Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

Nice one thanks

I'll take it a step furster and say I thought it looked pretty damn good, considering the print that was used for the transfer and the stock they used. It's a grain-lovers paradise.

[AlexSing]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

I'll take it a step furster and say I thought it looked pretty damn good, considering the print that was used for the transfer and the stock they used. It's a grain-lovers paradise.

hmmmm, well I liked the UHE in parts but overall it felt too unnatural looking to me and too unlike the feel of the DVD.

Having said that I absolutely hated Ghostbusters blu ray so I hope this is somewhere in between.

Grain is fine, but Ghostbusters grain is a bit much for my palet - Am hoping this will be a happy medium

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

Grain is fine, but Ghostbusters grain is a bit much for my palet

If you paid to see Ghostbusters back in the 80s would you have walked out and demanded your money back?

This is a serious question, btw, I'm just curious...

Is grain acceptable in a theatre but not on blu-ray?

(This is open to anyone, not just AlexSing )

[Show spoiler]I thought the Ghostbusters transfer was fantastic! I'm hoping GB2 is given the same treatment (no "enhancements") when/if it is ever released. Although the grain definitely won't be as prevalent.

BTW, the 2008 Predator disc is pretty similar to Ghostbusters in terms of grain, makes sense as they came out within 3 years of each other.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by nmycon

BTW, the 2008 Predator disc is pretty similar to Ghostbusters in terms of grain, makes sense as they came out within 3 years of each other.

The problem with the Ghostbusters disc is that they messed with the colors and contrast when they prepared the transfer for the DVD (the 2-pack with the foil green slime cover and booklet). Then, starting from where they were, they tried to undo those changes from point B rather than re-starting at point A. Colors and detail are strong on the Blu, but if you actually look at the grain it's overly persistent and very digital in nature. The film should look more natural. Another good example is at the end, when the Ghostbusters are inside the door at the top of the building, the stairs are blotted out by the whites.

That said, Sony loves Ghostbusters, and it doesn't look like they're going to get a Ghostbusters III, so perhaps they'll give it a nice ground-up restoration and re-release it in 3D. I may not want or need Ghostbusters 3D, but if it means a new transfer, I'm down.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

hmmmm, well I liked the UHE in parts but overall it felt too unnatural looking to me and too unlike the feel of the DVD.

Having said that I absolutely hated Ghostbusters blu ray so I hope this is somewhere in between.

Grain is fine, but Ghostbusters grain is a bit much for my palet - Am hoping this will be a happy medium

Predator is grainier than Ghostbusters on BD. But that's because Predator is just a grainier film. The only thing to really do about that is invent a time machine, go back to the '80s, and convince McTiernan to use a different film stock. Either that, or slather it in DNR, a la the UHE. McTiernan used fast stock and shot in a lot of lower lighting. That equals a grainy image. It was that way on the negative, it was that way on the prints. Predator has been a very grainy film since 1987.

Originally Posted by nmycon

If you paid to see Ghostbusters back in the 80s would you have walked out and demanded your money back?

This is a serious question, btw, I'm just curious...

Is grain acceptable in a theatre but not on blu-ray?

(This is open to anyone, not just AlexSing )

[Show spoiler]I thought the Ghostbusters transfer was fantastic! I'm hoping GB2 is given the same treatment (no "enhancements") when/if it is ever released. Although the grain definitely won't be as prevalent.

BTW, the 2008 Predator disc is pretty similar to Ghostbusters in terms of grain, makes sense as they came out within 3 years of each other.

There was a problem with the Ghostbusters transfer, but it wasn't film grain. It was contrast boosting, along with some noise mixed in with the grain. Overall, it was a nice transfer - better than I expect for '80s comedies - but the contrast was too high for a film of its vintage. Some detail got blown out in the highlights, and it was not an entirely filmic, "unenhanced" transfer.

[AlexSing]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

There was a problem with the Ghostbusters transfer, but it wasn't film grain. It was contrast boosting, along with some noise mixed in with the grain. Overall, it was a nice transfer - better than I expect for '80s comedies -

I could compare it (probably unjustly) specifically to 80's comedies like Big Trouble in Little China and Goonies which were much smaller releases and look way better, although I just thought it looked utterly underwhelming. Not just the grain, but the noise and the colours.

As for whoever said would I walk out of a cinema because of grain? Well for ghostbusters I saw it in the cinema for my friend's 8th birthday party so I wasn't going anywhere

And I didn't want to derail this thread, just wanted to ask an honest question. Just because I don't like grain in certain movies doesn't mean I don't like it in all movies or respect how and why it's there. I want to make that clear.

I remember Predator on VHS/TV being an utter grain fest with loads of dark and dingy scenes which is why the UHE looked weird to me and I subsequently bought the 2008 edition. Wanting a happy medium isn't something to be blamed for though.

[aiman04]

2008 version is the one to go. Grain is not the problem, it's the compression issue that failed to properly resolve the grain in some shots. Fix that with a new AVC encode and maybe some breathing space on the disc we should have a perfect presentation of Predator on 1080p.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

I could compare it (probably unjustly) specifically to 80's comedies like Big Trouble in Little China and Goonies which were much smaller releases and look way better, although I just thought it looked utterly underwhelming. Not just the grain, but the noise and the colours.

You could also compare it to, say, any Eddie Murphy comedy of the '80s that's currently available on the format...in which case, Ghostbusters comes out looking aces by comparison.

[sukraj]

predator the ultimate edition looks like the charactors we're made of wax.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by aiman04

2008 version is the one to go. Grain is not the problem, it's the compression issue that failed to properly resolve the grain in some shots. Fix that with a new AVC encode and maybe some breathing space on the disc we should have a perfect presentation of Predator on 1080p.

That about sums it up. If only Fox had done this in 2010.

[Jack Burton]

The thing about the Predator UHE is that you tell that there is a great transfer or scan of the film wanting to get out from behind the smear and DNR. I do love a nice natural thin grain structure running through a film, but my eyes do hurt when a sand storm is on screen. Talking to you Green zone.

In the case of predator i think it should have used the tools Aliens used. I think they both used the same film stock. Yes DNR should be used to clear sand storms up but not at the cost of losing detail or taking away its theatrical look. Film stock still needs to look like film.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

The thing about the Predator UHE is that you tell that there is a great transfer or scan of the film wanting to get out from behind the smear and DNR. I do love a nice natural thin grain structure running through a film, but my eyes do hurt when a sand storm is on screen. Talking to you Green zone.

In the case of predator i think it should have used the tools Aliens used. I think they both used the same film stock. Yes DNR should be used to clear sand storms up but not at the cost of losing detail or taking away its theatrical look. Film stock still needs to look like film.

That should be up to two people: John McTiernan and Don McAlpine. I think James Cameron is on record saying he was never happy with the grain in Aliens, managing it is his prerogative. Who's to say the Predator filmmakers regret how it looks?
The "sandstorm" in Green Zone was not unintentional. Cinematography is about telling a story, conveying a mood/atmosphere, etc, not maintaining a fine layer of grain. Aren't there enough "pretty" blu-rays out there already? Do we need to make every movie pretty?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jack Burton

The thing about the Predator UHE is that you tell that there is a great transfer or scan of the film wanting to get out from behind the smear and DNR. I do love a nice natural thin grain structure running through a film, but my eyes do hurt when a sand storm is on screen. Talking to you Green zone.

In the case of predator i think it should have used the tools Aliens used. I think they both used the same film stock. Yes DNR should be used to clear sand storms up but not at the cost of losing detail or taking away its theatrical look. Film stock still needs to look like film.

You're forgetting it's too bright.

It would still need a new transfer.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by 42041

That should be up to two people: John McTiernan and Don McAlpine. I think James Cameron is on record saying he was never happy with the grain in Aliens, managing it is his prerogative. Who's to say the Predator filmmakers regret how it looks?
The "sandstorm" in Green Zone was not unintentional. Cinematography is about telling a story, conveying a mood/atmosphere, etc, not maintaining a fine layer of grain. Aren't there enough "pretty" blu-rays out there already? Do we need to make every movie pretty?

Sandstorm?...it looked like a blizzard to me. I'm no grain hater by any means but there was so much of it in the night scenes that you could barely make out faces. It reminded me of the night scenes in The Road Warrior blu-ray...which is a MUCH older movie.

I don't think they all need to look pretty but I find high high levels of grain like that to be distracting sometimes. It doesn't bother me with Predator because, to me, it's not THAT bad in comparison to The Road Warrior and Green Zone. I'm referring to the night scenes though, not the daytimes scenes which look fantastic across all three films if you ask me.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

Sandstorm?...it looked like a blizzard to me. I'm no grain hater by any means but there was so much of it in the night scenes that you could barely make out faces. It reminded me of the night scenes in The Road Warrior blu-ray...which is a MUCH older movie.

I don't think they all need to look pretty but I find high high levels of grain like that to be distracting sometimes. It doesn't bother me with Predator because, to me, it's not THAT bad in comparison to The Road Warrior and Green Zone. I'm referring to the night scenes though, not the daytimes scenes which look fantastic across all three films if you ask me.

That's because cameras (like our eyes) see grain much easier in lower light conditions. I realize that there was some added to Green Zone, but it couldn't have been too much because of how dark it already was to begin with.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

That's because cameras (like our eyes) see grain much easier in lower light conditions. I realize that there was some added to Green Zone, but it couldn't have been too much because of how dark it already was to begin with.

The grain wasn't added per se, the grain is intrinsic to how the movie was shot. The DP pushed the ISO 500 film as much as 4 stops (which is ISO 8000... try that on your digital camera, it aint pretty!). This was done to achieve a sort of documentary/cinema verite look; the ASC magazine had an interview with him about it. Predator also had some heavy pushing going on, probably for more practical reasons.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by 42041

The grain wasn't added per se, the grain is intrinsic to how the movie was shot. The DP pushed the ISO 500 film as much as 4 stops (which is ISO 8000... try that on your digital camera, it aint pretty!). This was done to achieve a sort of documentary/cinema verite look; the ASC magazine had an interview with him about it. Predator also had some heavy pushing going on, probably for more practical reasons.

Ah, thanks for that. I knew Green Zone was filmed digitally, but I did not realize that the heavy grain was entirely caused by the camera itself in the film.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Ah, thanks for that. I knew Green Zone was filmed digitally, but I did not realize that the heavy grain was entirely caused by the camera itself in the film.

Green Zone is THE grain movie, as it is a modern film that uses it entirely for aesthetic reasons, which I suppose is a questionable decision. In the past it most likely was due to more practical reasons. Regardless, a great number of technical "problems" like lens flare or light leaks have become artistic flourishes over the years. Just check out Natural Born Killers if you want to see Oliver Stone abuse the film format. Personally I think Predator looks better for it, and it imparts a certain gritty authenticity, while Green Zone seems a little overstylized to me.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Totally agree with you Tech. The first thing I do to an HD display, even if it's not mine, is make sure Sharpness is 0, DNR is off, and Mosquito Noise Fix is off. Yeah, TDK does have a fair amount of EE in the 35mm sequences and that keeps it from being anywhere near reference material in my book even if it does have a few IMAX sequences.

Sharpness should NOT necessarily be set to zero. It all depends on the set and you must use a test pattern. I've had several pro cal'd sets from three different technologies (CRT, SXRD, plasma) and all of them needed some sharpness for optimal focus and resolution.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Sharpness should NOT necessarily be set to zero. It all depends on the set and you must use a test pattern. I've had several pro cal'd sets from three different technologies (CRT, SXRD, plasma) and all of them needed some sharpness for optimal focus and resolution.

I definitely disagree with you. I have calibrated many CRT and LCD displays and 0 sharpness always looks more natural.