Predator 3D Blu-ray (1987) [Region Locked]

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Fox had nothing to do with TFC and were not the ones who pushed for the remaster

Oh really? Billy did all by his lonesome? Interesting.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Actually it gets close

I know reviews are just opinions in the end of the day like ours,but they seem to like the transfer so I don't think it's close to the Predator release at all.

In the end of the day it comes down to peoples unrealistic expectations of older catalogue movies on Blu-ray,and if you look long and hard enough you will find faults with every one.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Distributes not masters

The studio owns the movie. It doesn't get a new master unless 20th Century Fox pays for it. Period. It's not like Friedkin just has the negative in his closet and takes it to a mastering studio. There is no way to make a new Blu-Ray of The French Connection without 20th Century Fox's full involvement.

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Well, if Fox had a change of heart, it must have been after the release of the UHE. You probably noticed that there was no mention of a 2D restoration or remaster in the official press release for Predator 3D. Why not?

Well, no shit it was after the release of the UHE. ALL the comments we're talking about this thread are things people have come around to feeling in 2013.

It doesn't mean anything that the press release for the Predator Head -- solely meant to pimp the SDCC edition, and not entirely applicable to the unfinalized standard version -- isn't all that specific about the master. I'm sure when the standard edition is officially detailed, we will hear more about it then, and if we don't, THEN we would have a reason to speculate.

Also, I know Fred Topel. I asked him about that on facebook and he indicated that he wasn't really a transfer expert.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I know reviews are just opinions in the end of the day like ours,but they seem to like the transfer so I don't think it's close to the Predator release at all.

In the end of the day it comes down to peoples unrealistic expectations of older catalogue movies on Blu-ray,and if you look long and hard enough you will find faults with every one.

Digital bits gave Patton a great review, reviews are meaningless

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

The studio owns the movie. It doesn't get a new master unless 20th Century Fox pays for it. Period. It's not like Friedkin just has the negative in his closet and takes it to a mastering studio. There is no way to make a new Blu-Ray of The French Connection without 20th Century Fox's full involvement.

Well, no shit it was after the release of the UHE. ALL the comments we're talking about this thread are things people have come around to feeling in 2013.

It doesn't mean anything that the press release for the Predator Head -- solely meant to pimp the SDCC edition, and not entirely applicable to the unfinalized standard version -- isn't all that specific about the master. I'm sure when the standard edition is officially detailed, we will hear more about it then, and if we don't, THEN we would have a reason to speculate.

Also, I know Fred Topel. I asked him about that on facebook and he indicated that he wasn't really a transfer expert.

Why are fox paying for an mgm remaster.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Why are fox paying for an mgm remaster.

The French Connection is not owned in any way, shape, or form by MGM. It was a 20th Century Fox film in 1971 and it's a 20th Century Fox film in 2013.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

The French Connection is not owned in any way, shape, or form by MGM. It was a 20th Century Fox film in 1971 and it's a 20th Century Fox film in 2013.

The quote of mine was referring to Fargo......................................

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

The quote of mine was referring to Fargo......................................

You quoted a post of mine that doesn't mention Fargo. How am I supposed to know that?

I already said I don't know what the deal is with the MGM / Fox agreement.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

You quoted a post of mine that doesn't mention Fargo. How am I supposed to know that?

I already said I don't know what the deal is with the MGM / Fox agreement.

Go back and reread the chain, I did.
I will wait

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 42041

I get the feeling that whatever iteration of the transfer Cameron was making that quip about isn't what's on the disc. While the granularity might've been evened out shot-to-shot, it still has approximately the amount of grain you'd get from an 80s high speed negative.

Hmmm. Personally I think that Lowry have now got a library of grain patterns designed to emulate certain stocks from certain periods. RAH's reviews of some of the Connery Bonds mentioned that he was seeing grain, albeit not the correct type for the period, so it wouldn't surprise me if Lowry had refined their process in the years since then.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hmmm. Personally I think that Lowry have now got a library of grain patterns designed to emulate certain stocks from certain periods. RAH's reviews of some of the Connery Bonds mentioned that he was seeing grain, albeit not the correct type for the period, so it wouldn't surprise me if Lowry had refined their process in the years since then.

Yep, they have "period" grain I am sure there was in interview somewhere I saw.
The first bonds have some of the dnr poking thru less so than something like AWIL

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Go back and reread the chain, I did.
I will wait

No, thanks. I don't really think you know what you're talking about.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

No, thanks. I don't really think you know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylergfoster View Post

Fargo was mgm

Originally Posted by tylergfoster View Post

Distributes not masters

There I did it for you, no need to be rude at all
You got the wrong end of the stick not me, you responded to my post about Fargo with a TFC follow up
It is not my fault you could not follow the conversation
You were talking about Fargo as if it was up to Fox to remaster, it is an MGM movie, simple

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Yep, they have "period" grain I am sure there was in interview somewhere I saw.
The first bonds have some of the dnr poking thru less so than something like AWIL

Adding grain into a shot is something that effects houses have had to deal with since the inception of digital effects (it gets regular mentions in ILM: Into The Digital Realm), and no doubt they had to create different patterns to match different emulsions. It's a pity that it took Lowry so long to catch up, not so much from a 'period grain' point of view because my own eye is not nearly so cultured as that of RAH, but for the floating grain nastiness that they've visited upon certain classic movies. *cough* Star Wars *cough*

As for the first few Bonds, for some reason Dr No is the best of the bunch while the later movies tend to look a little more artificial.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Adding grain into a shot is something that effects houses have had to deal with since the inception of digital effects (it gets regular mentions in ILM: Into The Digital Realm), and no doubt they had to create different patterns to match different emulsions. It's a pity that it took Lowry so long to catch up, not so much from a 'period grain' point of view because my own eye is not nearly so cultured as that of RAH, but for the floating grain nastiness that they've visited upon certain classic movies. *cough* Star Wars *cough*

As for the first few Bonds, for some reason Dr No is the best of the bunch while the later movies tend to look a little more artificial.

Catch up is what they do, I have no idea why they have cast a spell like they have over the directors, Laser Pacific are miles better.
I think Lucasfilm cheaped out on Star Wars a little, even Lowry could have done better, but the 1080p that LF paid for had limitations and they went with the standard DNR pass they has done on Star Wars since LD

[42041]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

The Fargo Blu-ray transfer is pretty good in my humble opinion.

If you don't mind video noise and EE halos thick as your arm
For all its flaws I'd take the original Predator disc over that (or BttF) any day.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by 42041

if you don't mind video noise and ee halos thick as your arm
for all its flaws i'd take the original predator disc over that (or bttf) any day.

+1

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Catch up is what they do, I have no idea why they have cast a spell like they have over the directors, Laser Pacific are miles better.
I think Lucasfilm cheaped out on Star Wars a little, even Lowry could have done better, but the 1080p that LF paid for had limitations and they went with the standard DNR pass they has done on Star Wars since LD

Yeah, I am just not a fan of that 'removing grain, then adding fake grain' process. It seems non-authentic to the actual film. Lowry has A LOT of flawed transfers out there although they have improved for sure. Laser Pacific has a far better approach - wish they could handle every catalog title.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Well, if Fox had a change of heart, it must have been after the release of the UHE. You probably noticed that there was no mention of a 2D restoration or remaster in the official press release for Predator 3D. Why not?

No clue. I think whatever is released will be better than the previous two versions. If not, well, I still have the original at least.

[Blu Jedi Master]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I'll probably stick with my current copy of the original release, since it looks fine to my eyes...

Same one I have, I did not bite on the Ultimate.