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

[Geoff D]

Damn you guys and your positive comments. Now I've gotta see the 3D version for myself.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

The lenticular slip is pretty sweet. not sure when I'll get a chance to watch it.

[DB5]

Just got around to watching this and was very pleased, it's given the movie a whole new lease of life for me, Jungle scenes were great with leaves, branches and vines all in the foreground.
That slipcover is certainly my favorite as of now.
Thanks for the compliments on the predator head Zivouhr

[Zivouhr]

Yeah, that statue looks great.

Predator is a survival movie, so the plot is basic, but entertaining for a slower paced stealth movie. I don't envy the Predator's eye sight. Either in heat signals or all red and blurry. I don't know how he gets around so well.

Watching 3D a second time:
Strongest 3D shot in Predator 3D IMO? For 3D layers, the shot on the Log crossing a drop below with about 40 minutes remaining, where you can see the characters standing on it and Arnold on the far end, the silent guy with the black hair standing closest in view, has some strong 3D. Sadly, that level of 3D drops shortly after that, and goes back to the mild 3D through most of the film, even for most of the end scenes. There are a few more really nice 3D shots thankfully.

More time in the 3D digital cooker to get shots on par with that log shot would have made Predator a great "auto" 3D conversion.

How does this 3D auto-convert system software work I wonder?
For panning, moving shots, I'm guessing the computer analyzes the fastest moving parts and determines they're foreground, then calculates the layers from that point back. But I'd say there has to be some human element that also has to tell the computer what will be foreground, mid and background for still shots, etc.
I think there was a link earlier I'll have to track down.

This was about on par with I Robot's 3D IMO. Decent 3D but for 14.99, I won't complain. Great price.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Yeah, that statue looks great.

Predator is a survival movie, so the plot is basic, but entertaining for a slower paced stealth movie. I don't envy the Predator's eye sight. Either in heat signals or all red and blurry. I don't know how he gets around so well.

Watching 3D a second time:
Strongest 3D shot in Predator 3D IMO? For 3D layers, the shot on the Log crossing a drop below with about 40 minutes remaining, where you can see the characters standing on it and Arnold on the far end, the silent guy with the black hair standing closest in view, has some strong 3D. Sadly, that level of 3D drops shortly after that, and goes back to the mild 3D through most of the film, even for most of the end scenes. There are a few more really nice 3D shots thankfully.

More time in the 3D digital cooker to get shots on par with that log shot would have made Predator a great "auto" 3D conversion.

How does this 3D auto-convert system software work I wonder?
For panning, moving shots, I'm guessing the computer analyzes the fastest moving parts and determines they're foreground, then calculates the layers from that point back. But I'd say there has to be some human element that also has to tell the computer what will be foreground, mid and background for still shots, etc.
I think there was a link earlier I'll have to track down.

This was about on par with I Robot's 3D IMO. Decent 3D but for 14.99, I won't complain. Great price.

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I think they cut out the layers and then cut out another frame a few frames latter and then tween between them. A person then adjusts the tweened frames.

There are articles about the JVC auto conversion process, and most of them have been linked to posts earlier in this thread. This one should describe the reasons for the efficiency and cost savings. In essence, reducing rotoscopes from 100 per frame to an average of 9, and the embossing process that creates the 3 dimensional volume from the 2 dimensional layers is at the heart of the cost savings. From Ian Harvey:


"Our tool will emboss the layers and give them curvature or shape. There are several ways to do this- we can stretch it, we can bend it – but it does require manual intervention.

Typically, and you’ll have seen this in a number of movies that were released in theatres, when somebody has done roto on an item but they haven’t gone to the lengths of providing roto for all of the features and you get the cardboard cutout effect. There’s depth, but each layer looks flat. It doesn’t look natural. Our process looks natural and when you look at Will Smith’s face, it doesn’t look flat.

To create this effect normally you’d have to do a separate roto for everything. Each of his eyes, his lips his ears, everything. But for a typical bust shot, we just do three masks. Just three. Those scenes where you see a character from the waist up, we just need three masks.

That’s a big deal for us. The emboss tool can then be used on a mask by mask basis. There are fifty different adjustable parameters that give us the ability, keyed to intensity, colour or other things, to set the emboss effects.

Typically, if you look at an image where you have light and dark, dark is further back than light; if you look at colour, typically red is forward, blue is back. There are fifty of these fundamental algorhythms you can use to give a mask shape. You use the right ones for the mask that you have.

It’s even better when working on a film like I, Robot, pictures that required the creation of a lot of CG elements. Those 3D models can be used to emboss the masks too, creating a 3D effect that follows the original CG element’s shaping."

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/10/...from-2d-to-3d/

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I think they cut out the layers and then cut out another frame a few frames latter and then tween between them. A person then adjusts the tweened frames.

That makes sense. Using spatial time opportunity that sometimes presents itself for a dimensional catalyst that can create a stronger 3D scene effect.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I think they cut out the layers and then cut out another frame a few frames latter and then tween between them. A person then adjusts the tweened frames.

Originally Posted by raygendreau

There are articles about the JVC auto conversion process, and most of them have been linked to posts earlier in this thread. This one should describe the reasons for the efficiency and cost savings. In essence, reducing rotoscopes from 100 per frame to an average of 9, and the embossing process that creates the 3 dimensional volume from the 2 dimensional layers is at the heart of the cost savings. From Ian Harvey:

[Show spoiler]

"Our tool will emboss the layers and give them curvature or shape. There are several ways to do this- we can stretch it, we can bend it – but it does require manual intervention.

Typically, and you’ll have seen this in a number of movies that were released in theatres, when somebody has done roto on an item but they haven’t gone to the lengths of providing roto for all of the features and you get the cardboard cutout effect. There’s depth, but each layer looks flat. It doesn’t look natural. Our process looks natural and when you look at Will Smith’s face, it doesn’t look flat.

To create this effect normally you’d have to do a separate roto for everything. Each of his eyes, his lips his ears, everything. But for a typical bust shot, we just do three masks. Just three. Those scenes where you see a character from the waist up, we just need three masks.

That’s a big deal for us. The emboss tool can then be used on a mask by mask basis. There are fifty different adjustable parameters that give us the ability, keyed to intensity, colour or other things, to set the emboss effects.

Typically, if you look at an image where you have light and dark, dark is further back than light; if you look at colour, typically red is forward, blue is back. There are fifty of these fundamental algorhythms you can use to give a mask shape. You use the right ones for the mask that you have.

It’s even better when working on a film like I, Robot, pictures that required the creation of a lot of CG elements. Those 3D models can be used to emboss the masks too, creating a 3D effect that follows the original CG element’s shaping."

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/10/...from-2d-to-3d/

Thank you for the link and explanations. That helps.

[dblystonejr]

Just finished this tonight and hell yeah! This has some really good depth and I really enjoyed it. The 3D really amps up the viewing of this movie.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by bandol

Fox first version was terrible, looked like vhs no color, bitrate so low it averaged 8.4.this 3d version so much color, little bit to much wax here and there film is thirty years old.i never thought I would predator look so good. I did see predator in the theater in 1987 and remember beautiful colors, just like this version.

I'll admit I wasn't even born when Predator came out in theaters, but many people who saw it back then and who have seen some what recent theatrical showings as well have all said the print looks very much like the 2008 Blu-Ray minus the compression and artfacting. Predator was never eye candy, it was never clean, and it was never waxy, the UHE manipulated master is a incorrect representation with those over pumped colours and contrast. The 2008 Blu still looks very good. Much better then the DVD and the UHE/3D releases.

[67stingray]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

I'll admit I wasn't even born when Predator came out in theaters, but many people who saw it back then and who have seen some what recent theatrical showings as well have all said the print looks very much like the 2008 Blu-Ray minus the compression and artfacting. Predator was never eye candy, it was never clean, and it was never waxy, the UHE manipulated master is a incorrect representation with those over pumped colours and contrast. The 2008 Blu still looks very good. Much better then the DVD and the UHE/3D releases.

the 2008 sucks just as bad as the UHE but for different reasons. I did a side by side and ended up grudgingly keeping the UHE as I thought it was just slightly better overall. It is a shame they did not hype the 3D release of this more so people would get it, high sales numbers means more chance they do it right in the future.

[UFAlien]

The sample video convinced me to pick this up today at Best Buy. May post some 3D screens later.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by 67stingray

the 2008 sucks just as bad as the UHE but for different reasons. I did a side by side and ended up grudgingly keeping the UHE as I thought it was just slightly better overall. It is a shame they did not hype the 3D release of this more so people would get it, high sales numbers means more chance they do it right in the future.

No it doesn't. The 2008 release is far from perfect, but if you say the 2008 version sucks then your bascially saying the whole look and style of the cinematography sucks.

The manipulated master for the UHE looks like it was made with 3D-only in mind. They only released it early back in 2010 to cash in on the release of Predators. Of course I can't confirm/verify this, but its just a gut feeling and one that if you think about it makes sense.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

The sample video convinced me to pick this up today at Best Buy. May post some 3D screens later.

There are a few errors I noticed in the conversion, but mostly it's just warping around objects. Let me know if you spot anything else. Thanks UFAlien.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

There are a few errors I noticed in the conversion, but mostly it's just warping around objects. Let me know if you spot anything else. Thanks UFAlien.

That's pretty much it, yeah, warping along edges and especially with out of focus foreground objects the JVC tool really isn't equipped to deal with. No screenshots unfortunately as the tool I use isn't working atm. Overall definitely a pretty shallow conversion, but surprisingly good quality considering the conversion methods. Unlike the site's reviewer I didn't see any shots that were literally left 2D, though there were certainly plenty where it was shallow enough that the difference wasn't apparent if glasses were removed. Some fun bits, all the particulates in the foreground looked very nice and as you'd noted earlier the scene on the fallen trunk "bridge" is actually pretty deep. The conversion also helps the Predator's cloaking device effect stand out more and look cooler. Decent conversion for the price I'd say. I'd pick up another one of these JVC titles if it were another movie I liked.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

No it doesn't. The 2008 release is far from perfect, but if you say the 2008 version sucks then your bascially saying the whole look and style of the cinematography sucks.

The manipulated master for the UHE looks like it was made with 3D-only in mind. They only released it early back in 2010 to cash in on the release of Predators. Of course I can't confirm/verify this, but its just a gut feeling and one that if you think about it makes sense.

I am by no means claiming the UHE is perfect as it clearly has issues and some weird stuff going on, but we really don't know if the 2008 version has the intended look of the film either. It is an old MPEG-2 encoded telecine transfer with a lot of video noise (much of which is NOT film grain) that was made with DVD in mind at the time and we know how most of those old transfers have incorrect color timing among other issues.

[Ben_R]

I know people that actually prefer the "waxy look" with all detail from the print scrubbed with an inch of it's life. I'd rather a bit of grain than the waxy look but each to their own.

[cash_black]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eoucvxw4RA

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I am by no means claiming the UHE is perfect as it clearly has issues and some weird stuff going on, but we really don't know if the 2008 version has the intended look of the film either. It is an old MPEG-2 encoded telecine transfer with a lot of video noise (much of which is NOT film grain) that was made with DVD in mind at the time and we know how most of those old transfers have incorrect color timing among other issues.

That's true to an extent, but I am just going by what others have said after reporting back from special released theatrical showings over the last few years. The general consensus is that minus the compression, video noise and artfacting, the print displayed was a lot closer to the 2008 Blu in terms of colours and contrast then any other version on home media. No its not exactly the same, and yes the 2008 Blu has issues, but you'd be deluded to tell me that the artificially boosted UHE master looked anywhere near how the film originally looked or was intended to look like.

I remember reading articles about people associated in the production of the film commenting how naterelly the scenes in the jungle were darker with bleaker colours then what you'd come to expect or something along those lines. The 08 Blu certainly goes closer to conveying that style then the UHE master.

[keb33509]

This was a LOT better than I expected. I can only hope future "auto-convert" 3D catalog titles get better and better! By auto-convert I mean more software-based with less human interaction.

[besi]

Great conversion on the 3D ,it really gives you a different feel for the movie.
I have every version of the predator release and non of them are perfect but i think this 3D release is the best to date.
I would love to see a brand new 4k transfer but i don't think it will happen.
And the "predator head" is f.... awesome,im glad i ordered it