Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[drtre81]

Cliff, you should have cut and pasted what you said on the AVS thread here.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by drtre81

why couldn't they just use a bigger disk and avc with a higher bitrate? If people don't like the grain they're watching the WRONG MOVIE.

I think the case for Predator is that it wouldn't make any significant difference in the final outcome.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Originally Posted by Cliff

But who decides where the middle is? If this new edition is as bad as we're being told, there are a great many people out there (the vast majority, really) who will probably be really happy with the way it looks. To me, the safest and most pleasing way to present a film on Blu-ray is 'as it is.' Don't try to fancy it up and make creative improvements that I might disagree with because your middle and my middle might be on two different sides of the playing field. By leaving it 'as it is' it insures that what you're getting on Blu-ray is the best possible version of the movie as it was originally created and first experienced. That is what Blu-ray SHOULD be about.

I'm not jumping in on one side or the other, I think DNR to fix a flaw is probably good, but too much is bad. However, I don't ever recall ever seeing information on Blu-Ray being the "as it is" presentation of a movie. According to the Blu-Ray Disc official site Blu-Ray is the "best picture and sound."

What is Blu-Ray

No mention of showng the movie "as is" or keeping the director's intention intact. Those are personal preferences of the enthusiast or the director. Joe Walmart just wants a shiny picture.

I don't have the original release, I may get the new one if it's not too bad. I have T2 Skynet Edition and the DNR there did not bother me really. Grain does not bother me either, I think Saving Private Ryan is beautiful. However, I care less with Predator because the most important thing is Arnold killinating stuff.

[Eastkhan]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Alright, I'll do it now...

APRIL 2008-



AUGUST 2008-

Well first thank you for your contribution here (and insiders forum), your posts have been really informative.

It's really interesting to read about Predator's post production fate/problems. Do you know a good read about it or a source? And who's the uncredited editor (who went on to become a director), I thought Predator had already 2 well-known editors at that time dealing with the film.

I didnt even know that an Editor generally was such a powerful figure to make (pseudo)changes in cinematographical decisions, making close shots from mediums in post-production etc. I guess they were with consent of Tiernan and McAlpine?

thanks again

You can PM me if any info I'm asking has nothing to do with the subject here

[macdongr]

Oh come on!!!! I just purchased Predator on Blu-ray and along comes the Ultimate Hunter Edition! This is killing me!!!

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by macdongr

Oh come on!!!! I just purchased Predator on Blu-ray and along comes the Ultimate Hunter Edition! This is killing me!!!

read some of the posts above. From pre-release views this one is going to be a DNR nightmare.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

OK, now you're just being a douchenozzle, retablo.

I already explained what you just explained not only in this thread, but in others here on this forum as well, and that, yes -- I know perfectly damn well that film grain is an inherent photochemical element of motion picture shooting.

I have read a couple of books on film production in my time. If you'd read the rest of what I'd posted, you'd have seen why even this is mitigable.

(God, the way I have to spell things out in Jack-and-Jill terms to some people in these threads...)

Yes, a douchenozzle, whatever that is. Maturity abounds.

I did read what you said. Grain isn't acne on the face of film. Maybe on your face, but not cinema. I love it when directors ADD grain (like 300, Battlestar Galactica)... I wonder how unwanted it is then? i guess Spielberg didnt want any grain in Private Ryan, Minority Report etc.. because he clearly doesn't know what he's doing.

I'm glad you read a few books, though.

[Lionel Horsepackage]

You got snotty first.

And I'm afraid you missed the entire point, my friend. Read my posts again.

In them, you'll find entire paragraphs' worth of discussion concerning the fact that the directors of old almost certainly would've removed much of the grain from their films, had they been given the opportunity.

It's called "artistic intentionality," under which the deliberate addition of film grain in post-production (BSG, Minority Report) also falls. They're two sides of the same coin, but it's not my fault you weren't paying attention.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Eastkhan

I didnt even know that an Editor generally was such a powerful figure to make (pseudo)changes in cinematographical decisions, making close shots from mediums in post-production etc. I guess they were with consent of Tiernan and McAlpine?

You can PM me if any info I'm asking has nothing to do with the subject here

It was probably Stuart Baird or a guy like that. It actually happens a lot: a "hired gun" editor (or sometimes even a new director shooting new material) is brought in late in the game to help whip troubled movies into shape. They might get no credit but get paid good money.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

You got snotty first.

And I'm afraid you missed the entire point, my friend. Read my posts again.

In them, you'll find entire paragraphs' worth of discussion concerning the fact that the directors of old almost certainly would've removed much of the grain from their films, had they been given the opportunity.

It's called "artistic intentionality," under which the deliberate addition of film grain in post-production (BSG, Minority Report) also falls. They're two sides of the same coin, but it's not my fault you weren't paying attention.

You're funny. How many films have you made?

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

It's called "artistic intentionality," under which the deliberate addition of film grain in post-production (BSG, Minority Report) also falls. They're two sides of the same coin, but it's not my fault you weren't paying attention.

Just to clarify, Minority Report was shot on film...it already had film grain before post-production. Unless you're referring to the bleach bypass process which enhanced the grain.

[Lionel Horsepackage]

Originally Posted by retablo

You're funny. How many films have you made?

It probably depends, but...does "interspecies furry erotica" count?

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Just to clarify, Minority Report was shot on film...it already had film grain before post-production. Unless you're referring to the bleach bypass process which enhanced the grain.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to, there -- Spielberg and Kaminski discuss the grain-enhancement process on the BD, which was accomplished this way.

[bleauboy]

I found some menu screen shots, but they are not in English.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

It probably depends, but...does "interspecies furry erotica" count?

Haha maybe... You could add grain to it and call it "art."

[Kirk Out]

i dont care if this is dnr those menu screens........

[joenostalgia23]

The first and last shot look alright as far as grain production goes imo. That second one doesn't look like it's been scrubbed clean of all grain, but it does look sharp and clear so I think the new Predator transfer is great or terrible depending on what you are looking for.

If you want a more accurate grainy film-like presentation, the original release.
If you want a sharp, clean and bright HD image, you might want the Hunter edition.

I didn't think the original release looked that bad for an 80s film, and I don't think this new release is that bad either(but I'm not sensitive to DNR, just edge enhancement)

[meehan]

I don't think that any Blu-ray should suffer with heavy DNR.

If people don't like grain let them create their own sloppy blurred mess by playing with DNR settings on their TV's.

[42041]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

The first and last shot look alright as far as grain production goes imo. That second one doesn't look like it's been scrubbed clean of all grain, but it does look sharp and clear so I think the new Predator transfer is great or terrible depending on what you are looking for.

What shots are you talking about? I want to see some screen grabs but haven't seen any yet...

[thelittleprince]

I guess I'm keeping my current Blu of Predator and my DVD for the extras.

[Blaumann]

Has anyone actually seen the new Predator Blu-ray, or are we still in the "LotR sucks, itz dnr'd!!!1! teh sceenshots [blogs] says so" phase of internet discussions about video quality here?

I have the first release. The problem with that disc isn't the "grain" (or video-noise, for me it's hard to tell which one it is on that one). It's the lack of details except for a few scenes, even though there is a lot of grain (or.... video noise) present.