Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[al cos.]

Wow, what insight.
Yeah they're both terrible. It wouldn't be a big deal if we didn't know what the format is capable of, even with these older, potentially problematic movies. (something like Dirty Harry). As it is, they're just counting on enough people having that OCD that makes us want the latest, "best" version of everything, even if it's at a really half-ass level.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by deadhatetheliving

He'd rather have Avatar bend him over and make him its bi*ch then give us a BD of True Lies.

He actually wants to work on the BDs for True Lies, Titanic, and The Abyss, but he's stated over and over that he's done with Aliens. It's too bad if you ask me.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

OK, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Grain lovers like grain because it preserves the way film (presumeably 35mm) displays the imagery it captures to the screen.

Now then, let's update this arguement to the future....if that's possible. Well, first of all, some movies now are being shot with HD digital cameras, (the Crank films come to mind, and even some parts of District 9) and they have this extremely clean and polished look without the post-production processa where they color correct and add in artifcial grain and whatnot. But let's sat that in the future, movies are shot with 4K cameras and they all have that extremely clean look. Well then films that have grain or extensive amount of grain still have that "yeah, grain! I love it!" feel to it to those who do prefer it? Or will films with grain structure look as outdated as early B&W films.

Becaue when you get right down to it, grain itself is just a limitation of the medium, (film) that these movies were filmed on.

In fact, I've always wondered, even up to 15 years ago, why films have this dreary grainy look yto them while their behind the scenes stuff that waas sfilmed on handheld cameras look pretty clean and grain free. Again, this goes back to the arguement that there is no grain in the real world, so why would you want it or prefer it in your film?

For me it isn't about grain/no grain (although I do like grain), it's about original presentation vs. manipulated presentation. I always come down on the former side, so if something is shot and screened digitally, I want the original digital look. BUT, if something was shot on 35mm film, which has that wonderful grain texture, I want to have that film grain in my Blu-ray presentation.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

For me it isn't about grain/no grain (although I do like grain), it's about original presentation vs. manipulated presentation. I always come down on the former side, so if something is shot and screened digitally, I want the original digital look. BUT, if something was shot on 35mm film, which has that wonderful grain texture, I want to have that film grain in my Blu-ray presentation.

+1
I'm pretty much of the same opinion. Blade Runner is a wonderful example of a blu done right.

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Here's a comparison of that shot:
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/65043

Pores are gone (although with so much grain I have a hard time telling what's a pore and what's a grain) but I still see his lines. In the new version you can see more detail in his eyes, hair and facial hair, ear, shirt, and the light bulb.

You know, honestly, the new DNR'ed version actually has more [b]visible[/i] detail. Note the crows feet around his eyes. You can't hardly see that in the grainy version, but it's very clear in the scrubbed version.

Does his skin texture look "waxy"? Yeah sure, but you can't deny that you can make out detail better in the scrubbed version. So whatcha gonna do?

Actually, after seeing this screens, I think I will pick up this new version. And if nothing else, I'll just jack up my Detail Enhancement and Edge Enhancement settings on my player to compensate for the waxy skin.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

Here's a comparison of that shot:
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/65043

Pores are gone (although with so much grain I have a hard time telling what's a pore and what's a grain) but I still see his lines. In the new version you can see more detail in his eyes, hair and facial hair, ear, shirt, and the light bulb.

I see more detail in the original version. All I see in the new version is edge enhancement to make you think there's more detail. Plus, the people actually look like people, not mannequins.

[blame_thatcher]

The screenshots I've seen from the new release are disgusting, to put it mildly. Why can't people understand that the film is simply not supposed to look like this? Ridiculous DNR is as big a crime against film as pan-and-scan.

This is the trouble with Blu-ray - it requires couch potatoes to be even more clued-up about the film-making process than before, and they still can't manage it despite the years spent watching films.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

OK, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Grain lovers like grain because it preserves the way film (presumeably 35mm) displays the imagery it captures to the screen.

Now then, let's update this arguement to the future....if that's possible. Well, first of all, some movies now are being shot with HD digital cameras, (the Crank films come to mind, and even some parts of District 9) and they have this extremely clean and polished look without the post-production processa where they color correct and add in artifcial grain and whatnot. But let's sat that in the future, movies are shot with 4K cameras and they all have that extremely clean look. Well then films that have grain or extensive amount of grain still have that "yeah, grain! I love it!" feel to it to those who do prefer it? Or will films with grain structure look as outdated as early B&W films.

Becaue when you get right down to it, grain itself is just a limitation of the medium, (film) that these movies were filmed on.

In fact, I've always wondered, even up to 15 years ago, why films have this dreary grainy look yto them while their behind the scenes stuff that waas sfilmed on handheld cameras look pretty clean and grain free. Again, this goes back to the arguement that there is no grain in the real world, so why would you want it or prefer it in your film?

The difference is:
1) If a film is SHOT that way, and intended to be clean and grain-free, then I'm all for it. because that's what the filmmaker's intended.
2) Even if you shoot on a 4K RED One, and the image is clean and grain-free, the people still don't look waxy.
3) Grain is NOT a limitation. It's an inherent part of film. Why is it a limitation? Film, to this day, still has more resolution than a 4K RED. So even WITH grain, film still has the more detailed picture.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

For me it isn't about grain/no grain (although I do like grain), it's about original presentation vs. manipulated presentation. I always come down on the former side, so if something is shot and screened digitally, I want the original digital look. BUT, if something was shot on 35mm film, which has that wonderful grain texture, I want to have that film grain in my Blu-ray presentation.

Exactly. I want the original, no matter what format it's shot on.

[Chaotic]

wow, those screenshots are awful. Stupid Fox.

[TNT]

Wow. If this were the mid-80s, I would say the thread is now at Defcon 2.

[maidenbrain]

While the new transfer looks better, because the original was so bad, I don't doubt that without scrubbing it would've looked truly amazing. I'll pass, again, not because I'm a grain-lover but because I'm a DNR-smear hater.

[Nick Graham]

Honestly, there is no good option for fans wanting to buy this film on Blu-Ray. The initial release was a multiple generations old transfer encoded poorly with MPEG2, and those familiar with the history of the production of the film will tell you the source elements are not good looking to begin with. Not to mention the initial release included no features despite being released AFTER a feature-packed two disc DVD set.

For the new version we get a new transfer, though one where the DNR has been applied to liberally (though thankfully not a lot of EE apparently). Color and contrast look to be much better on the new release, not to mention it has all the features from the aforementioned DVD set as well as Movie Money toward a movie I was planning to see, all for $15 plus tax at Wal-Mart. Of the two crappy options to choose from, choosing the new release seems a no-brainer to me, and I am no fan of DVR.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by retablo

I see more detail in the original version. All I see in the new version is edge enhancement to make you think there's more detail. Plus, the people actually look like people, not mannequins.

Yeah people walking through a sandstorm

[The_Basterd]

Does anyone else not like this movie? I watched this expecting a lot and I was very disappointed.... Hopefully I'll enjoy Predators more.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by blame_thatcher

The screenshots I've seen from the new release are disgusting, to put it mildly. Why can't people understand that the film is simply not supposed to look like this? Ridiculous DNR is as big a crime against film as pan-and-scan.

This is the trouble with Blu-ray - it requires couch potatoes to be even more clued-up about the film-making process than before, and they still can't manage it despite the years spent watching films.

Again. It's all about a middle ground.

Some DNR is not a crime. If they would have found a nice midgrown between the sandpaper presenation of the original release and the overly polished presentation for the new release, it would be great.

[Plisskenetic]

Some reviews are turning up... they're pretty 50/50
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=46500
http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewid=6267

On High Def Disc News, there are full 1080 screenshots giving u the scoop of the good and the crap.... especially Carl Weather's close-up - I hope the dudes responsible for these shots get fired!
I conclude with some minor relief that the crappy-waxed images are only in several shots that affect one's overall taste and judgements. How hard you'll tolerate it is VERY subjective. What we have here is quite mixed bag! I DO notice some better visible areas that are not apparent in the old blu-ray release -- I now see the Predator's 'net' pattern in his mask's socket, which was very faint in the previous transfer. And new color timing in this version is definitely a NICE improvement... I however would nitpick about them brightening up the shots of the Predator when he first rises out from the water. Those should stay 'dark' a little, not bright...

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Yeah people walking through a sandstorm

Keyword there is people. Not wax mannequins. I'll take people anyday.

[Beast]

Indeed. There's a lot of screenshots on Highdefdiscnews that show the entire transfer doesn't look nearly as bad as the often posted image of Arnie in the red shirt. In fact, outside of that one scene, which you can tell from the comparison was very soft in the first place, the rest looks pretty good. Such as....

http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshot...edition_20.png
http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshot...edition_24.png

Good examples right there. There's still film grain and fine detail, it hasn't been over scrubbed. Looks fantastic.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

I don't think I've ever been so startled in my life by DNR. This release, along with seeing several repertoire screenings of 35mm prints the last several years, has made me come down strongly in favor of the 2008 release over this travesty. The skinned bodies look like strawberry fruit roll-ups to me.

Explain to me, please, how the 2008 release is superior in this regard, or how DNR has in any way destroyed the skinned bodies. Here is the new release, and here is the dirty, fuzzy 2008 release. This is one of those shots that is clearly vastly superior in the new release. Or are you going to try and tell me that edge enhancement has magically brought this scene into focus, and therefore it's a travesty?