Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Right now, DVD watchers that don't own a blu-ray player are probably laughing in our faces right now as everyone is flipping out over this release - I bet they are happy with their DVD of Predator.

Out of curiousity, here's my little conspiracy theory for the day. When 3D blu-ray gets popular and they start re-releasing movies into 3D such as Predator, would it technically be easier to 3Dize a blu-ray that doesn't have grain? It doesn't seem like a grainy movie could be successfully transferred into 3D since it would ruin the 3D effect. It seems like a DNRed blu-ray would have an easier time getting transferred to 3D.

Also, they will probably have to slightly crop films on the side to convert them to 3D. If I'm not mistaken you have to create 2 seperate views for each eye for 3d. So with that in mind you would need to slightly crop the edges to adjust the field of vision for each eye. Otherwise there is no room to move on a stable image. Think of it as slightly sliding the right and left image over. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that is how it would work.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by markbr

You just said it plain and clear. Like I've said if you want the original buy it, if not buy the new edition. Everyone has a choice my choice was both as I had the original in the first place, and I think the new one is better...

So what... you expect EVERY blu-ray released to have 2 versions so people have a choice? No. You don't have a choice in the theater between a real-looking grainy film, and a waxy video game-looking one, and you shouldn't at home either.

I love how people keep saying this without any regard to logic whatsoever, like they should get to choose how a movie looks nowadays. All you're doing by buying this edition is setting a bad precedent for studios to follow.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Also, they will probably have to slightly crop films on the side to convert them to 3D. If I'm not mistaken you have to create 2 seperate views for each eye for 3d. So with that in mind you would need to slightly crop the edges to adjust the field of vision for each eye. Otherwise there is no room to move on a stable image. Think of it as slightly sliding the right and left image over. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that is how it would work.

Well keep in mind when every they make a new transferor strike a new master they are open matte. So if cropping is ever needed for this process, they should still have more than enough picture information to maintain the OAR and picture framing for all practical concerns.

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Well keep in mind when every they make a new transferor strike a new master they are open matte. So if cropping is ever needed for this process, they should still have more than enough picture information to maintain the OAR and picture framing for all practical concerns.

Right but the cropping would need to be from the sides not from the top and bottom. The only films that would be open matte are flat films (1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 but then that is open matte so that's not really the point). Any film that is scope unless it was shot with Super 35mm (which exists but is probably pretty rare) has no extra head room. Prints for 2.35:1 (scope) are anamorphically squeezed onto a 1.33:1 frame (maybe it's 1.37:1 but that's just nitpicking). Therefor my point is still very valid. Before you ask how I know this, I was a projectionist for 7 years so I have quite a bit of knowledge about actual film.

Also sorry OP for getting off topic.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by retablo

So what... you expect EVERY blu-ray released to have 2 versions so people have a choice? No. You don't have a choice in the theater between a real-looking grainy film, and a waxy video game-looking one, and you shouldn't at home either.

I love how people keep saying this without any regard to logic whatsoever, like they should get to choose how a movie looks nowadays. All you're doing by buying this edition is setting a bad precedent for studios to follow.

I think he means for this particular release you happen to have 2 different versions to choose from......so why all the crying?

[markbr]

Originally Posted by retablo

So what... you expect EVERY blu-ray released to have 2 versions so people have a choice? No. You don't have a choice in the theater between a real-looking grainy film, and a waxy video game-looking one, and you shouldn't at home either.

I love how people keep saying this without any regard to logic whatsoever, like they should get to choose how a movie looks nowadays. All you're doing by buying this edition is setting a bad precedent for studios to follow.

I never said Every blu ray release..... It was predator, think what you like !! I don't care I just bought the new edition and I think it's better. No harm done, if you don't like the new predator then who cares I don't and FOX don't either.

[42041]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I think he means for this particular release you happen to have 2 different versions to choose from......so why all the crying?

uh, because one is a crappy barebones MPEG2 disc?

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by retablo

So what... you expect EVERY blu-ray released to have 2 versions so people have a choice? No. You don't have a choice in the theater between a real-looking grainy film, and a waxy video game-looking one, and you shouldn't at home either.

There are all levels of choices - that's what makes a hobby fun and interesting. And yes, there are movie theater choices with different video/audio quality. You can choose the theater you want to see a particular movie in - the rundown mom & pop tiny theater with a bad movie projector or the mainstream stadium seating theater with digital projection. Depending on the type of mood one is in, it's nice to have the choice because both theaters have advantages and disadvatages.

I can turn it around and say the same with double dipping and re-releases with no difference in video/audio quality. I can say "it's wrong to sucker the consumer into double dipping and buying many blu-ray versions with different covers or supposed limited edition nonsense. It's wrong for companies to do that." How would you like it if someone told you, Retablo, that you shouldn't have double blu-ray copies of your Harry Potter movies on blu-ray. You have doubles of those films on blu-ray. How would you like it if someone told you, "you shouldn't have a choice to buy those?" Limited-edition re-released blu-rays with fancy packaging, a few more extras, a different cover, etc. are at the same level as re-releasing blu-rays with different degrees of video/audio quality. Both sucker the consumer into buying up into that.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ummm, actually you do. Grain is LITERALLY a piece of the physical film. Take away a piece you lose something. It's a fact of nature.

I'm not sure how it can get any more broken down than this. Grain literally preserves the detail. Take it away, no matter how carefully it's done, you will always lose detail.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by 42041

uh, because one is a crappy barebones MPEG2 disc?

But all the reviews for the first one said that it was the best Predator will ever look on Bluray because of the source......

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by mars396

To be true to yourself, you really shouldn't be messing around with electronic media at all. You should have a projector, a screen, and watch everything on its original medium. You are contradicting yourself when you claim people are stupid for not watching something as it was originally created, yet you are watching Blu-rays. Are you watching these films with the "original" soundmix as "created" or some sort of digitally enhanced soundfield with 7.1 speakers ?

The medium on which you're watching it doesn't have anything to do with whether a movie looks the way it's intended or not. A movie should look the way it's intended, regardless of the medium. And yes, if they're available, I listen to the original sound mix. Remixes often are horrible, replacing sounds in the process to make it more 'modern'. The problem is that some studios listen more often to people like you and don't think they need to include the original sound track, or make the picture look the way it was when it came out.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

I'm not sure how it can get any more broken down than this. Grain literally preserves the detail. Take it away, no matter how carefully it's done, you will always lose detail.

I would rather take a wrinkle or two away then have a swirling grainstorm distract you from the movie.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The medium on which you're watching it doesn't have anything to do with whether a movie looks the way it's intended or not. A movie should look the way it's intended, regardless of the medium. And yes, if they're available, I listen to the original sound mix. Remixes often are horrible, replacing sounds in the process to make it more 'modern'. The problem is that some studios listen more often to people like you and don't think they need to include the original sound track, or make the picture look the way it was when it came out.

so your against remastered music too right? Its not the way the artist intended you hear it.....its been tampered with and altered from its original source.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I think he means for this particular release you happen to have 2 different versions to choose from......so why all the crying?

I think this question has been asked and answered once every 5 pages or so.

A) A lot of people wanted a high bitrate version with no compression artifacts. This happened, but it also included excessive DNR, which many did not want.


B) It sets a bad precedent for future releases.


Of course this is a special case, it's a double dip done with the purpose of cashing in on the latest release. So it's possible, the excessive DNR was done to just create the impression that it's a new version of the film. Which they certainly succeeded at, if you love or hate it.

So hopefully (for those of us that loathe excessive DNR, EE, contrast pumping or other creative digital manipulation), this was an isolated marketing gimmick used to coy non-videophiles. The sales reports will tell if they succeeded at that.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I would rather take a wrinkle or two away then have a swirling grainstorm distract you from the movie.

I see that Ghostbusters is in your collection, do you find the grain in that film distracting?

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

I think this question has been asked and answered once every 5 pages or so.

A) A lot of people wanted a high bitrate version with no compression artifacts. This happened, but it also included excessive DNR, which many did not want.


B) It sets a bad precedent for future releases.


Of course this is a special case, it's a double dip done with the purpose of cashing in on the latest release. So it's possible, the excessive DNR was done to just create the impression that it's a new version of the film. Which they certainly succeeded at, if you love or hate it.

So hopefully (for those of us that loathe excessive DNR, EE, contrast pumping or other creative digital manipulation), this was an isolated marketing gimmick used to coy non-videophiles. The sales reports will tell if they succeeded at that.

Yeah maybe they just wanted to sell to the general public .......how dare people not know about DNR and bitrates!!

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I see that Ghostbusters is in your collection, do you find the grain in that film distracting?

Very...

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Very...

If you don't mind me asking, what is you sharpness set at on your display? And for that matter, what is your display?

[42041]

Originally Posted by persuazion

so your against remastered music too right? Its not the way the artist intended you hear it.....its been tampered with and altered from its original source.

Not all music remasters tamper with the source.
And yes, if a new remaster squashes the dynamics of the original mix, which is what often is done to please people of your mindset, I think it stinks.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by persuazion

so your against remastered music too right? Its not the way the artist intended you hear it.....its been tampered with and altered from its original source.

I'm for remastered music if the original musicians and engineers are at the helm. and even then I still want the originals widely available if they go to heavy handed in revising the original.

I think some people assume the term "remaster" is always a good thing. The same follies exist with music re-masters and noise reduction. Use it too much and it makes things sound dead and lifeless. Much like grain, ambient noise is an inherent part of the source material. Sometimes it plays an important role, sometimes it's a distraction the creators never wanted. But you can only reduce so much of the ambient noise before you also start to take away some of the sounds of the instruments as well.

We do a lot of on the road shows here. and when it comes time to do the sound work we are always riding a fine line between how much unwanted noise we can take out before it starts to make the talent's audio sound worse than if we had left it alone.