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

[The Rider]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

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

Yes, I mean the new transfers that were shown at the Die Hard marathon.

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

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

Thanks, I dont understand why they release the new transfers not yet, new film and 25th Anniversary of the first film was the perfect time.


The problem is I have no Twitter account and normally I do not need it.


Can someone describe how the original prints of Predator looks ?

Color sheme/grading, sharpness, detail, etc.

[42041]

Originally Posted by The Rider

Can someone describe how the original prints of Predator looks ?

Color sheme/grading, sharpness, detail, etc.

The one I saw (couple years back) was quite soft, muted color, unusually dark. It was obviously a mass-produced 4th generation print so not a good reference for whatever detail/sharpness is on the negative. The overall color balance is pretty much what's on the blu-ray, though even the original blu-ray is considerably lighter (and the UHE is way out there) and has much more apparent grain in the dark parts of the image as a result. Other people say they've seen newer prints that look pretty much exactly like the original disc color-wise.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by 42041

The one I saw (couple years back) was quite soft, muted color, unusually dark. It was obviously a mass-produced 4th generation print so not a good reference for whatever detail/sharpness is on the negative. The overall color balance is pretty much what's on the blu-ray, though even the original blu-ray is considerably lighter (and the UHE is way out there) and has much more apparent grain in the dark parts of the image as a result. Other people say they've seen newer prints that look pretty much exactly like the original disc color-wise.

Sounds a lot like the DVD. I did a comparsen a while back between the DVD and the 2008 Blu-Ray and the DVD was darker. So it could be a case of older prints resembling the DVD and newer prints resembling the 2008 Blu-Ray in terms of brightness/contrast. When I say "newer prints" those themselves are probably pretty old in their own right as well.

Anyway, like I said before, this new release will have to be quite a bit better then the 2008 release if I'm going to upgrade because "marginal improvement" is just not going to cut it. I'd rather save my money and keep the 2008 release in that case.

[The Fallen Deity]

If this new transfer is done from the OCN it should look pretty good if done properly. It's obviously not going to be reference quality due to the way the film was shot but it wouldn't look like total crap either.

As far as I know, none of the current home video editions were sourced from the OCN, not even the two current Blu-Rays.

Wasn't it confirmed a few years back that both the 2008 Blu-Ray and the UHE were infact from the same HD master?

[Ben_UK]

I think it will be the darker scenes which prove the most problematic, all that grain buried in with the shadow details.

[42041]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

If this new transfer is done from the OCN it should look pretty good if done properly. It's obviously not going to be reference quality due to the way the film was shot but it wouldn't look like total crap either.

As far as I know, none of the current home video editions were sourced from the OCN, not even the two current Blu-Rays.

Wasn't it confirmed a few years back that both the 2008 Blu-Ray and the UHE were infact from the same HD master?

Not to my knowledge. It doesn't look like the same master anyway: different framing, color, etc.

If the purported new transfer is done well I think it will surprise a lot of people.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by 42041

Not to my knowledge. It doesn't look like the same master anyway: different framing, color, etc.

If the purported new transfer is done well I think it will surprise a lot of people.

The framing doesn't look that different and the colours can easily be digitally manipulated.

I doubt that Fox struck a new scan for the UHE.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

If this new transfer is done from the OCN it should look pretty good if done properly. It's obviously not going to be reference quality due to the way the film was shot but it wouldn't look like total crap either.

As far as I know, none of the current home video editions were sourced from the OCN, not even the two current Blu-Rays.

Wasn't it confirmed a few years back that both the 2008 Blu-Ray and the UHE were infact from the same HD master?

Well obviously until the reviews and screenshot comparisons are out nobody should prepare ahead for lack of better word/expression. That's also assuming that they do in fact go ahead with a separate remaster from the OCN of the 2D version of the film. For all its limitations in codec, source materials, bit rate, disc storage etc the 2008 Blu looks remarkably good, so my expectations will be sky high, so heres hoping that the new release is a home run. Anything else is unacceptable IMO and won't motivate me to upgrade.

Also you are right, by jacking up the contrast/brightness/sharpness/colour and DNR, you can roughly just about turn the 2008 Blu-Ray into the 2010 UHE..

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Well obviously until the reviews and screenshot comparisons are out nobody should prepare ahead for lack of better word/expression. That's also assuming that they do in fact go ahead with a separate remaster from the OCN of the 2D version of the film. For all its limitations in codec, source materials, bit rate, disc storage etc the 2008 Blu looks remarkably good, so my expectations will be sky high, so heres hoping that the new release is a home run. Anything else is unacceptable IMO and won't motivate me to upgrade.

Also you are right, by jacking up the contrast/brightness/sharpness/colour and DNR, you can roughly just about turn the 2008 Blu-Ray into the 2010 UHE..

Yeah the 2008 edition looks really good considering it's taken from an ageing HD master and the encoding isn't the best around.

I'm in the same boat as you, if Fox haven't transferred and mastered this new release properly, I'll just stick with the 2008 edition.

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

Why release this in 3D? The last release is horrible DNR to death! If it's a good remaster and keeps the grain I'm in for 2D. 3D has gotten out of control!

No it hasn`t. Just ignore it if you don`t approve. It is as simple as that ladies and gentlemen. No one is forcing you to buy or watch it. You don`t have to spend your hard earned cash on this if you don`t want to. Why all the hate?

I generally hate post converted 3D titles myself but gave Titanic and Jurassic Park a chance and both was superbly well done!

If predator IS indeed converted well from a new 4k scan I will be very much interested in seeing how it could turn out.

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by ill_be_back

+2

-3

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

The framing doesn't look that different and the colours can easily be digitally manipulated.

I doubt that Fox struck a new scan for the UHE.

I think something is similar between the 08 and UHE release. I cannot say what it is, but when comparing screengrabs (putting aside the DNR, color and brightness changes on the UHE) they still have a similar look in detail and in image. Even the grain in some scenes looks similar - for what is left in some scenes of the UHE.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ss=0#vergleich

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I take pride in that title.

I'll second that.

By the way, I think that considering how Fox has been doing so well with catalog transfers this year, we should expect great things from the 2D transfer (Belston himself said that the same new 4k source would be used for both transfers, also admitting that mistakes were made on the UHE release). The 3D may will be interesting for the sake of controversy, but I really only care about finally getting a true-to-source edition of Predator in 2D. If this release accomplishes that, I'll be happy.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I think something is similar between the 08 and UHE release. I cannot say what it is, but when comparing screengrabs (putting aside the DNR, color and brightness changes on the UHE) they still have a similar look in detail and in image. Even the grain in some scenes looks similar - for what is left in some scenes of the UHE.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ss=0#vergleich

This supports that conclusion:

"Predator UHE is a great example of creating a new master from an old transfer.
Now a new master can be made multiple times from an old transfer as was the case with Predator UHE with DNR, color and gamma correction applied or Caddyshack for the bluray compared to the hddvd the same. When you can see no improvement in detail from one disc to the next odds are the transfer is the same."

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1274038/ne...-master-thread

To bad they didn't keep that thread alive.

Given that the target market for this 3D release is not the videophile, it is most likely that they remastered the DI for 3D and that's all they did.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by bluknight1

I'll second that.

By the way, I think that considering how Fox has been doing so well with catalog transfers this year, we should expect great things from the 2D transfer (Belston himself said that the same new 4k source would be used for both transfers, also admitting that mistakes were made on the UHE release). The 3D may will be interesting for the sake of controversy, but I really only care about finally getting a true-to-source edition of Predator in 2D. If this release accomplishes that, I'll be happy.

Who is Belston?

[Ben_UK]

Originally Posted by singhcr

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?

I think if the grain is static or if its very clumpy or large, then there could be an argument for removal and then re-adding more "natural" looking grain. The practice of re-adding grain though is a bit of a nonsense really as we all know that it doesn't really do anything in terms of adding detail, however it does give the image a "texture".

[42041]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Who is Belston?

The guy in charge of restoration/mastering/whatever at Fox.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Who is Belston?

Originally Posted by 42041

The guy in charge of restoration/mastering/whatever at Fox.

Thanks. I think he meant Finn. I found this thread at HTF, but there was no inquiry about Predator in it.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...mr-finn/page-1

He must have been referring to the Ron Epstein comment in this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...y-in-december/

Epstein was asked to confirm that the "new" transfer was not the same as the transfer used for the UHE. He did not confirm it. His source was marketing/pr spokesman Finn, not Belston.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Thanks. I think he meant Finn. I found this thread at HTF, but there was no inquiry about Predator in it.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...mr-finn/page-1

He must have been referring to the Ron Epstein comment in this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...y-in-december/

Epstein was asked to confirm that the "new" transfer was not the same as the transfer used for the UHE. He did not confirm it. His source was marketing/pr spokesman Finn, not Belston.

Sorry about that! I often get them confused.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by bluknight1

Sorry about that! I often get them confused.

Not a problem. Belston would have been a more credible source that Finn.