Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Kirk Out]

theres a new disc coming out ?

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by 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.

Since when was there a new release coming out?

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Jezza

Since when was there a new release coming out?

HAHAHA, my bad or perhaps a hopeful wish. I'm confusing it with the upcoming newer release of Total Recall. Too early in the morning.

[Adam.C]

Originally Posted by Maggot

HAHAHA, my bad or perhaps a hopeful wish. I'm confusing it with the upcoming newer release of Total Recall. Too early in the morning.

lol

[Omen2002]

The screenshots of the first release in no way represent what the Blu-Ray looks like when you watch it. I just watched it earlier today. If you want to see a fair representation of what it looks like on your TV, then check out the review on the site here and check out the screenshots. One scene in particular looked poor for about, I guess 5 seconds or so. I think it was when the guy gets hit in the chest with the log and he is helped up. Right there I think it was, it was pretty dark and the PQ suffered greatly. There might have been 1 more brief spot like that, not sure. Overall I thought this looked pretty good.


I doubt the waxy UHE looks this good. Here's one of the screenshots from the review.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Omen2002

The screenshots of the first release in no way represent what the Blu-Ray looks like when you watch it. I just watched it earlier today. If you want to see a fair representation of what it looks like on your TV, then check out the review on the site here and check out the screenshots. One scene in particular looked poor for about, I guess 5 seconds or so. I think it was when the guy gets hit in the chest with the log and he is helped up. Right there I think it was, it was pretty dark and the PQ suffered greatly. There might have been 1 more brief spot like that, not sure. Overall I thought this looked pretty good.


I doubt the waxy UHE looks this good. Here's one of the screenshots from the review.

That's because the UHE doesn't look any better

But, some people prefer their movies to look like Xbox 360 game nowadays...

[Snikt]

I love how this thread gets resurrected every couple of months

[mzupeman]

Me too. It's usually the same stuff, too, but DNR is a plague and really, Predator, the UHE version, is about the worst offender the format has had to offer to date... and it just boggles my mind when people defend it and even say it has more detail. Just... does not compute man. Does not compute!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Me too. It's usually the same stuff, too, but DNR is a plague and really, Predator, the UHE version, is about the worst offender the format has had to offer to date... and it just boggles my mind when people defend it and even say it has more detail. Just... does not compute man. Does not compute!

Agreed, The Longest Day and Patton are about as bad as well. I really hope Fox revisits all three properly.

[AlexSing]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Agreed, The Longest Day and Patton are about as bad as well. I really hope Fox revisits all three properly.

Goof, just left a post in the Prometheus thread I'd be interested in your thoughts on....

And I love this thread!!

I own the UHE and the original but shamefully have yet to spin the original for comparison. The UHE just looks "weird" and not like the film I grew up with

[Snikt]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Agreed, The Longest Day and Patton are about as bad as well. I really hope Fox revisits all three properly.

And HD Goofnut, I agree with you that the re-release should've been on a 50 GB disc with and AVC encoding.

Yes, I do own the UHE. I've viewed both versions and bought this one for the extras and it was cheap when I bought it.

Still hoping this film gets another shot at a PROPER blu-ray release . I don't know when FOX wil release another, but I'm certain they will

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by AlexSing

Goof, just left a post in the Prometheus thread I'd be interested in your thoughts on....

And I love this thread!!

I own the UHE and the original but shamefully have yet to spin the original for comparison. The UHE just looks "weird" and not like the film I grew up with

Sorry, I won't touch the Prometheus thread since I have been unable to see the film thus far. I learned many years ago that it's the best way to avoid spoilers.

You need to watch the 2008 release of Predator when you get a chance. It's much closer to the way the actual film looks than the 2010 release.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Snikt

And HD Goofnut, I agree with you that the re-release should've been on a 50 GB disc with and AVC encoding.

Yes, I do own the UHE. I've viewed both versions and bought this one for the extras and it was cheap when I bought it.

Still hoping this film gets another shot at a PROPER blu-ray release . I don't know when FOX wil release another, but I'm certain they will

I had already sold disc 1 from the 2 disc DVD set when the 2008 BD was released, but kept disc 2 for the extras. Thank goodness I did that because there was no way I was going to purchase that DNR catastrophe.

[BDBooking]

One of the few times I'll say it, but I'm sticking to DVD until an acceptable overall package is released. After reading up on it, the original Blu-ray may have subjectively the better quality, but I'm not giving up the extras, which the botch of UHE has. Ughhh Fox!

[Omen2002]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I had already sold disc 1 from the 2 disc DVD set when the 2008 BD was released, but kept disc 2 for the extras. Thank goodness I did that because there was no way I was going to purchase that DNR catastrophe.

Lucky you. The DVD I have is an older one and has no extras except maybe the trailer. So, at some point I may buy the UHE for the extras if I can get it really cheap. I may just wait and see if it gets another release since it doesn't bother me too much to not have them for the movie.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Omen2002

The screenshots of the first release in no way represent what the Blu-Ray looks like when you watch it. I just watched it earlier today. If you want to see a fair representation of what it looks like on your TV, then check out the review on the site here and check out the screenshots. One scene in particular looked poor for about, I guess 5 seconds or so. I think it was when the guy gets hit in the chest with the log and he is helped up. Right there I think it was, it was pretty dark and the PQ suffered greatly. There might have been 1 more brief spot like that, not sure. Overall I thought this looked pretty good.


I doubt the waxy UHE looks this good. Here's one of the screenshots from the review.

So you're going to believe a jpg screenshot from this site over a zoomed in lossless png screenshot from the most reputable screencap site on the Internet? Whatever.

I too have watched the blu ray just 10 minutes ago. In fact, I've watched scenes from both versions about 10 minutes ago.

First things first: They BOTH still look HORRIBLE, each in their own way. And yes, the UHE is still the lesser of the two evils.

The manliest handshake in the world scene in the beginning looks extra horrible on UHE, every detailed attempt at criticism of the UHE has focused on this scene. The remaining 95% of the movie doesn't look as bad.

If you think that what you see on the first release is grain, you either have a TV that is too small or are sitting too far away from your TV. All I still see is MPEG2 compression noise CRAP that obviously fools enough of you to think that it is in fact film grain. But try as it might, the MPEG2 codec is simply incapable of showing film grain from 35mm film stock, at least not with a 19 mbps bit rate. It processes the data and creates compression noise that fools some into thinking that it's film grain, but it doesn't fool me.

The MPEG2 compression noise from any night scenes or shadows on the first release is almost unbearable.

Overall, the DNR and edge enhancement on the UHE doesn't make for a pleasurable viewing experience. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the UHE still has more detail, and that if you use the data on the UHE disc, you can make the movie look every bit as "good" as the first release by adjusting a couple of settings on a video editing program.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

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.

For the record, yes, I said the To Kill a Mockingbird screenshots looked bad. And they do. I also said when the disc was released that the screenshots had been representative in the usual sense, but didn't tell the whole story. And the same is true of the Predator shots you keep posting. Those shots prove that there are some awful compression problems on said disc. But when you say "You can barely tell this guy's wearing glasses in the original transfer," you know you're being disingenuous. You can barely tell in that SCREENSHOT, because of the configuration of the compression artifacts in that single frame. In motion, there's no problem whatsoever in seeing his glasses. And you know that.

And yes, I made a JOKE about Universal storing grain between frames, accounting for the fact that there was none present in several of those screenshots. You know what a joke is, right?

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.

And what you see in those screencaps is a freeze-frame of compression artifacts, which obviously obscures detail...but does not represent how the transfer actually handles detail in motion. I agree that both look bad...no question there, and no argument. But only one looks fake and overprocessed. And that's what I find ugly. I can deal with poor compression, even if I find it lamentable that Fox didn't put more effort into the release. But putting in more work, when that work involves deliberately making the film look like a video game, is something I can't tolerate. Which is the difference, for me, between the two transfers. I won't support either as good...but I can tolerate one of them.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

For the record, yes, I said the To Kill a Mockingbird screenshots looked bad. And they do. I also said when the disc was released that the screenshots had been representative in the usual sense, but didn't tell the whole story. And the same is true of the Predator shots you keep posting. Those shots prove that there are some awful compression problems on said disc. But when you say "You can barely tell this guy's wearing glasses in the original transfer," you know you're being disingenuous. You can barely tell in that SCREENSHOT, because of the configuration of the compression artifacts in that single frame. In motion, there's no problem whatsoever in seeing his glasses. And you know that.

Except that the glasses screenshot is just ONE of the many examples where you can clearly see that detail is missing on the first release due to MPEG2 compression artifacts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I don't know, either the first release was just flat out unlucky with the screenshots that were chosen where they happened just to pick the frame where the detail was missing, or the guy picking the screenshots was biased in favor of UHE and deliberately picked frames from the first release where detail was missing because of comparison. Or maybe, just maybe, they are an accurate representation of the first release's MPEG2 compression issues that stood in the way of detail.

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

And what you see in those screencaps is a freeze-frame of compression artifacts, which obviously obscures detail...but does not represent how the transfer actually handles detail in motion. I agree that both look bad...no question there, and no argument. But only one looks fake and overprocessed. And that's what I find ugly. I can deal with poor compression, even if I find it lamentable that Fox didn't put more effort into the release. But putting in more work, when that work involves deliberately making the film look like a video game, is something I can't tolerate. Which is the difference, for me, between the two transfers. I won't support either as good...but I can tolerate one of them.

The argument you're using in favor of the first release can be just as well used to say that the DVD or even VHS version of Predator is better than the UHE blu ray. Because neither of those two was digitally manipulated either. UHE does look fake. It does look overprocessed. It also has more detail. And since I'm forced to choose the lesser of the two evils until they have a proper release of the movie if they ever do, I will take the one that has more detail, knowing that it could be made to look like the first release or have the waxy look toned down by adding fake grain.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Except that the glasses screenshot is just ONE of the many examples where you can clearly see that detail is missing on the first release due to MPEG2 compression artifacts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I don't know, either the first release was just flat out unlucky with the screenshots that were chosen where they happened just to pick the frame where the detail was missing, or the guy picking the screenshots was biased in favor of UHE and deliberately picked frames from the first release where detail was missing because of comparison. Or maybe, just maybe, they are an accurate representation of the first release's MPEG2 compression issues that stood in the way of detail.

I guess it depends on your definition of detail. Because what I see is a grainy original, and a blurry UCE that takes AWAY detail. A "smooth" rock that has no texture from DNR doesn't have more detail than a rock with a more proper grain structure, and therefore texture. People seem to think detail ONLY means edges... its the texture where the detail gets lost. Edges might be clearer in the UCE, but that's from artificial sharpening and not REAL detail.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by retablo

I guess it depends on your definition of detail. Because what I see is a grainy original, and a blurry UCE that takes AWAY detail. A "smooth" rock that has no texture from DNR doesn't have more detail than a rock with a more proper grain structure, and therefore texture. People seem to think detail ONLY means edges... its the texture where the detail gets lost. Edges might be clearer in the UCE, but that's from artificial sharpening and not REAL detail.

I am sorry, but what you see on the first release is not grain. It's not friggin grain. It's just NOT grain! I really don't know how to win this argument any other way than I would trying to explain to someone that the grass is green if he said that it was red. Once again, THE FIRST RELEASE DOES NOT SHOW FILM GRAIN!!!! If it did really show film grain by having an AVC codec and an adequate bit rate, no one in the world would dispute that it looks better. But it doesn't. It shows MPEG2 compression CRAP that fools people who either have small TVs or are sitting too far away from the TV into thinking that it shows film grain from Predator's 35mm film stock.