Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by YodasFootPowder

It's obviously not going to kill Blu-ray. But, if this new edition sells a million copies more than the previews release, FOX is going to be like, "Wow, people really like it when we smear and blur our movies to death, let's do another one". And then we'll all be sitting here having this same conversation when the Aliens set is released.

I'm not here to argue one version over another, but I do think they went a little overboard with this new release and I'd really hate to see this start a trend in the way old releases are handled.

Well didnt Fox release Patton? Dident they Dnr the hell out that one? Has every Fox release since then been Dnr'd the hell out of?

[mars396]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

When watching a film on BD, the media is there to replicate the creative team's vision, not to use the movie as a canvas to show off "cool" or "neat looking" technology.

Blu-ray is not film. It is never going to be film. Film has much more clarity (ie resolution in Blu-ray terms) than Blu-ray will ever have. All films are adapted to accomodate this. There will eventually be a medium that will properly convey film as film, I have no doubt about it. I also have no doubt that (God willing) if I am alive to see it, I will embrace that too.

For now, I am embracing Blu-ray. Not because I am ignorant. Not because I only like films that look like Avatar, or video-games, but because it is a MEDIUM to watch our favorite movies in a new and exciting way.

We will never again be able to time travel to that exact moment in time we watched Predator in a movie theatre. That experience is a memory. I am enjoying the here and now: the nice and clear version of one of my most cherished films. I felt like I was seeing it for the first time; that is a feeling I haven't had since 1987. To me, THAT is the point of all this wonderful technology.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

So if the source material is crappy for whatever reason....and they have ways to make it look better for home video then they did in the cinema.....its totally uncalled for to want to see it that way right?

There is a massive difference between a true restoration to old, damaged source elements (The Wizard of OZ is a sterling example of proper clean-up) and just splashing digital gunk all over the picture (Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition) and conning people into thinking it is some remastering or whatever they want to call it.

If you think UHE is a restoration, you have no idea what one is.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by wormraper

DEPENDS... if it's things that are NOT on the film originally when it was created (aka dust, dirt, hairs on the film etc).. Then by all means, restore the film to original state. HOWEVER. I must say this in Big letters..... GRAIN IS NOT A FLAW.. IT IS A PART OF THE LITERAL PHYSICAL FILM. Any altering of that DOES NOT make it look better. DNR always resorts in loss of detail no matter how small the loss is. if the original film was grainy as hell, or for example, low rez like 28 days later intentionally was. THEN LEAVE IT ALONE

I dident say Grain was a flaw but is it true that Bluray shows off more grain and makes it more apparent then other formats? So can Bluray actually show more then was intended in darker scenes for example?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by mars396

Blu-ray is not film. It is never going to be film. Film has much more clarity (ie resolution in Blu-ray terms) than Blu-ray will ever have. All films are adapted to accomodate this. There will eventually be a medium that will properly convey film as film, I have no doubt about it. I also have no doubt that (God willing) if I am alive to see it, I will embrace that too.

For now, I am embracing Blu-ray. Not because I am ignorant. Not because I only like films that look like Avatar, or video-games, but because it is a MEDIUM to watch our favorite movies in a new and exciting way.

We will never again be able to time travel to that exact moment in time we watched Predator in a movie theatre. That experience is a memory. I am enjoying the here and now: the nice and clear version of one of my most cherished films. I felt like I was seeing it for the first time; that is a feeling I haven't had since 1987. To me, THAT is the point of all this wonderful technology.

Exactly. Blu ray is a medium. what is ON the medium needs to look as close as possible to film

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by persuazion

So if the source material is crappy for whatever reason....and they have ways to make it look better for home video then they did in the cinema.....its totally uncalled for to want to see it that way right?

By all means, restore the content. Heavy DNR application, however, has absolutely nothing to do with restoration.

Pro-B

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I dident say Grain was a flaw but is it true that Bluray shows off more grain and makes it more apparent then other formats? So can Bluray actually show more then was intended in darker scenes for example?

not really, DVD and VHS were such low resolution that they hid the grain that was originally shown on the film. Blu ray's higher resolution just allows the movie more room to breathe and accurately reproduce the grain

[jukejoint]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

By all means, restore the content. Heavy DNR application, however, has absolutely nothing to do with restoration.

Pro-B

Succinct and undeniable.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by mars396

Blu-ray is not film. It is never going to be film. Film has much more clarity (ie resolution in Blu-ray terms) than Blu-ray will ever have. All films are adapted to accomodate this. There will eventually be a medium that will properly convey film as film, I have no doubt about it. I also have no doubt that (God willing) if I am alive to see it, I will embrace that too.

For now, I am embracing Blu-ray. Not because I am ignorant. Not because I only like films that look like Avatar, or video-games, but because it is a MEDIUM to watch our favorite movies in a new and exciting way.

We will never again be able to time travel to that exact moment in time we watched Predator in a movie theatre. That experience is a memory. I am enjoying the here and now: the nice and clear version of one of my most cherished films. I felt like I was seeing it for the first time; that is a feeling I haven't had since 1987. To me, THAT is the point of all this wonderful technology.

But the 2008 version is a close second to that experience.

I live in a city that has several revival houses and revival screenings occur daily. Over the past few years, I have been lucky enough to catch Predator a few times, so I have a pretty good point of reference for how the damned thing looks. UHE was unnecessary tinkering and we have had the technology (for years now) to replicate as closely as possible the clarity and depth of image that film has to offer. DNRing (or EEing) the film scanned onto tape does that master image no favors.

[YodasFootPowder]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Well didnt Fox release Patton? Dident they Dnr the hell out that one? Has every Fox release since then been Dnr'd the hell out of?

I'm guessing Patton probably hasn't ever sold as well as a movie like Predator. Predator seems to be more of a big name, mainstream movie than Patton. If this new version outsells the old one by 10 to 1, FOX is definitely going to take notice and be like, "Duuuuurrrrr, everyone loves DNR, keep 'em coming".

[Crimson King]

Glad I have the 2008 barebones release, along w/ Commando.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by wormraper

not really, DVD and VHS were such low resolution that they hid the grain that was originally shown on the film. Blu ray's higher resolution just allows the movie more room to breathe and accurately reproduce the grain

Seems to me that every single movie I have on Blu...the grain is more apparent then their dvd counterpart....Collateral for example. Not so much as to put me off from liking it, but I never really noticed grain at all on Dvds....

[jukejoint]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Seems to me that every single movie I have on Blu...the grain is more apparent then their dvd counterpart....Collateral for example. Not so much as to put me off from liking it, but I never really noticed grain at all on Dvds....

Durr, because standard definition is mostly low-resolution crap. HD allows a much more accurate portrayal of a film's visual intent, grain and all. But of course you know all of these obvious facts already, and despite your username, can apparently never be persuaded of these simple truths.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Seems to me that every single movie I have on Blu...the grain is more apparent then their dvd counterpart....Collateral for example. Not so much as to put me off from liking it, but I never really noticed grain at all on Dvds....

That's probably very true. DVD's low resolution blurred grain into the background so it seemed more part of the pixelation or just seemed "soft"

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Seems to me that every single movie I have on Blu...the grain is more apparent then their dvd counterpart....Collateral for example. Not so much as to put me off from liking it, but I never really noticed grain at all on Dvds....

Collateral does not have grain (except for the one scene in the jazz club) because it was shot on HD Videotape, not film. Video does not give you grain, it gives you noise. This showed up on the BD because DVD could not handle information that complex. Same thing with Predator, you think the barebones looked bad because the dvds could not accurately replicate the detail of the grain, so when it finally did show up on the BD it seemed "bad" to so many people's eyes.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

think fox where out to make the best looking edition as possible! Predator has always been a heavy grainy movie. But at least we have two editions to choose from. im not a grain hater or a grain lover i think there is a 'in between' really if they wanted to make everyone happy that is.

Can I have your disc 2 of extras? I don't get that with the 2008 version.

[markbr]

Glad I have both editions!!! But I doubt I will be watching the 2008 edition in a hurry.

[42041]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I dident say Grain was a flaw but is it true that Bluray shows off more grain and makes it more apparent then other formats? So can Bluray actually show more then was intended in darker scenes for example?

Not unless it was intentionally enhanced... with new movies, the blu-ray is made from the 2K or 4K DI, so the theatrical prints and the home video transfer is made from the same source. Obviously, when your system can't reproduce high frequencies, like an out-of-focus 35mm projector or a DVD, the visibility of grain is reduced.
A lot can happen once the image goes through a miscalibrated TV too.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by jukejoint

Durr, because standard definition is mostly low-resolution crap. HD allows a much more accurate portrayal of a film's visual intent, grain and all. But of course you know all of these obvious facts already, and despite your username, can apparently never be persuaded of these simple truths.

Good one .......see what happens when I actually try to talk about grain and dnr on a sensible level. Purists cant help but to resort to the inner film snob within them.....

[Jim Morrison]

I managed half-an-hour of this over-processed garbage before hitting the eject button. Absymal effort, Fox.