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

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

No clue. I think whatever is released will be better than the previous two versions. If not, well, I still have the original at least.

I predict that neither the 2008 nor the 2010 BD will go OOP after this is released. I don't have a dog in this 2D hunt, but I hope that there is some improvement over the I, Robot 3D release.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

I predict that neither the 2008 nor the 2010 BD will go OOP after this is released. I don't have a dog in this 2D hunt, but I hope that there is some improvement over the I, Robot 3D release.

Or that Fox gives up on useless 2D to 3D conversions.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Or that Fox gives up on useless 2D to 3D conversions.

Doesn't sound like it based on this Forbes interview with Fox Pres. Danny Kaye: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaud...-experience/2/

I'm sure JVC hopes to establish partnerships with other studios for their workstation, now that they have gone through the learning curve with I, Robot at Fox.

Still waiting for a response to my post asking what your source was for stating the scan for UHE was 4K? Did you miss it or can't you remember the source? I haven't been able to confirm it.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=544

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Blu Jedi Master

Same one I have, I did not bite on the Ultimate.

I have the Australian version of the 2008 release which has a much better cover IMO.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Or that Fox gives up on useless 2D to 3D conversions.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by gates70

Right is right. I've told you before that if you don't like it then ignore me.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Right is right. I've told you before that if you don't like it then ignore me.

Only thing is, you're not right.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by gates70

Only thing is, you're not right.

In your opinion, which happens to be wrong.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

I have the Australian version of the 2008 release which has a much better cover IMO.

That's the same cover as the U.K. Edition which I own, it looks pretty good.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Adding grain into a shot is something that effects houses have had to deal with since the inception of digital effects (it gets regular mentions in ILM: Into The Digital Realm), and no doubt they had to create different patterns to match different emulsions. It's a pity that it took Lowry so long to catch up, not so much from a 'period grain' point of view because my own eye is not nearly so cultured as that of RAH, but for the floating grain nastiness that they've visited upon certain classic movies. *cough* Star Wars *cough*

As for the first few Bonds, for some reason Dr No is the best of the bunch while the later movies tend to look a little more artificial.

The worst Lowry offender imo is Monty Python And The Life Of Brian. Frozen grain and edge halos galore.

I hope Sony decide to remaster it some day. It's a prime candidate for their Mastered In 4K line.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

There I did it for you, no need to be rude at all
You got the wrong end of the stick not me, you responded to my post about Fargo with a TFC follow up
It is not my fault you could not follow the conversation
You were talking about Fargo as if it was up to Fox to remaster, it is an MGM movie, simple

In the very post you quoted I covered, in a separate paragraph, the entirety of what I was saying regarding Fox / MGM. Then, separately, but within the same post, I talked about The French Connection. As previously mentioned, what made it confusing was you quoting a later post of mine that was entirely about TFC while continuing a conversation you believed about Fargo. I really don't know how your decision to do that could be construed as anything other than confusing.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Digital bits gave Patton a great review, reviews are meaningless

If one site gives a great review while all the others don't then it's an indication of the title being poor,there are many review sites out there but the two I tend to trust are Blu-ray.com and Hidef digest.

Both these sites give both "Fargo" and "Back to the future" good solid reviews,the titles are not perfect as very few older movie transfers are,but they are both very easy on the eye in my opinion.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by 42041

If you don't mind video noise and EE halos thick as your arm
For all its flaws I'd take the original Predator disc over that (or BttF) any day.

I don't mind any of those discs so I guess I must be more forgiving of older movies on the format

[42041]

1996 isn't an "older movie", it's older transfer. There is no grading on a curve for Fargo, it's shot on perfectly modern lenses/film stocks by one of the most exacting DPs out there.
But that's neither here nor there.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by 42041

1996 isn't an "older movie", it's older transfer. There is no grading on a curve for Fargo, it's shot on perfectly modern lenses/film stocks by one of the most exacting DPs out there.
But that's neither here nor there.

It's also a much lower budget independent film,this is a simple fact many forget when they judge these things.

The Blu-ray.com review does mention some issues with the title scene of which I agree,after that it's pretty solid on my system.

[tylergfoster]

In my opinion, Fargo looks egregiously ugly. So much garish sharpening...



Admittedly, indoor scenes look better. Still, the outdoor stuff can and should look vastly different.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

In my opinion, Fargo looks egregiously ugly. So much garish sharpening...



Admittedly, indoor scenes look better. Still, the outdoor stuff can and should look vastly different.

The thing with all this is people are very quick to slate reviewers and then state reasons for why we can't trust them,but by the same token why should we trust their opinion either?

In the end of the day it's peoples personal opinion that matters,even with a transfer as extreme as the Predator ultimate edition if people like it it's up to them at the end of the day.

[42041]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

It's also a much lower budget independent film,this is a simple fact many forget when they judge these things..

I'm not, it's just irrelevant. The filtering on the HD transfer has nothing to do with the film as shot. You don't need a blockbuster budget or a big studio behind you to shoot a technically good-looking film anyway, especially in 1996. Roger Deakins is not a cinematographer who shoots haphazardly; he likes sharp, clean, well-exposed footage and he's amazingly consistent in getting it; even his 80s films look like they were shot a decade later if you see nice prints.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm not, it's just irrelevant. The filtering on the HD transfer has nothing to do with the film as shot. You don't need a blockbuster budget or a big studio behind you to shoot a technically good-looking film anyway, especially in 1996. Roger Deakins is not a cinematographer who shoots haphazardly; he likes sharp, clean, well-exposed footage and he's amazingly consistent in getting it; even his 80s films look like they were shot a decade later if you see nice prints.

We seem to be getting back to the point where we think every movie ever shot has the potential to look awesome,now that's an ideal scenario which sounds great,but in practice there are just so many factors that will prevent this happening on every single catalogue movie transferred to Blu-ray.

I not trying to cause arguments here as I too want good transfers of catalogue movies on the format,but whatever they do these movies will not look like "Oblivion" in my opinion.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Sorry Tyler, but I think you have completely missed the studios motivation for this 3D release. In a nutshell, the motivation for this release is to bolster the supply of 3D product in a cost effective manner in order to increase the adoption rate of 3D in the home. That really is all it is.

The only official, on the record videotaped interview which was transcribed to Norwegian by a ezine author describes how Fox views the UHE.

(John Berge) "The interview was conducted in english and also videotaped for accuracy purposes. It was then transcribed to norwegian.

My translation:


When the restauration is done well, like with Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But then there are examples of bad restoration, like with Predator.
(Vincent Marcais)– Yes, we received critisism for that one, but to us it was unjust (or unfair). They shot that movie on a type of film that wasn't good enough. But how it now is presented on BD, is the way the director of cinematography wanted it too look. The discussion about grain or not, is something we have a close dialogue with the directors and photographers about, as long as they are alive.


best JB"

[Show spoiler]Here is an ongoing email exchange I have with John Berge, the author of the Norwegian article. As you see, I have invited him to join the discussion directly. It would be ideal if he can provide the taped interview which he confirmed was done in English. If you are interested in this, I will post future exchanges if he chooses not to join the discussion directly.

Hi John,
Thank you for your fast reply. I am a member of blu-ray.com in the United States. We have an immense thread about the two blu-ray editions of Predator. Your February article about your interview with Vincent Marcais was widely quoted on blogs and forums here without attribution to you,so it was very difficult for me to find the article on the internet. I have now posted a link to your magazine's website. Please take a minute to view the thread:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mov...ml#post4745800

The current debate is "Did Marcais mean that John McTiernan, the director and/or Don McAlpine the Cinematographer were consulted with about the Predator, Ultimate Hunter edition release and that the 'look' of the Blu-ray reflects how one or both of them intended it to look when Predator was originally filmed in the 1980's. The unanswered question is whether or not Fox will remaster Predator on blu-ray for a third time. It does not seem likely based on the translation you have just provided.

Is the videotape of your interview available anywhere on the internet? Any additional thoughts you have on the subject would be appreciated.

For now, I will post this email exchange to the blu-ray.com thread without the email addresses. I, for one, would welcome you to become a member of blu-ray.com and contribute directly to the discussion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Berge (email address deleted by raygendreau)
To: raymond gendreau (email address deleted by raygendreau)
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2011 2:33:19 AM
Subject: Re: February interview with Vincent Marcais Sr VP Intl Marketing Fox Film Entertainment

Hei, Ray!


Thanks for your mail. First, who do you represent?



The interview was conducted in english and also videotaped for accuracy purposes. It was then transcribed to norwegian.


– Når det gjøres så bra restaurering som med Sound of Music, er det forbløffende. Men så er det eksempler på at restaureringen ikke er bra nok, f.eks. med Predator.
– Ja, vi fikk kritikk for den, men den syntes jeg var urettferdig. Filmen ble skutt på en filmtype som ikke var bra nok. Men slik den er på BD nå, er slik filmfotografen ønsket at den skulle fremstå. Diskusjonen om å ta bort filmkorn eller ei, er noe vi diskuterer med filmregissørerne og fotografene, så lenge de er i live. (RELEASE 1•2011)


My translation:


When the restauration is done well, like with Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But then there are examples of bad restoration, like with Predator.
– Yes, we received critisism for that one, but to us it was unjust (or unfair). They shot that movie on a type of film that wasn't good enough. But how it now is presented on BD, is the way the director of cinematography wanted it too look. The discussion about grain or not, is something we have a close dialogue with the directors and photographers about, as long as they are alive.


best JB




Den 19. mai 2011 kl. 10.30 skrev raymond gendreau:


Dear John Berge,
I read your article with interest using Bing translation .

Unfortunately, the last paragraph is not clear. Can you tell me where I can find a better translation than this one?http://www.microsofttranslator.com/B...sp%3FID%3D6732

This is the paragraph I am having trouble with.

— When done so good restoration with the Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But there are examples of restoration is not good enough. with the Predator.
— Yes, we received criticism for it, but it seemed I was unjust. The film was shot on a film type that wasn't good enough. But as of now, so BOND cinematographer wished that it were to emerge. Discussion about taking away the film grain or not, is something we discuss with filmregissørerne and photographers, as long as they are alive. (RELEASE 1 • 2011)

Was the interview conducted in English or Norwegian?

Thank you,

Ray Gendreau

Sure maybe McTiernan's orignal intentions weren't to make it quite as dark, grim and grainy as the film ended up turning out, but I flat out refuse to believe he wanted the film so bright and colorful like the UHE which mind you looks nothing like any film ever shot.