Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by RWoods

I hate this thread. I have no idea which version of this to get. But Im leaning towards 2008.

2008. Aside from the rather cruddy looking opening the rest, IMO, looks fantastic.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HDvision

The complete negative of Predator is made of enlarged / zoomed in shots ... [snip] ... It's a problematic film, due to the way it was edited and "fixed" by Stuart Baird.

By the way, does anyone actually have a source for this? I've kept hearing about these optical enlargements in the Predator PQ discussion but I can't seem to find anything reputable about it on the net.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Jegærn

I see your point and agree.

But...for arguments sake....Let`s use the latest Metallica album as an example.
Many fans complained that it was too much compressed. Not enough room for dynamics. What does that tell you about the fans??? THEY WANT to alter the product that METALLICA and their TOP qualified studio engineers said was finnished and ready for sale. I too think the album is too much compressed, but METALLICA wanted it the way it`s done....so fine.

Then what about the Predator.....I DO AGREE 100% that Fox shouldn`t have used that much DNR....It`s just too much I think. I would have prefered..say only 10 or 15% of the DNR used in the UHE. A little DNR should be used because the 2008 edition is just....a noisy mess! Faithful or not to the original Theatrical edition....I don`t care! IT LOOKS HORRIBLE! It worked great on a small 25" tv back in 1995. But with a 55" supersharp HD tv in 2012...NO! The color and contrast in the UHE is far superior in my mind. They have not "removed" shadows or anything by boosting the colors and contrast....Nothing in that department is "gone".
Reading alot of silly comments in here about "facts".....No director would prefer a muddy noisy shitty looking film if they could choose. NO ONE would....McTiernan did the best he could with the limited budget and cheap filmstock he had. Now that the technology allows boosting contrast and colours to a more 2012/BIG TV SCREENS friendly state...thats fine by me. If your happy with the 2008 release...fine. If you prefer the UHE...that`s also fine. But don`t pretend to know "BY FACT" that the 2008 edition is superior in every way.
It`s just personal taste. Thats what I HATE about all the audio/videophiles on the internet. They THINK their opinion is FACT! Well...newsflash for you....It`s not...It`s just your opinion.

End of rant.

People can have a personal preferance all they like, that's cool, but that doesn't change the fact that there still is a right and a wrong way to watch films. To be honest based on your comment here, you strike me as someone who probably doesn't have your equipment calibrated correctly, and prefers to use vivid mode, correct me if I'm wrong? Having your tv set to vivid mode is personal preference, however like it or not it still is the incorrect way to watch movies, they are not intended to be viewed like that by any film maker. Boasted contrast and over saturated colours are not what hdtv's are about, regardless of whether many amateurs and average consumers think they are.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

People can have a personal preferance all they like, that's cool, but that doesn't change the fact that there still is a right and a wrong way to watch films. To be honest based on your comment here, you strike me as someone who probably doesn't have your equipment calibrated correctly, and prefers to use vivid mode, correct me if I'm wrong? Having your tv set to vivid mode is personal preference, however like it or not it still is the incorrect way to watch movies, they are not intended to be viewed like that by any film maker. Boasted contrast and over saturated colours are not what hdtv's are about, whether or not many amateurs and average consumers think they are.

Professional calibrations go a long way In fact I see more grain and artifacts on sets that are not properly calibrated.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by tama

Professional calibrations go a long way In fact I see more grain and artifacts on sets that are not properly calibrated.

I agree. So many people don't realise the detail they are missing in favor of over saturated brightness and colours. Many seem to believe what makes for good PQ is bright and vibrant images, and that's how they make their decision on what tv they buy.

[Prim]

I used to have too much contrast and color saturation on my TV (not to the point of reaching "Vivid" mode, not even close really, but still to much), so I got a BD calibration disc. It was strange getting used to the colors being a little "flatter", but in a week or so, I tried turning the color back to where I had it previously, and it made my eyes bleed. Everyone should try this for themselves to see what is what. Give it a little time to make your eyes adjust, and it will be a revelation.

On topic: I still prefer the 2008 edition of Predator. Even if it is imperfect, has noise, and uses the outdated Mpeg-2 codec, it at least tries to look natural, and look like a movie shot on film (and is very successful, given the resources of the disc itself). That's my opinion. Everyone should make up their own, and watch the one they prefer, regardless of....well, whatever. You get the point.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

You can keep repeating it, but it won't make it more truth one bit: What is visible on the first release of Predator is not film grain but MPEG2 compression artifacts. If you're ready to buy that as grain, then that kind of "grain" can EASILY be added to the UHE transfer with a video tool.

How the hell can I prove my point when it gets flat out ignored? If I point out the detail on the UHE that is missing from the first release, you say it's not detail, it's because of boosted contrast. If I boost the contrast/brightness on the captions of the first release to show that no further detail will emerge like your horror movie suggestion, you just say that the detail is supposed to be hidden due to the grittiness of the movie. And all this is wrapped in a nice "looks different in motion" package, even though I've shown missing detail on many of those screencaps and proven that the odds of them picking a screencap where the detail might be present on the next frame are extremely low. Again, if the director's intentions weren't to show any further detail than a MPEG2 19 mbps transfer will present, I'll buy that. I seriously doubt that's the case.

Let me address the first paragraph above:

You're suggesting that ALL we are seeing on the first Predator Blu-ray is compression artifacts.

You are wrong.

There are compression artifacts as a result of the film having a LOT of grain present, and the bit-starved, inferior encoder that was used for the previous release was not able to resolve the grain well enough to look natural... or, as natural as the grain should look in Predator. So we are seeing compression artifacts AS WELL as the grain, because they are a RESULT of the grain. The grain changes from frame to frame and for an encode that's just not up to snuff, it was hard for it to keep up and we got those compression artifacts as a result. For you to say ALL we're seeing is compression is absurd nonsense, and again, shows how misinformed you are.

As far as the second paragraph I'm responding to goes, it just seems like you don't understand... at all. Tweaking the contrast on your TV for a Blu-ray vs tweaking the contrast on a film source is not the same thing.

Back when Predator came out on Blu-ray, black levels were not rendered as well as encoders can do them now. There are dark movies that come out now, where at a calibrated level you would say that, to your naked eye, certain parts of the image looks 'black'... but if you boost the contrast/brightness on your TV you can actually see what's hidden underneath the shadows. But back in the infancy of the Blu-ray format, what we would have perceived as black was also encoded, simply, as 'black'... meaning even though there might be details hidden in the shadows on the film stock itself, the Blu-ray would not have that detail because the 'black' we see from the shadows was encoded strictly as 'black'... brightening 'black' on your Blu-ray will give you nothing but a brighter looking black or gray.

Now... what happened with the Predator UHE, I'm assuming, is that they used the FILM source, or an existing RAW digital master of the source, and were able to tweak the contrast and make certain things that should NOT have been exposed from the shadows, to BE exposed.

This ruins the intended look of the film. These people are in a jungle... being hunted... and the style of the film WAS to look gritty and more down to earth... not like you're watching The Incredibles.

One such example of a release like this? Casablanca, but they did this practice in reverse.

The FIRST Casablanca Blu-ray had boosted contrast, making the inside of Rick's Cafe look more or less lit up, all the time. Casbalanca is a film that used lighting/shadows very heavily to help convey a specific tone, but the original Blu-ray release had none of that, because the image was brightened happily by some bozo at the studio. But the new blu-ray for Casablanca was remastered correctly, with all the shadows left intact, hiding many of the details we were never really intended to see in the first place... but if you boost the contrast on your TV, you'll see all those details hidden underneath the shadows.

The reason why you can't do this with the old Predator Blu-ray is because it's an inferior encode compared to today's standards and that 'hidden' information simply does not exist on your disc. See what I'm saying?

I honestly don't even know why I bother. You are the only person in this thread who has argued that there's MORE detail on the UHE than the previous release. There have been plenty who have raised their hand to say, "I personally prefer the look of the UHE", which is fine. All the power to them. YOU on the other hand are arguing that there's something on the UHE that's actually been removed. And you're alone. Considering this release has been out for two years now, maybe that should tell you something.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 42041

By the way, does anyone actually have a source for this? I've kept hearing about these optical enlargements in the Predator PQ discussion but I can't seem to find anything reputable about it on the net.

If I remember correctly, McTiernan discusses this in his commentary found on the 2008 release.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Except that the glasses screenshot is just ONE of the many examples where you can clearly see that detail is missing on the first release due to MPEG2 compression artifacts:

Missing in that ONE FRAME, yes...but in the next frame, as both the artifacts and the objects and people within the frame move, that detail will be revealed again. So you can pick and choose items that are obscured by specific artifacts in this capture or that capture...but you know damn well that said artifacts will have changed position by the time we get to the next frame, and that what they're obscuring in one frame will not necessarily be obscured in the next...or the next...or the next...and we're talking 24 frames per second here. It's dishonest for anyone who actually understands the nature of the compression problem to present one frame as being representative of the whole.

As I said, those captures absolutely demonstrate the compression problem on the 2008 disc...and to the extent that you're using them to denote that general problem, they are useful. But when you start using them to say, "You can't see this specific detail on the 2008 transfer," just because said detail is obscured in ONE FRAME, that's entirely disingenuous.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I DID compare skin, hair clothing, everything and proven that the UHE does carry detail that is not on the original release. I've tried to present the evidence in the form of concrete objects, saying that the glasses were nearly invisible on this caption on the first release:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

My evidence fell on deaf ears and blind eyes to people who simply ignore the evidence and keep saying that it's due to increased contrast when it's clearly not since increasing the contrast on the captions from the first release will not produce further detail.

Translation: Unfortunately, when I try to present the precise artifacting in one frame, and show how it obscures a specific detail, people have the nerve to point out the obvious fact that as both the actor and artifacts move, my assertion that his glasses are near-invisible on the 2008 transfer is revealed as complete misinformation.

You're absolutely right that the glasses are obscured in that single frame. Thank God I don't watch movies one frame at a time, otherwise I might have trouble seeing his glasses in that scene.

Originally Posted by Prim

I used to have too much contrast and color saturation on my TV (not to the point of reaching "Vivid" mode, not even close really, but still to much), so I got a BD calibration disc. It was strange getting used to the colors being a little "flatter", but in a week or so, I tried turning the color back to where I had it previously, and it made my eyes bleed. Everyone should try this for themselves to see what is what. Give it a little time to make your eyes adjust, and it will be a revelation.

On topic: I still prefer the 2008 edition of Predator. Even if it is imperfect, has noise, and uses the outdated Mpeg-2 codec, it at least tries to look natural, and look like a movie shot on film (and is very successful, given the resources of the disc itself). That's my opinion. Everyone should make up their own, and watch the one they prefer, regardless of....well, whatever. You get the point.

Yeah, isn't it interesting how grey the highlights look after you first calibrate? You think, "My God, it looks so...dull." Then after a week, you pop it back to your old settings and the whites nearly blind you. haha Then you wonder, "How the hell did I ever watch movies this way?"

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Let me address the first paragraph above:

You're suggesting that ALL we are seeing on the first Predator Blu-ray is compression artifacts.

You are wrong.

There are compression artifacts as a result of the film having a LOT of grain present, and the bit-starved, inferior encoder that was used for the previous release was not able to resolve the grain well enough to look natural... or, as natural as the grain should look in Predator. So we are seeing compression artifacts AS WELL as the grain, because they are a RESULT of the grain. The grain changes from frame to frame and for an encode that's just not up to snuff, it was hard for it to keep up and we got those compression artifacts as a result. For you to say ALL we're seeing is compression is absurd nonsense, and again, shows how misinformed you are.

As far as the second paragraph I'm responding to goes, it just seems like you don't understand... at all. Tweaking the contrast on your TV for a Blu-ray vs tweaking the contrast on a film source is not the same thing.

Back when Predator came out on Blu-ray, black levels were not rendered as well as encoders can do them now. There are dark movies that come out now, where at a calibrated level you would say that, to your naked eye, certain parts of the image looks 'black'... but if you boost the contrast/brightness on your TV you can actually see what's hidden underneath the shadows. But back in the infancy of the Blu-ray format, what we would have perceived as black was also encoded, simply, as 'black'... meaning even though there might be details hidden in the shadows on the film stock itself, the Blu-ray would not have that detail because the 'black' we see from the shadows was encoded strictly as 'black'... brightening 'black' on your Blu-ray will give you nothing but a brighter looking black or gray.

Now... what happened with the Predator UHE, I'm assuming, is that they used the FILM source, or an existing RAW digital master of the source, and were able to tweak the contrast and make certain things that should NOT have been exposed from the shadows, to BE exposed.

This ruins the intended look of the film. These people are in a jungle... being hunted... and the style of the film WAS to look gritty and more down to earth... not like you're watching The Incredibles.

One such example of a release like this? Casablanca, but they did this practice in reverse.

The FIRST Casablanca Blu-ray had boosted contrast, making the inside of Rick's Cafe look more or less lit up, all the time. Casbalanca is a film that used lighting/shadows very heavily to help convey a specific tone, but the original Blu-ray release had none of that, because the image was brightened happily by some bozo at the studio. But the new blu-ray for Casablanca was remastered correctly, with all the shadows left intact, hiding many of the details we were never really intended to see in the first place... but if you boost the contrast on your TV, you'll see all those details hidden underneath the shadows.

The reason why you can't do this with the old Predator Blu-ray is because it's an inferior encode compared to today's standards and that 'hidden' information simply does not exist on your disc. See what I'm saying?

I honestly don't even know why I bother. You are the only person in this thread who has argued that there's MORE detail on the UHE than the previous release. There have been plenty who have raised their hand to say, "I personally prefer the look of the UHE", which is fine. All the power to them. YOU on the other hand are arguing that there's something on the UHE that's actually been removed. And you're alone. Considering this release has been out for two years now, maybe that should tell you something.

In any case, this "grain", or this mixture of grain and compression artifacts you speak of that is apparently present on the first release of the blu ray is also present on the DVD. This "mixture" is present on so many DVDs. That does not mean that the DVD looks better or carries more detail than UHE. The bottom line is:

DNR lowers the quality of an image.
Compression lowers the quality of an image.
The best image is one with as little DNR and as little compression as possible.
A compressed image with no DNR can carry more detail (and usually does) than a DNRed image with less compression.
A DNRed image with much less compression can carry more detail than a heavily compressed image with no DNR.

This last scenario is the case with the Predator UHE. It is in no way an attempt at endorsing DNR as a whole, but it IS the case with these two particular releases and these two releases alone. That's just a cold hard fact. The evidence shows it. I've shown it many times. The problem is that you and many others here are trying to fight this evidence just by saying "Bu.. bu.. but it's DNRed! It's not natural! It doesn't look like film! It looks waxy!" That's just beside the point. In this case, it still shows more detail DESPITE looking more waxy, unnatural, whatever. I know that most here don't like DNR, including myself. But I don't try to convince people to prefer the version I prefer by having a crusade against DNR as a phenomenon like so many here. I am only trying to present the evidence that is present on the two releases. I am not trying to have a general discussion about DNR, I am here to discuss the detail that is present on these two particular blu ray discs, nothing more and nothing less, which is what I thought that this thread was about.

Again, I can not even an argument if every time I point out detail that is missing on the first release but is present on the UHE, you just say that it's meant to look like that because it's supposed to be gritty. And the fact that the style of the movie was meant to be gritty is one thing. But if you can show me an article or video or some source where the director directly says that some detail that is present on the film stock was flat out not meant to be seen because it was supposed to look more gritty or whatever, I'll buy that. You will not find a source where the director says this though. But the funny thing is that by using this argument, you're at least indirectly admitting that some stuff is visible on UHE that wasn't visible on the first release.

I can not have an argument if I point out to the fact that the glasses are nearly invisible on one frame if I just get a "Well, they're present on the next/previous frame".

And you are DEAD WRONG about me being the only one saying that there is more detail on the UHE. In fact, one person who was arguing in favor of the first release acknowledged that the UHE shows slightly more detail. Maybe you should read the comments in this thread better. But then again, I wouldn't expect more from someone who flat out ignores the evidence.

And by the way, unlike what you may think, I actually don't PREFER the DNR look at all. Far from it. I love film grain. I've invested in a HD DVD player just so I could see my favorite movies such as The Thing and The Big Lebowski with grain, that is more detail.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I am sorry, but what you see on the first release is not grain. It's not friggin grain. It's just NOT grain! I really don't know how to win this argument any other way than I would trying to explain to someone that the grass is green if he said that it was red. Once again, THE FIRST RELEASE DOES NOT SHOW FILM GRAIN!!!! If it did really show film grain by having an AVC codec and an adequate bit rate, no one in the world would dispute that it looks better. But it doesn't. It shows MPEG2 compression CRAP that fools people who either have small TVs or are sitting too far away from the TV into thinking that it shows film grain from Predator's 35mm film stock.

Yes it does. Sorry, man.

Check the differences in the Hoosiers discs. There IS an improvement with a higher bitrate and different codec in the new version compared to the original MPEG-2 one, but it's slight, and only really shows up in certain scenes. People think by changing this Predator is going to somehow magically look amazing... but it has NEVER looked amazing, even in theaters in 1987. Wasn't shot that way, never will look that way. Period.

[I KEEL YOU]

Missing in that ONE FRAME, yes...but in the next frame, as both the artifacts and the objects and people within the frame move, that detail will be revealed again. So you can pick and choose items that are obscured by specific artifacts in this capture or that capture...but you know damn well that said artifacts will have changed position by the time we get to the next frame, and that what they're obscuring in one frame will not necessarily be obscured in the next...or the next...or the next...and we're talking 24 frames per second here. It's dishonest for anyone who actually understands the nature of the compression problem to present one frame as being representative of the whole.

As I said, those captures absolutely demonstrate the compression problem on the 2008 disc...and to the extent that you're using them to denote that general problem, they are useful. But when you start using them to say, "You can't see this specific detail on the 2008 transfer," just because said detail is obscured in ONE FRAME, that's entirely disingenuous.

You're absolutely right that the glasses are obscured in that single frame. Thank God I don't watch movies one frame at a time, otherwise I might have trouble seeing his glasses in that scene.

Except that I didn't just show the missing detail on that one frame, but with the majority of the frames from that site. All perfect and lossless PNG screencaps. So I ask once again, was the first release just unlucky that they just happened to pick so many frames where the first release has detail missing?

[42041]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

But if you can show me an article or video or some source where the director directly says that some detail that is present on the film stock was flat out not meant to be seen because it was supposed to look more gritty or whatever, I'll buy that. You will not find a source where the director says this though. But the funny thing is that by using this argument, you're at least indirectly admitting that some stuff is visible on UHE that wasn't visible on the first release.

There's always stuff on the negative (or IP) that doesn't end up in the prints, because the print film stock has much less dynamic range. The 35mm print I saw of Predator was printed very dark in many places, lots of "black crush" so to speak, which obscured the grain in the shadows.. Considerably darker than even the first blu-ray release to my eyes. This wasn't just the projection, as other scenes were bright. The UHE is way, waay too bright.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by retablo

Yes it does. Sorry, man.

Check the differences in the Hoosiers discs. There IS an improvement with a higher bitrate and different codec in the new version compared to the original MPEG-2 one, but it's slight, and only really shows up in certain scenes. People think by changing this Predator is going to somehow magically look amazing... but it has NEVER looked amazing, even in theaters in 1987. Wasn't shot that way, never will look that way. Period.

Sorry, I have neither of the two releases of the Hoosiers, so I neither know how bad the first release was nor how good the second release is. But from reading the review on DVDbeaver, the reviewer says that the improvement is more than just slight.

And after seeing the evidence of those screencaps and the missing detail from the first release that is present on UHE despite the heavy use of DNR, there is NO DOUBT that Predator can look significantly better in 1080p than either of the two releases if it had no DNR, no edge enhancement, and with an AVC codec and a high bit rate.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by 42041

There's always stuff on the negative (or IP) that doesn't end up in the prints, because the print film stock has much less dynamic range. The 35mm print I saw of Predator was printed very dark in many places, lots of "black crush" so to speak, which obscured the grain in the shadows.. Considerably darker than even the first blu-ray release to my eyes. This wasn't just the projection, as other scenes were bright. The UHE is way, waay too bright.

Was this one of the brighter scenes?

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

Was the part of the jungle that was enshrouded in shadow meant to look like one big blob of compression noise even though it's obviously a daylight scene?

[tama]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Was this one of the brighter scenes?

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

Was the part of the jungle that was enshrouded in shadow meant to look like one big blob of compression noise even though it's obviously a daylight scene?

Wow...look how DNR smooth over the shrubs. crap.

[Omen2002]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

So you're going to believe a jpg screenshot from this site over a zoomed in lossless png screenshot from the most reputable screencap site on the Internet? Whatever.

Yep. Considering the screenshot I posted is how the movie looks when I watch it, I'd say it's more accurate then a zoomed in lossless png screenshot. I dunno about you, but I don't watch movies zoomed in like that. If you actually watched the first BD release and think the movie looks like your precious zoomed in lossless png screenshots, you're either delusional or need your vision checked.

[42041]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Was this one of the brighter scenes?

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

Was the part of the jungle that was enshrouded in shadow meant to look like one big blob of compression noise even though it's obviously a daylight scene?

Probably meant to look like a blob of grain. Just cause it's daylight doesn't mean the shadows can't be underexposed and grainy. Sure, MPEG2 isn't doing it any favors, but no one said the 2008 release was good (well okay, some people might have said that, i didnt!). It's just better than shit.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Except that I didn't just show the missing detail on that one frame, but with the majority of the frames from that site. All perfect and lossless PNG screencaps. So I ask once again, was the first release just unlucky that they just happened to pick so many frames where the first release has detail missing?

You are entirely missing the point.

Those screenshots are representative of how ONE FRAME looks at a time. In motion, you're not likely to say, "OH MY GOD! LOOK AT ALL THOSE COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS!" Unless you're watching an a really, really big screen... and I mean on an actual screen with a projector.

But you bite one little niblet of info at a time and you're clinging to it, man. Look at the larger picture as a whole, which is this:

Predator is an inherently grainy film... VERY, VERY grainy. A proper encode would look MUCH more like the old 2008 release than the UHE edition. It would have better resolved grain of course, but it wouldn't be a huge leap for mankind or anything. It will never look great. UHE is an unnatural bastardization. And again, if you like that kind of thing... fine. But to say it has more detail, is just silly. Please, please stop the madness.

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

People can have a personal preferance all they like, that's cool, but that doesn't change the fact that there still is a right and a wrong way to watch films. To be honest based on your comment here, you strike me as someone who probably doesn't have your equipment calibrated correctly, and prefers to use vivid mode, correct me if I'm wrong? Having your tv set to vivid mode is personal preference, however like it or not it still is the incorrect way to watch movies, they are not intended to be viewed like that by any film maker. Boasted contrast and over saturated colours are not what hdtv's are about, regardless of whether many amateurs and average consumers think they are.

Again....Some "videoexpert" telling me how "amateur" I am.....I don`t mean to brag, but friends and family always ask for my help when they buy new TV`s....and I don`t mean to look down on anybody for their opinions either so please don`t take this personal guys/girls...Just my opinions

Well...For starters...I carefully adjust ALL my equipment on my own...I do NOT use vivid mode. Actually I HATE it when tv`s are calibrated too bright and colorful. A friend of mine works for a respected video/Audio company in Norway called HI-FI Klubben. He has given me alot of useful tips on how the professional guys adjust TV`s and Projectors. I borrowed a DEMO disk with great deep blacks and great colors and adjusted it first so it looked fine with that disk. Then I usually use the THX optimizer on the T2 bluray disk for a little better nuances on the greyscale.
I have been extremely interested in photo/video/audio since I was 7 years old (I`m passed 30 now, so I`m NOT an amateur who goes for the vivid solution without any thought.
This proves my point on the audio/videophiles that thinks what they see is fact. Again....It`s not. My preffered settings on my equipment is not "the Bible" either........Just what my eyes thinks works best, and a little help to fine tune from the THX optimizer.The general tone in here is, that everyone who thinks UHE is the best version, is a moron! That`s just sad.....It`s just what they think is best for their eyes....Get a grip people!

Again...It`s not like UHE is my ULTIMATE version of the film, or how it could have been. I actually think a more 50/50 look of the two versions would be much better. Alot of people in here have said it before....The negatives are poor...so the movie will never look perfect. Thats fine by me.

GOD I`m sooooo glad I don`t work for a movie company these days....It`s just impossible to please everybody.....Nothing is ever good enough.