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

[42041]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

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.

Again, let's separate transfer quality from the photography. Not every movie can look like a masterpiece of the moving image, but every movie can look like the best possible representation of its materials, and whether that qualifies as "awesome" is the viewer's call. A transfer of Predator that tightly resolves all that grain, with healthy compression, and, say, the color timing of the 1987 print I saw a while back, would not be pretty in the conventional sense, but I'd consider that awesome nonetheless.

As for Fargo and many other well-photographed 90s films, there's simply no reason they can't look essentially like new movies (at least the ones shot on 35mm) if given suitably new transfers. The technology just hasn't changed that much on the analog end (for example, Back to the Future 3 and the daylight stuff in the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy were shot on the same film stock). The main improvement has been in how well we can transfer that to digital... but I think all the home video rubbish out there has led to some strange notions about what movies from decades past originally looked like.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

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.

Good call. I'd forgotten how bad that one is.

[HeavyHitter]

jonmoz,

In all seriousness, with Fargo, you did not notice those thick halos (edge enhancement) during that movie? It's one of the worst discs made in that regard. I found it extremely distracting to watch. This was NOT part of the original film. It was a result of processing applied during the Blu-ray mastering process. This totally destroys any chance of the movie actually look like film on Blu-ray. It looks like it was shot on some poor quality video cam.

Furthermore, because the disc is so excessively over-sharpened, the grain is far more accentuated that it's supposed to be. The grain takes on a nasty digital look on this disc (this is seen on a lot of older Universal transfers) instead of a natural look.

Now, compare this release to another Coen Brothers' movie - Raising Arizona - which actually came out earlier. This is what film is supposed to look like (and a Fox transfer, believe it or not, raygendreau).

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

jonmoz,

In all seriousness, with Fargo, you did not notice those thick halos (edge enhancement) during that movie? It's one of the worst discs made in that regard. I found it extremely distracting to watch. This was NOT part of the original film. It was a result of processing applied during the Blu-ray mastering process. This totally destroys any chance of the movie actually look like film on Blu-ray. It looks like it was shot on some poor quality video cam.

Furthermore, because the disc is so excessively over-sharpened, the grain is far more accentuated that it's supposed to be. The grain takes on a nasty digital look on this disc (this is seen on a lot of older Universal transfers) instead of a natural look.

Now, compare this release to another Coen Brothers' movie - Raising Arizona - which actually came out earlier. This is what film is supposed to look like (and a Fox transfer, believe it or not, raygendreau).

To help prove your point:

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...less=1#auswahl

[rickah88]

How can I pass this release up? The controversy, alone, is worth the admission price.
This release will be so far dissected, it probably has no chance to pass the battery of tests that will be performed by the hordes of armchair DP's out there.

One thing, so far, is guaranteed: It's got one hell of a sweet slipcover!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by rickah88

How can I pass this release up? The controversy, alone, is worth the admission price.
This release will be so far dissected, it probably has no chance to pass the battery of tests that will be performed by the hordes of armchair DP's out there.

One thing, so far, is guaranteed: It's got one hell of a sweet slipcover!

I take pride in that title.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by rickah88

How can I pass this release up? The controversy, alone, is worth the admission price.
This release will be so far dissected, it probably has no chance to pass the battery of tests that will be performed by the hordes of armchair DP's out there.

One thing, so far, is guaranteed: It's got one hell of a sweet slipcover!

I know one thing for sure,people will moan about it's picture quality

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I know one thing for sure,people will moan about it's picture quality

If this is a new 4K transfer, based on the kind of transfers 20th Century Fox is currently releasing, the only people complaining will be the uninformed who don't know anything about optical zooms or '80s film stocks.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

If this is a new 4K transfer, based on the kind of transfers 20th Century Fox is currently releasing, the only people complaining will be the uninformed who don't know anything about optical zooms or '80s film stocks.

If it is better than the 2008 release it's a must buy.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

jonmoz,

In all seriousness, with Fargo, you did not notice those thick halos (edge enhancement) during that movie? It's one of the worst discs made in that regard. I found it extremely distracting to watch. This was NOT part of the original film. It was a result of processing applied during the Blu-ray mastering process. This totally destroys any chance of the movie actually look like film on Blu-ray. It looks like it was shot on some poor quality video cam.

Furthermore, because the disc is so excessively over-sharpened, the grain is far more accentuated that it's supposed to be. The grain takes on a nasty digital look on this disc (this is seen on a lot of older Universal transfers) instead of a natural look.

Now, compare this release to another Coen Brothers' movie - Raising Arizona - which actually came out earlier. This is what film is supposed to look like (and a Fox transfer, believe it or not, raygendreau).

As many of the catalogue Blu-ray's I own it's not perfect,but it's also far from the nightmare that people seem to be claiming.

I have watched the movie on Blu-ray many times and it looks very good in motion.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I take pride in that title.

That's a slippery slope, my friend!
I just think with 2 versions of this film out on BD, that are polar opposites, PQ wise, this release has a pretty tough "sweet spot" to hit in order to avoid the carnage.
I know I'll be staying tuned!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rickah88

That's a slippery slope, my friend!
I just think with 2 versions of this film out on BD, that are polar opposites, PQ wise, this release has a pretty tough "sweet spot" to hit in order to avoid the carnage.
I know I'll be staying tuned!

No way, if anything it'll be easy to hit the bullseye. Fox know that the fans aren't happy with the shocking DNR on the UHE version, but they only did that in response to the original - and somewhat uninformed - consensus that the first BD was too gritty and grainy.

A new transfer off of the negative, perhaps with a degrain/regrain pass, will bridge the gap between the two releases. This will never be a pretty film, which is what made the UHE such a bizarre misstep for Fox, but it CAN look better than the original BD, if only marginally. (Heck, I'd love to see that original master with a fat new AVC encode, to see how much detail was lost to the slightly iffy compression. If we are actually getting a new transfer, so much the better.)

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No way, if anything it'll be easy to hit the bullseye. Fox know that the fans aren't happy with the shocking DNR on the UHE version, but they only did that in response to the original - and somewhat uninformed - consensus that the first BD was too gritty and grainy.

A new transfer off of the negative, perhaps with a degrain/regrain pass, will bridge the gap between the two releases. This will never be a pretty film, which is what made the UHE such a bizarre misstep for Fox, but it CAN look better than the original BD, if only marginally. (Heck, I'd love to see that original master with a fat new AVC encode, to see how much detail was lost to the slightly iffy compression. If we are actually getting a new transfer, so much the better.)

Sounds very simple when you put it that way,my concern is the transfer will lean more towards the less grainy look to facilitate a better 3-d presentation.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by rickah88

That's a slippery slope, my friend!
I just think with 2 versions of this film out on BD, that are polar opposites, PQ wise, this release has a pretty tough "sweet spot" to hit in order to avoid the carnage.
I know I'll be staying tuned!

It will be as tough as it was for that Skywalker fella in the death star trench,and in my opinion he was very lucky considering he turned his guidance computer off.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Sounds very simple when you put it that way,my concern is the transfer will lean more towards the less grainy look to facilitate a better 3-d presentation.

Grain need not be a detriment to 3D, Top Gun ably proved that.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Grain need not be a detriment to 3D, Top Gun ably proved that.

I think Predator is a different beast,but I hope you are right mate.

If not I still have the 2008 Blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I think Predator is a different beast,but I hope you are right mate.

If not I still have the 2008 Blu-ray.

They're different movies but they are contemporaries, and were likely shot on similar (perhaps even the same) stock. If anything the Super 35 Top Gun will look grainier thanks to the 2.35 extraction, and even though some say that Predator was extensively reframed in post, the movie doesn't have the appearance of one long optical.

If Predator is treated right, it'll look fine. If not, I too have the 2008 Blu-ray.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by rickah88

That's a slippery slope, my friend!
I just think with 2 versions of this film out on BD, that are polar opposites, PQ wise, this release has a pretty tough "sweet spot" to hit in order to avoid the carnage.
I know I'll be staying tuned!

Oh definitely. If Fox does the right or at least better than the 2008 release I'll buy this 3D/2D combo and sell off the 3D disc by itself along with the 2008 disc.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

If it is better than the 2008 release it's a must buy.

That's my attitude as well.

[singhcr]

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.

I can see adding grain to something to match the rest of a shot (such as inserting a CG Enterprise into a starfield), but why not just leave the grain as-is instead of removing it and then trying to add something back?