posted by finetaste

The detail on a 32" LCD is more than sufficient enough for fine detail to be seen and noticed. But of coarse playing a digitally compressed film that is not shot in the last 6yrs or so and blowing it up on a big screen would lose a lot of quality. For example the lower the quality of a photo when is blown up loses quality thats a fact where as a photo of HQ can be blown up much more times without losing as much quality, in this case it does apply for Predator. When it comes down to watching a film on a big screen one has to understand that quality is going to be sacrificed/lost because a digitally compressed form of a film like on Blu-ray is not going to do justice, you would need original film reel and projector.

excellent analysis, thanks, mate!

this post and the three or four anti-UHE posts above it further prove my theory.

thanks everyone !

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

excellent analysis, thanks, mate!

this post and the three or four anti-UHE posts above it further prove my theory.

thanks everyone !

So do I understand what you've proved correctly? That older movies like Casablanca, The Third Man, 2001, the Connery Bond films and Road Warrior can hold up to scrutiny on a HDTV larger than 40" and look exceptional on my 60" but the Predator UHE is so poorly produced that it only looks good on a screen smaller than 40"?

Perfect! Mars, I'm finally glad you proved once and for all that the UHE is a mess.

[finetaste]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

So do I understand what you've proved correctly? That older movies like Casablanca, The Third Man, 2001, the Connery Bond films and Road Warrior can hold up to scrutiny on a HDTV larger than 40" and look exceptional on my 60" but the Predator UHE is so poorly produced that it only looks good on a screen smaller than 40"?

Perfect! Mars, I'm finally glad you proved once and for all that the UHE is a mess.

Why not right something constructive instead of criticizing other members views and theories.

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

So do I understand what you've proved correctly? That older movies like Casablanca, The Third Man, 2001, the Connery Bond films and Road Warrior can hold up to scrutiny on a HDTV larger than 40" and look exceptional on my 60" but the Predator UHE is so poorly produced that it only looks good on a screen smaller than 40"?

Perfect! Mars, I'm finally glad you proved once and for all that the UHE is a mess.

I kind of agree with this. 2001 and The Road Warrior looks great and film-like on a 100 inch screen. Predator UHE does not. It can look a lot better than it does.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

You almost lost me at "high level suit," but once you fully identified what this overpaid FOX nobody really was, then you lost all credibility on the issue.

Yeah, I'll always take the word of a marketing guy. He has no interest in selling anything.

Don't sell the power of marketing short. The budget for marketing and promotion generally meets and usually greatly exceeds the cost of making a studio movie. For indies it is insane. Blair Witch for example cost 50K to make, while the cost of promoting it was over 1000% higher. http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/mov...llywood-movie/

Marcais is an authoritative, highly visible spokesman for Fox Home Entertainment. There have been no rebuttals or negative comments from either Don McAlpine (Cinematographer) or John Mctiernan (Director) regarding the 'look' of the UHE release or Marcais comments that they had been 'closely consulted with' .

The Marcais interview is all we have to describe Fox's current position on the the criticism that has been out there for quite a while now. (unfair/undeserved depending on the translation)

[Mr. Thomsen]

I kind of agree with this. 2001 and The Road Warrior looks great and film-like on a 100 inch screen. Predator UHE does not. It can look a lot better than it does.

Not only that, but ALIENS looks a hell of a lot better on 100". And that film was shot on a much more problematic stock and in more difficult lighting conditions than PREDATOR was.

Age, stock-quality and lighting conditions only have so much to say. The main issue at work here really is shoddy QC. If they can do a transfer of ALIENS that holds up fine on large screens, i.e. of a film that has always been known for its less than stellar PQ - then they sure can do it for PREDATOR as well.

PREDATOR will never look fantastic because it was shot on fast stock on location under very difficult lighting conditions. But it can definitely be made to look better and more detailed than either of the BD's out there.

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

Not only that, but ALIENS looks a hell of a lot better on 100". And that film was shot on a much more problematic stock and in more difficult lighting conditions than PREDATOR was.

Age, stock-quality and lighting conditions only have so much to say. The main issue at work here really is shoddy QC. If they can do a transfer of ALIENS that holds up fine on large screens, i.e. of a film that has always been known for its less than stellar PQ - then they sure can do it for PREDATOR as well.

PREDATOR will never look fantastic because it was shot on fast stock on location under very difficult lighting conditions. But it can definitely be made to look better and more detailed than either of the BD's out there.

I agree. The shot when Arnold holds the binoculars up to his face to look at the camp looks incredibly clear. There's DNR applied there too but you can tell without the DNR the film has potential for some really great clarity.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by hamchuck1

I kind of agree with this. 2001 and The Road Warrior looks great and film-like on a 100 inch screen. Predator UHE does not. It can look a lot better than it does.

Good point. These guy can "rationalize" equipment and screensize all day. Blade Runner looks amazing. Same with 2001 and Aliens. And on my new 60" Sharp, those three held up very well. I would not even waste the time watching UHE on this set though. Maybe third times the charm.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by finetaste

Why not right something constructive instead of criticizing other members views and theories.

What part of what I said was a criticism of other members views and theories? mars said he proved that the UHE was not good enough to be seen on any screen size larger than 40". The conclusion then is that it is an inferior product.

As far as writing something constructive, go back to my posts from 2010 where all of this has already been discussed to death. Or just go back to this one where I noticed you chose not to reply.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/4732516-post4842.html

Originally Posted by mars396

Don't feed the trolls !

Dotpatern is trolling this thread everyday; he will try to bait you into his game. Don't let him. Just ignore him. The Mods have been notified and will do their job.

"Trolling." Give me a break. Between you and me, I'm not the one who got suspended for harassing other members.

Originally Posted by finetaste

Im also aware of this he just wants a reaction, no intelligence what so ever.

Yeah, that was "constructive" and certainly not criticizing of my views and theories. I also noticed you ignored my point about other older movies being able to easily hold up on larger screens. Why don't you address that? Let's test out my intelligence against yours.

[finetaste]

Originally Posted by hamchuck1

I kind of agree with this. 2001 and The Road Warrior looks great and film-like on a 100 inch screen. Predator UHE does not. It can look a lot better than it does.

Don't get me wrong but comparing kubrick's 2001 which was shot on a 70mm film compared to Predators 35mm film is not a good example of why 2001 holds up good on a large screen.

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by finetaste

Don't get me wrong but comparing kubrick's 2001 which was shot on a 70mm film compared to Predators 35mm film is not a good example of why 2001 holds up good on a large screen.

I year you. It's a valid point. I just think we all know Predator will never look amazing, but the UHE just looks fake and weird (for lack of better term).

This discussion may never end but I just hope that fact that this forum thread exists, companies will start to realize how bad of an idea DNR is and fans don't want "digital" versions of old Film-like movies.

[42041]

Forget 2001 and take a rather comparable movie: Taxi Driver. Same film format, also very underexposed in places. It looks fantastic. The "old movies don't look good on blu-ray" point isn't even worth replying to, it's just wrong.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The conclusion then is that it is an inferior product.

no, that is YOUR conclusion

my conclusion is that it looks great on smaller screens, and the imperfections (ie waxy plasticy) show up on larger screens. I make no comment about any other title, or even that this one is perfect. I just had to get to the bottom of this topic that has divided us so. And created such hatred toward those of us who like it.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Between you and me,

not exactly, as you posted for all the World to see


hold a grudge, much ?

[BStecke]

Jesus Christ some people in this thread are like children.

[finetaste]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

What part of what I said was a criticism of other members views and theories? mars said he proved that the UHE was not good enough to be seen on any screen size larger than 40". The conclusion then is that it is an inferior product.

As far as writing something constructive, go back to my posts from 2010 where all of this has already been discussed to death. Or just go back to this one where I noticed you chose not to reply.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/4732516-post4842.html



"Trolling." Give me a break. Between you and me, I'm not the one who got suspended for harassing other members.



Yeah, that was "constructive" and certainly not criticizing of my views and theories. I also noticed you ignored my point about other older movies being able to easily hold up on larger screens. Why don't you address that? Let's test out my intelligence against yours.

It just seems like you are clowning around making sarcastic comments about Mars's theory. Again did he state the UHE is un-watchable on a large screen? But he has mentioned that more of the viewers that watch it on a larger screen have not been satisfied were as more were satisfied that watched it on a smaller screen. Further more did he state the conclusion that UHE is an inferior product? That is why i wrote no intelligence.. Twisting and bending your words in a clever way, trying to get reaction from other members is evident without a doubt. I'm not going to even start with comparing my intelligence to yours, again you have just proved you like the hyperbole situation.

As not replying to your earlier post. Well it just seemed it was heading off topic. More about Aliens, so i didn't bother.

Now about older movies holding up on the big screen. You have too understand that some older movies were shot on 70mm film which give them great video quality.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by bstecke

jesus christ some people in this thread are like children.

+1

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by finetaste

It just seems like you are clowning around making sarcastic comments about Mars's theory. Again did he state the UHE is un-watchable on a large screen? But he has mentioned that more of the viewers that watch it on a larger screen have not been satisfied were as more were satisfied that watched it on a smaller screen.

Exactly. So how do you explain that? Is that a problem with larger TVs? Or a problem with the UHE?

Originally Posted by finetaste

Further more did he state the conclusion that UHE is an inferior product?

No, that's my conclusion. If all the other MUCH older movies I mentioned have no problems holding up on larger screens, then again, is it a problem with the larger TVs, or a problem with the UHE?

Originally Posted by finetaste

That is why i wrote no intelligence.

And I am fully prepared to knock you sideways with my knowledge over yours.

Originally Posted by finetaste

Twisting and bending your words in a clever way, trying to get reaction from other members is evident without a doubt.

Or maybe I'm just trying to get people to think.

Originally Posted by finetaste

As not replying to your earlier post. Well it just seemed it was heading off topic. More about Aliens, so i didn't bother.

You were the one that brought up Aliens. You were trying to make a comparison because they both have had de-graining applications applied, and I was explaining how the comparison isn't warranted.

Originally Posted by finetaste

Now about older movies holding up on the big screen. You have understand that some older movies were shot on 70mm film which give them great video quality.

I have to understand?? I think I understand just fine. I think I also understand that Casablanca, The Third Man and Road Warrior were all shot on 35mm film just as Predator was. I mean, I realize I have no intelligence whatsoever, so please explain this to me.

[finetaste]

Originally Posted by hamchuck1

I year you. It's a valid point. I just think we all know Predator will never look amazing, but the UHE just looks fake and weird (for lack of better term).

This discussion may never end but I just hope that fact that this forum thread exists, companies will start to realize how bad of an idea DNR is and fans don't want "digital" versions of old Film-like movies.

Hopefully they will release a definitive edition blu. I think Fox should hire Criterion to do a full 4k restoration of Predator and surely then everyone would be happy.

[tama]

Originally Posted by hamchuck1

I year you. It's a valid point. I just think we all know Predator will never look amazing, but the UHE just looks fake and weird (for lack of better term).

This discussion may never end but I just hope that fact that this forum thread exists, companies will start to realize how bad of an idea DNR is and fans don't want "digital" versions of old Film-like movies.

I do Believe Major Studios do take notice. Weather or not they act on it going forward remains to be seen.

But a Studio like 20th Century Fox I'm sure is well aware of the stir this release caused and I'm sure they're aware of the amount of negative feedback as well. When they've been commended by both Review web sites and fans on marvelous restoration or remaster jobs such as Alien and Aliens, The Hustler, The Sound of Music, Planet of the Apes, Young Frankenstein, The Longest Day, etc.. And the medium across the board is that these releases are splendid transfer which mimic the scource material and all films that have been transfered with little to no trace of DNR, EE, Digitial tweaking beyond the bounds of what may be necessary as oppossed to receiving criticism and negative feedback on titles such as Patton (Which is receiving a new transfer and release before the year's out)and Predator UHE for exccessive application of DNR.

Will they ever admit they may have taken a wrong direction? Of course not. These title are out there and they want them to sell. To admit otherwise again opens up the flood gates that they sold the market a faulty product which would entitle buyers to re-imbursement. Instead they'll sell it on intent and/or vision thus justisfying the end product. Going forward if they do chose to re-release another edition of Predators I wouldn't doubt if they would do a remaster (just like Patton). And going forward it would surprise me if FOX let another title with susch excessive DNR use such as the UHE.

[mars396]

My little observation may explain why some of us don't see the imperfections of this release as others do.

But it still does not explain the anger this topic has generated.

Perhaps that is a question for a psychologist, not an accountant.