Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by 720pDude

This is simply ur opinion cuz IMO, I watch it on a 105 inches and have ZERO problems with image

It's not just the DNR.

It's to friggin' BRIGHT.

That's like a haunted house or ALIEN movie with all the lights on.

Hey look, it's night time out. Better grab the sunglasses!

[HonestJohn]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's to friggin' BRIGHT.

Yeah, then there's that too ....

Difference bewteen the two Blu's is like night and day. Literally ....

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's not just the DNR.

It's to friggin' BRIGHT.

That's like a haunted house or ALIEN movie with all the lights on.

Hey look, it's night time out. Better grab the sunglasses!

This is like when people complained Dracula 1931 dvd was too dark so they brightened the 75th dvd so much that in a scene where Dracula is supposed to be hidden in the darkness, you can see him clearly.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by mars396

So far here are some results:
I am satisfied that one’s opinion of this title is indeed a function of screensize

[/SPOILER]

I understand that you would like to find a quantitative reason (screen size) for the difference in opinion. Particularly since the average screen size as we speak is 42” and it is reasonable to assume that studios take that into account when creating BDs. (R. A. Harris excerpt)

"Although every digital facility promises grain removal, and some have a quality product in incremental stages, I've personally only seen the work of one facility that to my eye has the capability to remove or reduce grain and not affect resolution, and by that I mean the removal of a large chunk of high frequency information along with the offending grain.

Which brings us back to Patton.

An element is scanned and captured digital, and an edict goes out from someone at the studio to "remove the grain."

The vendor goes about the work of removal, and at some point someone needs to inspect and approve the work, but here comes the next problem.

Professional monitors are notoriously small -- generally less than 40" or smaller.

I viewed Patton on a 30" Sony HD XBR CRT, and the image looked glorious. The information was so compacted, it was difficult to tell that anything was missing" source: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris062408.html

It can’t be done. All the other variables would have to be addressed, such as player used, display setup variables, distance from the screen, and on and on and… you get the idea. Take viewers distance from the screen for example, 5 years ago, sitting 10 feet from a 40” was the benchmark. That has changed and will continue to change as will average screen size. Check the link to see what average screen size will be in 2015 and the current benchmarks for viewing distance : http://www.technewsdaily.com/what-ar...gger-tvs-2681/

Short of getting everyone in the same room in front of the same display, not much can be deduced from a quantitative evaluation.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by mr. b

I am fully aware of how UHE was released. I almost picked it up for the movie money. If what you say is true, to release Predator again to simply tailor to a target audience, why did they bother to mess with it? Why not release the exact same disc in some new fancy packaging? IMHO, they saw an opportunity to release it again to promote the new movie AND they wanted to shut the complainers up with the old release. They just botched it up a second time, that's all (yes, that is my opinion).

You may very well be right that they are not interested in remastering this movie again, but I seriously doubt this will stop people from complaining about it. They have already released it twice on blu, and there are still plenty of these releases on the shelves. I'm sure when marketing sees another opportunity to make money off this title, they will seize it and HOPEFULLY release it properly. It might take another Predator sequel or two, and then a full box set with all new masters, but Fox will eventually release it again. They'd be stupid not to. Convincing Fox to release it again now is a loss cause because it is too close to the UHE release, and Fox does not consider or will "not "admit "that the UHE release is flawed enough to warrant such a release.

The simple fact that the vast majority of reviewers shot the UHE down suggests to me that it is the lesser of the two releases, even though the older release had issues of it's own.

Re why they bothered to mess with it: I believe they remastered it because they wanted to give it a 'look' that meshed with the new Predators movie, a look that would appeal to the crowd that spends hours playing video games like Call of Duty, Mortal Kombat, etc. i.e. the current batch of 18 to 34male moviegoers. I agree that the remaster could be viewed as a response to complaints about the 2008 release, but was not the prime motivation for it. See Penton-man response to Bill Hunt.

"I also disagree with your premise that with this edition, Fox was responding to complaints of grain as expressed on the internet regarding the first version." https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post3450079


Some of you may have missed this Penton-Man response to Heavyhitters question about the Marcais quote back in February:

"As to Predator, all I’ll add is that don’t blame the Fox folks too much if you’re personally unhappy with the newest edition, as there are still many post houses out there claiming to have the latest and greatest grain removing tools which are capable of removing grain without detail."

If only we could get inside info from the post house that gave us UHE. i.e. What direction were they given by the studio? What could they have done if given a free reign and a fat budget?

[shikoku86]

I just got my Predator single disc. I don't know what the hell people were complaining about. For a movie from the 80's this looks so fantastic compared to watching on standard def or dvd. reading reviews about the ultimate turned me away from teh ultimate edition AND picking up the predator pack (Ultimate with predator 2). I am happy with my barebones copy, it's as close to cinema as you can get.

[Ite]

Originally Posted by shikoku86

I just got my Predator single disc. I don't know what the hell people were complaining about. For a movie from the 80's this looks so fantastic compared to watching on standard def or dvd. reading reviews about the ultimate turned me away from teh ultimate edition AND picking up the predator pack (Ultimate with predator 2). I am happy with my barebones copy, it's as close to cinema as you can get.

Yeah the barebones version is awesome.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by shikoku86

I just got my Predator single disc. I don't know what the hell people were complaining about. For a movie from the 80's this looks so fantastic compared to watching on standard def or dvd. reading reviews about the ultimate turned me away from teh ultimate edition AND picking up the predator pack (Ultimate with predator 2). I am happy with my barebones copy, it's as close to cinema as you can get.

It looks great. I guess at that time people were caught up in the frenzy of blu-ray making everything look shiny and new, maybe? I don't know, but I think it looks damn good.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

It looks great. I guess at that time people were caught up in the frenzy of blu-ray making everything look shiny and new, maybe? I don't know, but I think it looks damn good.

Agreed. Anyone with half a brain should avoid the Ultimate DNR Edition at all costs.

[Ite]

Originally Posted by hd goofnut

agreed. Anyone with half a brain should avoid the ultimate dnr edition at all costs.

+1

[MerrickG]

This is one of my favorite blurays because the DNR is so laughably bad that it really looks like a Pixar film in some places.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Merrick Gearing

This is one of my favorite blurays because the DNR is so laughably bad that it really looks like a Pixar film in some places.

Your post is a contradiction in terms.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Your post is a contradiction in terms.

I love it because there will NEVER be a better (or worse) example of DNR gone wrong.

[Cortese]

Which edition should I buy? I only have the dvd and its time for a upgrade

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Cortese

Which edition should I buy? I only have the dvd and its time for a upgrade

The 2008 version is the best version on home video right now, but hang onto your DVD for the extras.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Cortese

Which edition should I buy? I only have the dvd and its time for a upgrade

LOL. Its kind of a no win situation.

The UHE is so laughably bad with DNR it seriously looks like a Pixar film in some places!

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

LOL. Its kind of a no win situation.

The UHE is so laughably bad with DNR it seriously looks like a Pixar film in some places!

The MPEG-2 disc isn't that bad. If they had at least ported the DVD extras over, it would be a solid release.

If you refuse to watch MPEG-2, honestly don't bother with either of them... I'd rather watch minor compression artifacts than the Predator House of Wax coming to life

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

LOL. Its kind of a no win situation.

The UHE is so laughably bad with DNR it seriously looks like a Pixar film in some places!

It's not a no win situation. The 2008 version is a pretty good transfer, despite the lack of extras.

[Cortese]

I don't understand how they made the re-release worse than the first one.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Cortese

I don't understand how they made the re-release worse than the first one.

I wasn't around here back then, so take my assumptions with a grain of salt, but I'd assume it's because people complained about the grainy transfer and lack of extras. For all I know, they were planning the shitty re-release to coincide with Predators theatrical release. I do remember it coming with a free ticket.