Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

... did you really just call someone's hair stupid?

To quote duayne thomas:

"evidently".

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Eh, no. That's just loss of detail. Grain isn't a layer put on top of the picture, so it doesn't "cover up" anything. Plus, if you're standing behind your makeup argument, the makeup would stand out like a sore thumb in that screen cap, if there was indeed the same amount needed to cause the wax look seen in Predator.

Also, is he wearing a skin-tight red garbage bag? Cuz I've never seen cotton look like that.

Ok so you comparing your screen shot that you picked with just that one shot of Arnold. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

It looked like that in the old one just not as bad. Quit trying to pretend your an expert.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Also, is he wearing a skin-tight red garbage bag? Cuz I've never seen cotton look like that.

Now you can tell what his shirt is made out of?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

Doesn't edge enhancement create halos and stuff? Or is there a different thing?

If you over do it, yes, because it's sharpening ALL the edges. And when the outer edges are over sharpened, it creates the halos. I'm not a master at compression and all that, so it's possible that some types of compression also create a halo effect.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Now you can tell what his shirt is made out of?

Well . . . unless it's some sort of plastic material, chances are it has some sort of fibers to it. And, if its like 99% of polo shirts out there, it's cotton, or a cotton blend, which doesn't look like it was made of vinyl, as it does in the screen shot.

What the **** else would it be made of, really? Maybe in your world this would pose complication . . .

Originally Posted by bleauboy

Quit trying to pretend your an expert.

One could ask the same of you, or anybody else Don't get your panties in a bunch because your original comment offered a pretty lame explanation.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by fitprod

I've seen Ferngully and Aliens... Avatar is not a masterpiece.

Technology can't make up for a poor screenplay.

fitprod

So have I, why would you suggest otherwise. If you want the films it is really most like look at Dances with Wolves and Laurence of Arabia.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by DrNegative

Thanks Suntory. That is all I wanted to know.

no problem

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Well . . . unless it's some sort of plastic material, chances are it has some sort of fibers to it. And, if its like 99% of polo shirts out there, it's cotton, or a cotton blend, which doesn't look like it was made of vinyl, as it does in the screen shot.

What the **** else would it be made of, really? Maybe in your world this would pose complication . . .

Actually, the way it fits, I'd say polyester or nylon. Not cotton.

But, this is kinda silly. I'm about to sit down and watch this on a 106" screen. If I have any other comments I consider relevant, I'll post them.

[demers_60]

Just sold both my Predator dvd and unopened blu. This will be the only predator I need.

[MCT]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Also, is he wearing a skin-tight red garbage bag? Cuz I've never seen cotton look like that.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Actually, the way it fits, I'd say polyester or nylon. Not cotton.

But, this is kinda silly. I'm about to sit down and watch this on a 106" screen. If I have any other comments I consider relevant, I'll post them.

Robert,

I would be curious of your thoughts of how both discs compare.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by demers_60

Just sold both my Predator dvd and unopened blu. This will be the only predator I need.

I agree that the MPEG-2 version is all you'll ever need.

[beanham22]

Say what you will, but I think that other than the one shot of Arnold talking to Phillips this new Blu looks better than the old one. That one shot of Arnold is ONE FRAME, possibly it won't look like that in motion.

Im going to wait for more reviews, especially from this site as it isn't biased against DNR when it is used correctly, unlike some sites that cringe at the acronym.

[drtre81]

So am I the only one who secretly thinks that DNR Express Arnold screen cap still looks better than it did originally?

Yes they processed it to death but the original shot was horrible.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by drtre81

So am I the only one who secretly thinks that DNR Express Arnold screen cap still looks better than it did originally?

Yes they processed it to death but the original shot was horrible.

I think your crazy to think that. But each to there own.

[42041]

i pick option c: both are icky.
but it's not the mastering tech's business to decide the filmmakers didn't shoot it pretty enough.

[42041]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

Doesn't edge enhancement create halos and stuff? Or is there a different thing?

It can, or it can be used more subtly and be almost undetectable.
People malign sharpening too much, it's a useful tool that does increase the acuity of the image when applied correctly. When you re-purpose a sharpened DVD-targeted transfer for blu-ray, suddenly you aren't watching it on a tiny TV screen and it looks horrendous.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

So have I, why would you suggest otherwise. If you want the films it is really most like look at Dances with Wolves and Laurence of Arabia.

Naw... I wouldn't want to insult David Lean. Costner? Maybe if you were comparing Avatar to Waterworld.

fitprod

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's just artificially sharpened. I'm a photographer and you can do this with any image. The same detail is there, but digital sharpening beings out the edges (edge enhancement). If it was a new transfer, we'd see a more substantial improvement in detail.

Well, I thought the DNR would have further diminished the detail from the original mpeg-2 encoding. So even with the EE, it would have been harder to see. Like with the first Lord Of The Rings, the HD Cable version had more details than the Blu-ray version because of the DNR. Unless the HD version was artificially sharpened to begin with.

Even if there was a new transfer, wouldn't the heavy amount of DNR that was applied counter attack the extra fine detail and ultimately there would only be a slight improvement in detail? There seems to be specs of dirt on this picture of the original Blu-ray and they are gone in the pic of the new version

http://www.imagebam.com/image/e3120984037007
http://www.imagebam.com/image/0cc18084037004

Would that be digitally removed as well? I'm not familiar, that is why I ask.

[Daredevil666]

You guys keep saying Arnolds face is wax looking in that one shot. Well he look like that in other movies too, regardless the transfer. Anybody see terminator, He looked kind of waxy in that.

Arnold have his face covered with vaseline in Terminator. Cameron made this in order to give him a plastic like look. Same in T2, and I suspect he had his face sightly oiled in most movies from this era. That made him look good, it was just a make up trick.