Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Impending further detail? So there's further detail coming at a future date? Interesting. Let me know when it gets here.

And screenshots are, of course, misleading, since the amount of detail obscured by compression artifacts in a single frame may not be (and isn't) an accurate indicator of what the image looks like in motion. But you know that, because everyone knows that. So why you're trying to use such a comparison to make your point, who knows?

But I will say this, with regard to such comparisons...Carl's moustache may not be uber-detailed on the original disc, but at least it doesn't look like he drew it on with greasepaint:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

I won't defend the poor compression on the original release, but at least it isn't deliberately manipulated, and it certainly isn't textureless. Arguing detail is virtually beside the point, as neither is as detailed as it should be. The original release is too compressed, and the UHE sprays down all texture (texture is detail as well, by the way) with the DNR hose. And arguing detail from those screenshots is dishonest, to boot.

The original release isn't anywhere near ideal...but I'll take it over a transfer that's been deliberately ruined.

And you let me know the extra detail that was left out by poor compression magically appears on the old release.

What's funny is that I can make almost any screencap you take from the UHE release look like the first release in no time with an automatic photo altering tool. You obviously are delusional to buy MPEG2 compression artifacts as grain so I wouldn't have a hard time fooling you. On the other hand, you can NOT do the same vice versa, without taking time to manually alter the image and add more detail.

And I find it so hilarious that YOU of all people starts preaching "screenshots can be misleading" because I clearly remember you making fun of my statement that we shouldn't judge To Kill a Mockingbird based on screenshots when the review first came out. You said something like Universal has a new technique where they add the grain between the frames. The only difference is that when To Kill a Mockingbird review was out, no one on the forum had seen it in motion. I have both Predator releases and have watched them both in motion. I don't like the look of the UHE at all, but it is definitely lesser of the two evils. They at least made a new transfer, and while they butchered it through DNR, there is still plenty of detail left that simply does not exist on the first release. This is not like what Universal did with some of their older HD DVD masters where they removed the grain. The first Predator release has no grain. It has however plenty of MPEG2 compression artifact crap that you and others defend as grain when it clearly isn't grain.

I wish Fox would've treated the new transfer differently. They didn't. I can't turn back time and make them treat it differently. The two releases are out there and as much as I wish I could've had influence of the transfer, I am still forced to judge them as they actually are on the discs that are in circulation. And as opposed to you and all the others who think that the old release shows more detail despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't, I don't let my frustration alter my opinion of what I can actually see on those screencaps.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

And you let me know the extra detail that was left out by poor compression magically appears on the old release.

What's funny is that I can make almost any screencap you take from the UHE release look like the first release in no time with an automatic photo altering tool. You obviously are delusional to buy MPEG2 compression artifacts as grain so I wouldn't have a hard time fooling you. On the other hand, you can NOT do the same vice versa, without taking time to manually alter the image and add more detail.

And I find it so hilarious that YOU of all people starts preaching "screenshots can be misleading" because I clearly remember you making fun of my statement that we shouldn't judge To Kill a Mockingbird based on screenshots when the review first came out. You said something like Universal has a new technique where they add the grain between the frames. The only difference is that when To Kill a Mockingbird review was out, no one on the forum had seen it in motion. I have both Predator releases and have watched them both in motion. I don't like the look of the UHE at all, but it is definitely lesser of the two evils. They at least made a new transfer, and while they butchered it through DNR, there is still plenty of detail left that simply does not exist on the first release. This is not like what Universal did with some of their older HD DVD masters where they removed the grain. The first Predator release has no grain. It has however plenty of MPEG2 compression artifact crap that you and others defend as grain when it clearly isn't grain.

I wish Fox would've treated the new transfer differently. They didn't. I can't turn back time and make them treat it differently. The two releases are out there and as much as I wish I could've had influence of the transfer, I am still forced to judge them as they actually are on the discs that are in circulation. And as opposed to you and all the others who think that the old release shows more detail despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't, I don't let my frustration alter my opinion of what I can actually see on those screencaps.

You do understand even without the macroblocking that Predator would have a ton of grain anyway, right? In motion, the macroblocks still look like grain, so the original release is 'superior' because it is the closest representation of the source, including the color timing and contrast. The UHE shits all over the intended tone of the film with its boosted contrast and colors, and yes, detail is lost. Grain is not just something laying on top of the film that you can remove... it's an inherent part of the film itself. And many shots in Predator were even zoomed in, making the grain structure that much more prominent, but again, Blu-ray is about accurate portrayals of the films we love... not what you think looks all purdy.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

You actually prefer the reddish colored piece of wax? Incredible.

To each their own I suppose, but who's delusional here, exactly? Boosted contrast and boosted colors = Ruins the intended tone of the film. Also, you can prefer DNR if you would like, but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say you see more detail. Maybe you're equating 'no grain' to 'more detail' but holy hell man, Predator UHE is not some magical DNR entity that stands on its own as a miracle. DNR erases detail. Period. Anyone who denies that is the delusional one. Again, you can prefer whatever you want but once you start attacking people...

The fact that it looks waxy and the fact that it has more detail are two different things. You may not prefer the waxy look, but you can not deny the fact that the UHE cap has a ton of more detail. I have done EVERYTHING I could with the image, sharpened it, emphasized the edges, added more noise, more brightness, contrast, all the functions that my photoshop program had, and I could not bring out the detail.

UHE:



First release:



All kinds of brightness, sharpness and edge enhancement alterations of the first release:











I can not for the life of me get all the detail that the first release apparently has. If you can, please post the caps.

[mzupeman]

You cannot get more detail because you don't have the source... just a digital encode which is the first blu-ray release. You increase the brightness and contrast of the source, you can bring out details that were captured but may not have been seen due to the lighting. The extra detail you think your seeing is due to such a boost in the contrast of the source which you do not have access to... Fox does have the source however, so they CAN bring out extra background detailing with contrast tweaks.

But as far as actual detail being added to facial features and clothing and hair... no. It has been eradicated, and if you claim otherwise, you are only fooling yourself.

[Menteith]

I agree with I KEEL YOU.

I have seen both versions and concluded that the UHE has SLIGHTLY more detail.

Yes, the picture does look extremely waxy and sometimes even really irritating to watch (Mr. 'moustache weathers' comes to mind), but it does indeed have that tiny bit of additional detail - if you guys like it or not.

The screenshot with Arnold's eyebrows (but also others) show this quite clearly.

[I KEEL YOU]

What do you mean I don't have the source? That is a PNG/lossless screencap. It is what we see on the screen when the disc is playing. What's going on here? Are we discussing what the discs actually look like, what they could've looked like, or what the hell are we discussing here?

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I don't feel that either version is superior. They both have high points and low points, quality-wise. And I feel they are pretty much equally unsatisfying. I'm hoping for a new release someday.

[Riddler The Slag]

Picked up the Ultimate Hunter for $10 at Wal-Mart. I have never seen so much DNR. The screencaps did not lie. Was very disapointed

[Kryptonic]

Minute additional detail or not, the movie looks like melting wax so it's infinitely inferior to the unmolested original release.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

What do you mean I don't have the source? That is a PNG/lossless screencap. It is what we see on the screen when the disc is playing. What's going on here? Are we discussing what the discs actually look like, what they could've looked like, or what the hell are we discussing here?

The source is the film itself, genius. You only have the digital encode of said source, meaning you can't manipulate something that was encoded as 'black' due to the darkness of that area on the film. Some blu-rays are better today at having things hidden by shadows and the like without eradicating the detail that's hidden underneath, but for an old transfer like the first Predatoe release, it just isn't there.

In short, you yourself cannot manipulate information you do not have. The film had it though evidently... but just because Fox brightened things up and made more background detail appear means nothing because they bastardized the original, darker intended look of the film.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

In short, you yourself cannot manipulate information you do not have. The film had it though evidently... but just because Fox brightened things up and made more background detail appear means nothing because they bastardized the original, darker intended look of the film.

Correct. The original negative holds tons of information that we are not seeing in either transfer.

If, during the telecine process, the brightness is turned down enough, there will be visible detail in the highlights that are too washed out for us to see when viewing at normal brightness. If the brightness is cranked up, this will reveal details in the shadows that would normally be too dark for us to see.

It's like shooting in RAW with a modern digital camera, it captures more information that what you see at any given time, enabling you to adjust the exposure, black levels, fill light, etc. on the computer after, because all of the original information is actually there.

For example, say you take an outdoor shot of a group of people. Your camera's automatic exposure will adjust the shutter speed, aperture and ISO mostly based on the very bright sky, this often leaves the people shrouded in shadows, we've all had this happen with our vacation photos ;P

If the photo was taken in JPEG, there's not much you can do. The sky is bright, people are dark. If shot in RAW, you can adjust the exposure and add some fill light (which lightens the darker areas, leaves the light areas alone). You can easily manipulate the RAW image to brighten up the group of people, while keeping the sky looking the same.

It may be difficult to understand, it's hard to explain. The only way to really understand is to open a RAW image in Photoshop and play around with brightness, exposure, fill light, etc. and see how the detail revealed differs from manipulation of a normal JPEG image.

These JPEG screenshots do not have any of this "hidden" information, whatever is there is there. Adjusting brightness, exposure, etc. will only destroy information, it can't make anything appear that wasn't there originally.

[mzupeman]

I think we can just chalk ‘I KEEL YOU’s arguments as merely ramblings at this point. If someone is holding up a Blu-ray disc in hand and waving it about to make a point, saying, “What do you mean I don’t have the SOURCE?! It’s right HERE!” They clearly have no idea what they’re talking about.

Thanks to nmycon for explaining what I was trying to say. It’s a little difficult for me because I’m on my cell phone.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

The source is the film itself, genius. You only have the digital encode of said source, meaning you can't manipulate something that was encoded as 'black' due to the darkness of that area on the film. Some blu-rays are better today at having things hidden by shadows and the like without eradicating the detail that's hidden underneath, but for an old transfer like the first Predatoe release, it just isn't there.

In short, you yourself cannot manipulate information you do not have. The film had it though evidently... but just because Fox brightened things up and made more background detail appear means nothing because they bastardized the original, darker intended look of the film.

If the director says that the detail of the film stock was supposed to look as good as the MPEG2 codec and a 19 mbps bit rate allows it to look and the remaining detail on the film stock was not meant to be seen, then you got me. I seriously doubt that was the intention however. I am not discussing whether the movie was supposed to look dark, gritty, or whatever. I am discussing the DETAIL on the picture quality that can be seen on these two releases. And those screencaps prove that the UHE has more detail, as much as that might bug you.

Does it have DNR? Yes.
Does it look waxy? Yes.
Does it have the improper color/brightness/contrast balance? Yes.

It does however also have more detail than the first release whether you like it or not. That is a fact.

[42041]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

You may not prefer the waxy look, but you can not deny the fact that the UHE cap has a ton of more detail.

Watch me: it doesn't
It might have a marginal amount of detail where in the original the MPEG2 codec struggles with the grain. A "ton"? Please. Run the original disc through Fox's degrainer than sharpen it, then we'll talk. Until then, you are comparing one frame with the computer-generated product of many frames, which is bogus.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

It does however also have more detail than the first release whether you like it or not. That is a fact.

Let me word it this way:

You are not seeing more DETAIL. You are seeing parts of the image that have been further EXPOSED. However there is LESS DETAIL due to the DNR processing done by Fox. There is a difference between the alterations made to expose things we aren't meant to see vs this so called 'detail' you keep referring to. Stop saying there is more 'detail'. There isn't. FACT. You can prefer the UHE all you wish... I have no issue with that, but stop using your preference as a reference point for facts you are making up as you go along. You have made it thoroughly clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Daredevil666]

Original: crap. Waxy version: way more detail, despite the DNR thing. Anyone who says they should just take the old master and put it on a BD-50 and this will look better than the recent transfert is just shooting from the lip.

I guarantee you that if they had put back artificial grain on the DNRed version, NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT LACK OF DETAIL.

The complete negative of Predator is made of enlarged / zoomed in shots. They probably DNRed the transfert until the difference of grain between all the shots was invisible, because if otherwise, people would have complained the grain appeared and disappeared according to scenes and shots.

It's a problematic film, due to the way it was edited and "fixed" by Stuart Baird. You can prefer the old crappy release because the digital artefacts make the film visual problems invisible under what looks like constant grain, or you can prefer the WAX version because it looks like Avatar. It's up to you.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by 42041

Watch me: it doesn't
It might have a marginal amount of detail where in the original the MPEG2 codec struggles with the grain. A "ton"? Please. Run the original disc through Fox's degrainer than sharpen it, then we'll talk. Until then, you are comparing one frame with the computer-generated product of many frames, which is bogus.

Maybe the word ton is too strong when it comes to describing detail of either of the two versions, but I've seen people say that one version is hands down better than another on this forum when I could barely see any difference.

And yes, my focus was on the fact that the first release has the outdated, meant for DVD MPEG2 codec this whole time. It is the MPEG2 codec that completely ruins it, and all the other early Fox/MGM blu ray releases such as Robocop, The Terminator, Rocky, etc that pretty much all look worse than the average HD DVD. I don't dispute the fact that the first release would've looked better if it was re-encoded in AVC. I never said that the UHE looks good, it's the first release that is so horrible that even though they butchered the UHE with DNR, it still shows more detail which shows just how horrible the first release was.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by HDvision

I guarantee you that if they had put back artificial grain on the DNRed version, NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT LACK OF DETAIL.

I wanted to say this but I don't think that I remembered to say it here. I think I've said it in the comments on the screencaps site. Here, I made a version with a small amount of fake grain, and I actually prefer the look with the fake grain the most even though the grain is completely cosmetic and there is no extra detail whatsoever.

Original:



UHE:



UHE with fake grain:

[tama]

UHE looks far removed from what film looks like. It is the far inferior version. Anyone stating otherwise is ill Informed.

[Maggot]

Hopefully we will get a review of the new disc within the next week or so. I have the original version and will not touch the newer one. It has worst example of DNR that I have ever seen. I feel like "Large Marge" from Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure when I say that, because the Ultimate Hunter Edition is such a horrific accident. I hope the new disc is finally the best we can get for the movie.