Predator 3D Blu-ray (1987) [Region Locked]

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Who knows what will happen, the film will never look completely pristine because of the way it was shot. If I remember correctly, loads of shots were zoomed in which made the film grain heavier.

As good as the 2008 release is, you can clearly see that it's from a HD master that's seen better days. A new HD master from the negatives would definitely bring some improvements, probably not huge ones but they'd definitely be there. Scanning technology has a come a very long way in the last few years.

I am keeping my fingers and everything else crossed that I can retire my 2008 Blu-ray.

Although I did the same thing prior to the release of the ultimate edition and look how that turned out.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

If it's done right, I think it will be a substantial improvement as Terminator showed. I was one of those people who said the original Terminator couldn't look much better because of the source, blah, blah, and I was completely wrong. We can no longer make those kind of assumptions. Don't under-estimate 35mm films (even ugly ones) which has far more resolution than BD as has been pointed out.

I hope you are right.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I am keeping my fingers and everything else crossed that I can retire my 2008 Blu-ray.

Although I did the same thing prior to the release of the ultimate edition and look how that turned out.

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I hope you are right.

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

If it's done right, I think it will be a substantial improvement as Terminator showed. I was one of those people who said the original Terminator couldn't look much better because of the source, blah, blah, and I was completely wrong. We can no longer make those kind of assumptions. Don't under-estimate 35mm films (even ugly ones) which has far more resolution than BD as has been pointed out.

+1

The Mastered In 4K release of Ghostbusters is another good example of how 35mm films shot on ugly film stock can look excellent if transferred properly.

I'm keeping hold of the 2008 edition too for the time being, here's hoping I can retire it as well when the time comes.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Purely speculation, but it's quite possible that the new transfer might have gone through some sort of restoration process.

The film's certainly popular enough to warrant it. If it wasn't that popular it wouldn't have been released twice already on Blu-Ray, not to mention the upcoming 3D release.

All the film really needs is some slight clean up work done to remove dirt whilst retaining the film grain and some slight and I mean slight colour correction. The colour timing is already pretty good on the 2008 disc but it does go a tad washed out in a few shots.

Encode the disc with AVC and give it a high bitrate to avoid compression artifacts and you're pretty much good to go.

Fox tried to "pretty" up the image with the UHE but they failed miserably. The film's not meant to look vibrant and shiny. It's meant to look gritty.

The movie has a fan base but the fact it's out twice on Blu-ray already is down to Fox reacting to concerns over the originals "heavy grain" complaints,hence the second release using so much DNR that all grain and texture was pretty much obliterated.

I feel this time round we will get something in the middle,and hopefully a transfer similar to what they achived with the Aliens Blu-ray,which managed to use very subtle DNR application and still leave detail.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

The movie has a fan base but the fact it's out twice on Blu-ray already is down to Fox reacting to concerns over the originals "heavy grain" complaints,hence the second release using so much DNR that all grain and texture was pretty much obliterated.

I feel this time round we will get something in the middle,and hopefully a transfer similar to what they achived with the Aliens Blu-ray,which managed to use very subtle DNR application and still leave detail.

Fingers crossed. I didn't even realise that there was subtle DNR added to Aliens because it looks so detailed. I think the DNR only removed the noise and the grain was retained, which is how it should be done.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

+1

The Mastered In 4K release of Ghostbusters is another good example of how 35mm films shot on ugly film stock can look excellent if transferred properly.

I'm keeping hold of the 2008 edition too for the time being, here's hoping I can retire it as well when the time comes.

In fairness he original Ghostbusters release is not that bad and the new 4k release while offering a slight improvement is not leaps and bounds ahead.

I think we have to manage our expectations a little more and realise that in a lot of cases it's only going to be minor improvements,which in the case of the 2008 Predator Blu-ray is still very welcome in my opinion.

[The Rider]

Originally Posted by bsweetness

As far as the studio is concerned, if someone doesn't want the 3D version, there are already 2 different affordably priced 2D releases of Predator that are available.

I fully understand wanting the new transfer in 2D, but for Fox, that's not the main point of the release.

The first version and the Hunter Edition are dead when the new disc with a new transfer are good. The internet would be floated by screenshots and no one would buy than the pevious versions.

Its possible that Fox only sell the 2D version with the 3D Edition, at the release.When enough people buy the 3D disc, the bring a new seperate 2D disc version on the market for all the 3d haters.

They bring the new Terminator disc firstly in europe. In the USA they brings the same bad old disc.
Months later they release the new "european" disc.


With this new transfer, I think, Fox have all the angry UHE buyers on the target.

[The Rider]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

It's not worth asking about. The intentional point is to force people otherwise uninterested in 3D to buy the combo pack. And you are mistaken...if the transfer's great, then it will definitely work.

When you have contact with Finn, can you ask him when new Die Hard discs(with the new transfers) are coming and when they bring a new 2D only BD of Predator(Finn says nothing about this) ?

[42041]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

If it's done right, I think it will be a substantial improvement as Terminator showed. I was one of those people who said the original Terminator couldn't look much better because of the source, blah, blah, and I was completely wrong. We can no longer make those kind of assumptions. Don't under-estimate 35mm films (even ugly ones) which has far more resolution than BD as has been pointed out.

I think the transfer technology tends to play a considerably bigger role than the filming technology for older films. While the DP would've had to work a lot harder for it, a movie from the late 70s or early 80s could look very much like it was shot within the last 10 years (except now a film stock with similar quality requires five times less light). You can't just look at the budget or release date or some transfer made on on some telecine from the stone age and go "yeah, this will always look like shit". If the grain is a bunch of blobby mush like the original disc you can be sure you're not seeing all that the film has to offer, I'm unaware of a camera film from the last 30 years where a high-res film scanner won't resolve 35mm grain down to single pixels at 1080p (though obviously you'd want to soften it a tad to prevent aliasing/overly harsh grain/compression issues).

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

In fairness he original Ghostbusters release is not that bad and the new 4k release while offering a slight improvement is not leaps and bounds ahead.

I think we have to manage our expectations a little more and realise that in a lot of cases it's only going to be minor improvements,which in the case of the 2008 Predator Blu-ray is still very welcome in my opinion.

The original Ghostbusters release was excellent in terms of detail but it suffered from really bad colour and contrast problems which were both fixed with the Mastered In 4K release.

I've got both discs, the Mastered In 4K disc for when I want to watch the film itself and the original disc for the extras as they weren't ported over.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by The Rider

When you have contact with Finn, can you ask him when new Die Hard discs(with the new transfers) are coming and when they bring a new 2D only BD of Predator(Finn says nothing about this) ?

I will try, but it's just as easy for you guys to @ a question to him on Twitter.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by The Rider

When you have contact with Finn, can you ask him when new Die Hard discs(with the new transfers) are coming and when they bring a new 2D only BD of Predator(Finn says nothing about this) ?

Are you referring to the recently remastered transfers that came out when A Good Day To Die Hard was released?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

The original 2008 released used the MPEG-2 codec which does tend to make grain more blocky,the ultimate edition used the MPEG-4 AVC codec but to be fair either the AVC or VC-1 codecs should offer improvements over the MPEG-2 codec.

Hugh bitrate MPEGII > VC-1
When you have worked with both you realize that MPEG got a bad rep

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Fingers crossed. I didn't even realise that there was subtle DNR added to Aliens because it looks so detailed. I think the DNR only removed the noise and the grain was retained, which is how it should be done.

Actually....Aliens was done exactly the same way that Predator UHE edition was done. They DNR`d it to hell...and then they put a very small amount of digital grain on top of it so it should look like the original negative. Cameron himself said it in an interview when the alien collection came out.

So all the praise from the DNR haters on aliens is actually ridicilous! They hate Predator UHE but LOOOOOVE aliens?!?! They "think" Aliens got more detail, but in fact, it`s done the exact same way

Grain doesn`t "add" details.......Like soooo many believe.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Jegærn

Actually....Aliens was done exactly the same way that Predator UHE edition was done. They DNR`d it to hell...and then they put a very small amount of digital grain on top of it so it should look like the original negative. Cameron himself said it in an interview when the alien collection came out.

So all the praise from the DNR haters on aliens is actually ridicilous! They hate Predator UHE but LOOOOOVE aliens?!?! They "think" Aliens got more detail, but in fact, it`s done the exact same way

Grain doesn`t "add" details.......Like soooo many believe.

Exactly! that is why the HDTV version is in high demand

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Jegærn

Actually....Aliens was done exactly the same way that Predator UHE edition was done. They DNR`d it to hell...and then they put a very small amount of digital grain on top of it so it should look like the original negative. Cameron himself said it in an interview when the alien collection came out.

So all the praise from the DNR haters on aliens is actually ridicilous! They hate Predator UHE but LOOOOOVE aliens?!?! They "think" Aliens got more detail, but in fact, it`s done the exact same way

Grain doesn`t "add" details.......Like soooo many believe.

Aliens looks nowhere near as bad as the ultimate edition of Predator,so if they were done in exactly the same way then this makes no sense.

[Geoff D]

At least Lowry left a load of detail behind once they'd done their processing to Aliens and laid the grain back over the top. IMO it's absolutely beautiful.

Predator, on the other hand, has been DNR'ed with such a lack of care no amount of added grain could save it.

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Aliens looks nowhere near as bad as the ultimate edition of Predator,so if they were done in exactly the same way then this makes no sense.

The difference is: They added a thin layer of digital grain over the smoothed image.....VOILA...people think it looks awesome! It`s just an illusion....Purist`s see grain.....they see detail. It`s just wrong. That is one of the reasons I actually defend Predator UHE.....Some scenes look aweful in it but for the most part it is 10x better than the 2008 edition...period!

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

At least Lowry left a load of detail behind once they'd done their processing to Aliens and laid the grain back over the top. IMO it's absolutely beautiful.

Predator, on the other hand, has been DNR'ed with such a lack of care no amount of added grain could save it.

No they didn`t

The original negative of Aliens were almost even worse looking than Predator when it comes to grain.....Cameron said they completely removed the stock grain, fixed contrast and sharpnes and then added a thin layer of digital grain. It is that simple....People "think" they see detail when they see grain.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by Jegærn

Actually....Aliens was done exactly the same way that Predator UHE edition was done. They DNR`d it to hell...and then they put a very small amount of digital grain on top of it so it should look like the original negative. Cameron himself said it in an interview when the alien collection came out.

So all the praise from the DNR haters on aliens is actually ridicilous! They hate Predator UHE but LOOOOOVE aliens?!?! They "think" Aliens got more detail, but in fact, it`s done the exact same way

Grain doesn`t "add" details.......Like soooo many believe.

Correct.
Even if detail is not effected significantly by DNR, the application of DNR compromises the original look of the film.
My philosophy: Why add grain back if you remove it? Heck, why reduce the original grain in the first place? Leave it alone, save time, save money. Preservation and restoration efforts would be more cost effective and accurate to source without DNR. Grain is grain. Accept it. Keep it. Learn to love it as I have.