Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[drtre81]

Whether or not you should purchase this depends on how big of a deal this is to you:

http://i50.tinypic.com/96z5f7.jpg

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Whether or not you should purchase this depends on how big of a deal this is to you:

http://i50.tinypic.com/96z5f7.jpg

I really like the look of the new one so far, but I have to see it first before I can judge, by the way I also have the old one. The detail and jungle scenes looked great, my problem was the grain. The grain was a little too distracting for me only in a few scenes. The pic with Arnold's face looks better on the new version. I know it is shiny like plastic, but someone also stated that Arnie use to put oil or something on his face in movies. I have a lot of Arnold movies and he does look like a plastic face in some other movies as well, So I don't think that look of him is a result of transfer or dnr.

[Post Prod]

These screencaps, and a lot of the people posting in this thread, has me terrified about what might happen to Aliens. Which is a VERY grainy movie.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Which is a VERY grainy movie.

Probably not for long.

[Arkadin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by drtre81

It's not a new master though...

unless taking the same transfer an increasing the bitrate by 50% and bigger file size qualifies it as new?

you're saying you don't think they created a new master for this release?
I thought most people felt they did.
I was certainly thinking they created a new master, and then dnred the crap out of it.
you're saying they used the same master used for the previous release?
that seems hard to believe.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

I really like the look of the new one so far, but I have to see it first before I can judge, by the way I also have the old one. The detail and jungle scenes looked great, my problem was the grain. The grain was a little too distracting for me only in a few scenes. The pic with Arnold's face looks better on the new version. I know it is shiny like plastic, but someone also stated that Arnie use to put oil or something on his face in movies. I have a lot of Arnold movies and he does look like a plastic face in some other movies as well, So I don't think that look of him is a result of transfer or dnr.

So why doesn't he look like plastic in the original release?

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

One thing's for sure, there are a lot of people that are very passionate about this movie!

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

So why doesn't he look like plastic in the original release?

He kinda does. I think maybe the brightness or contrast brings it out in the new one. IDK?

[bleauboy]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

These screencaps, and a lot of the people posting in this thread, has me terrified about what might happen to Aliens. Which is a VERY grainy movie.

I heard that lowry digital is doing the restoration. It probably will not have as much grain, who knows. The Alien Anthology is next on my list though. One of my second favorites.

[Home Th3atre]

Video noise is what most of you are seeing in the original bluray. You are simply confusing it for grain. The remastered version has a proper encode that shows the film how it was meant to be seen without the added noise.

[YodasFootPowder]

Originally Posted by Home Th3atre

Video noise is what most of you are seeing in the original bluray. You are simply confusing it for grain. The remastered version has a proper encode that shows the film how it was meant to be seen without the added noise.

Ahh, so the original print of Predator didn't have much grain and we're seeing "noise" on the OG Blu-ray? Ummm, OK... So, you're saying Predator is not a very grainy film and should look smooth and sharp? Unless I am wrong, most 70's and 80's movies contain quite a bit of grain, for the most part.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

These screencaps, and a lot of the people posting in this thread, has me terrified about what might happen to Aliens. Which is a VERY grainy movie.

I think Fox would be a lot less eager to mess with James Cameron.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Home Th3atre

Video noise is what most of you are seeing in the original bluray. You are simply confusing it for grain. The remastered version has a proper encode that shows the film how it was meant to be seen without the added noise.

Do you just make things up as you go?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Do you just make things up as you go?

Well, considering he's going againts what the experts and insiders say... I'd say there's a good chance it's someone to young to understand film/Blu-ray (no offense intended here).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Whether or not you should purchase this depends on how big of a deal this is to you:

http://i50.tinypic.com/96z5f7.jpg

One single frame capture out of some 150,000 repeated ad nauseum?

I am no fan of DNR, but I've seen plenty of movies where the screenshot addicts scream "DNR" and they select the absolute worst few frames they can find to make their point. Warner's recent issue of Contact is a good example.

I'll wait, and rent via Netflix. If it's acceptable then I will purchase.

If it isn't, I won't. Simple.

I knew this would happen though, after all the posts b*tching and whining on how "bad" Predator looked without realizing it was pretty damn accurate to the source on the original BD.

I can predict the same for RoboCop.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by drtre81

It's because it's coming from people who already purchased the original, don't want to double dip, so they keep bringing up that one shot to convince us...and themselves, that the version they own is superior.

If you don't feel like buying the new one that's fine. But stop trying to convince people that it looks crappy when all other shots shown actually look better. That screen cap of arnold looks equally crappy on the mpeg2 version.

You've said this more than a couple times already and I have to disagree.

Originally Posted by Chaka

I think there is nothing wrong to like either versions. Taste is all subjective and the only one that should care is the person buying the disc. What bothers me about the new release is hoping its not a trend to come for other catalog titles that studios think they need to refresh in order to get sales. Its one step forward and a major step backwards IMO. The use of using EE and DNR bothers me but not as much as the fact that the new version is now some ultra contrasted movie. I saw Predator in the theaters but honestly cannot remember how it looked other than it was dark and a gritty movie at the time. Owned couple DVD versions and the mpeg2 blu-ray version and to me that captured the general feel. By looking at some of the screen captures, I question if they were able to still retain the overall feel of the movie. Predator is and never was a traditional action/sci-fi movie in the sense where it wasn't filled with visuals and action like modern films of the genre.

Grain, whether it was intentional or not, its what we got in the theaters when it was released. I don't know if it was by accident but the movie worked and it still has a following as its evident in this thread. Spawned off a franchise I doubt the studio or director even thought about at the time of release. All I know is that none of the other movies have the same feel as the original. The grain and low light shots created the atmosphere better than any visual effects from a more modern release.

We can debate about this all day long. Waxy faces, is there more detail because of a higher encode, more detail with contrast turned up etc. What we know pretty damn sure is this new version is not close or anything like the original version that was out in the theaters.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

One single frame capture out of some 150,000 repeated ad nauseum?

I am no fan of DNR, but I've seen plenty of movies where the screenshot addicts scream "DNR" and they select the absolute worst few frames they can find to make their point. Warner's recent issue of Contact is a good example.

I'll wait, and rent via Netflix. If it's acceptable then I will purchase.

If it isn't, I won't. Simple.

I knew this would happen though, after all the posts b*tching and whining on how "bad" Predator looked without realizing it was pretty damn accurate to the source on the original BD.

I can predict the same for RoboCop.

Normally I ignore screen grabs (like you said, there's over 150,000 other frames in the film) and you can tell the one of Arnold's face is probably the worst the film looks. I even purchased Gladiator and I don't think it looks quite as bad as people made it out to be from the screen shots (though I'd love to see a nice version of it released). However, it's clear to me that the entire style and feel of the film changed with this new transfer. It lost the grittyness that was apparent on the original Blu-ray. But that's just me... and I don't have netflix.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by 42041

I think Fox would be a lot less eager to mess with James Cameron.

Studios are not afraid of their directors, and Cameron has all but said over the years that he is through doing anything with ALIENS.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Studios are not afraid of their directors, and Cameron has all but said over the years that he is through doing anything with ALIENS.

Which is why Cameron had the clout to demand no trailers before the Avatar disc. I think at this point Fox would do pretty much anything asked of them by him.

...that's the kind of thing that happens when you make someone over a billion dollars...

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

One single frame capture out of some 150,000 repeated ad nauseum?

I am no fan of DNR, but I've seen plenty of movies where the screenshot addicts scream "DNR" and they select the absolute worst few frames they can find to make their point. Warner's recent issue of Contact is a good example.

I'll wait, and rent via Netflix. If it's acceptable then I will purchase.

If it isn't, I won't. Simple.

I knew this would happen though, after all the posts b*tching and whining on how "bad" Predator looked without realizing it was pretty damn accurate to the source on the original BD.

I can predict the same for RoboCop.

Huh? I used that as as an example because it's reportedly the worse it gets. I'm getting the new version.