AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition comparison *PIX* - Page 5

post #121 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Exactly. The masses likes and dislikes tend to only prove that there is far more uneducated people per subject than there are educated...which means flashing lights and shiny objects attract them like fish (example: Avatar).

Concerning this release of Predator (based on screenshots and reviews), 10 out of 10 customers in Best Buy would pick this version over the previous release.

Simply amazing, so anyone who likes "Avatar" is a bit gullible? what nonsense.
post #122 of 551
I'm not someone who's overly nit-picky about video quality from older films because I recognize that they are older and therefore won't look at clean as newer films. That said, damn, does this transfer look horrible! Glad I kept my DVD version which I'll gladly watch upconverted
post #123 of 551
There is no way J6P is writing in and complaining to studios that transfers are too grainy. These studios must be holding viewings of DNR versions vs normal versions and these test subjects are choosing the DNR versions.
post #124 of 551
Finally had a chance to take a look at the 2 releases side by side.

I watched/compared a minute or 2 from each Chapter.
Equipment used: Oppo 83, Mits. 73835

Very interesting stuff.

FWIW, the Ultimate Edition has superior contrast, black levels, color, depth, and detail.
EXCEPT for some of the close-ups of faces (primarily).
Some of the close-ups are fine, but most are not.

Everybody has seen the close-up of Arnie, but the opening sequence where we meet "Dillon" is jaw-dropping; it is the worst demonstration of DNR technique I have ever seen....just frickin' unbelievable.

How can the person responsible for the application of DNR here not be fired for this sin?
Is this a joke Fox is playing on us or is this an unintentional screw-up?

They need to send us a replacement disk....I am sorry, but it is not possible to take this release seriously.

FWIW, maxing out the Detail Enhancement on the Oppo marginally increases grittiness in the video.


Dear Fox,

Please hire a competent tech to re-apply DNR to Predator.
Thank you.
post #125 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGigaShadow View Post

And that should make you sad. Just because the uneducated lemmings want it, doesn't mean it's right. And who'd want to be part of a group of uneducated lemmings?

Well, they have dental...
post #126 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover2002 View Post

Simply amazing, so anyone who likes "Avatar" is a bit gullible? what nonsense.

No. Not gullible. You just have questionable standards for movies.

The point is, most people are going to see this edition of Predator as an improvement.
post #127 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post


Aliens is doomed.
post #128 of 551
Seriously, the folks working in the relevant departments at every studio should be forced to sit down and watch the Godfather blu-ray if they haven't already. It would remind them of what a movie shot on 35mm looks like on this format. Since not every movie is the same, well, I guess we now have a great example to show them of what a 35mm film should not look like on this format.

To whomever said this is like Patton, yes, it is, but unlike Patton we at least have a watchable albeit lower bitrate / inferior codec version on blu-ray.

Also, did I not read somewhere that this would be a "restoration" of the movie? Yeah, they definitely did nothing of the sort. They just went back to the same master and scrubbed it.

By the way, those "Picard Facepalm" and "Epic Fail" motivational posters reminded me:

Does anyone have (or know where I can find) the AVS motivational poster? I remember googling for it and not finding it.
post #129 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Aliens is doomed.

I think you're right.
post #130 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Aliens is doomed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

I think you're right.

Come on guys, be optimistic here.
Cameron has final say over the BD transfer.
Into his hands, rests our faith and dreams.
post #131 of 551
Sorry, this format has made me a cynic
post #132 of 551
Quote:

So, what is that logo supposed to be that they smudged out on his cap in this shot?

Oh, wait...it's supposed to be the camouflage...I thought it was water colors...
post #133 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Seriously, the folks working in the relevant departments at every studio should be forced to sit down and watch the Godfather blu-ray if they haven't already. It would remind them of what a movie shot on 35mm looks like on this format. Since not every movie is the same, well, I guess we now have a great example to show them of what a 35mm film should not look like on this format.

Not everyone thinks the same though. I haven't got the Godfather Blu-ray but I saw the film when it was first released and I hated the grainy cinematography. I thought it one of the worst looking films I'd ever seen. Sorry!
post #134 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHutt View Post

Also, on Picture 5, you now can really see the matte painting to the left of the shot.

Actually, if not for the DNR replacing a good quality master scan and moderate cleanup, you'd realize the entire lower and left and potion of the frame is a matte shot. Only the upper right potion above the log (including the center and right hand potions of the log itself) is real.
post #135 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damato View Post

Not everyone thinks the same though. I haven't got the Godfather Blu-ray but I saw the film when it was first released and I hated the grainy cinematography. I thought it one of the worst looking films I'd ever seen. Sorry!

Not liking it is one thing. Wanted it altered because you don't like it is something else.

I think Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller is one of the ugliest looking films ever shot, but I don't think the studio should change look of the film to suit my taste.
post #136 of 551
Aliens streaming from Netlix in HD looks pretty decent. Definitely better than the DVD and grain is intact.
Hopefully the bluray will look even better.
post #137 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by worth View Post

I don't think the studio should change look of the film to suit my taste.

Well, they wouldn't.
BUT they would change the look to "suit the taste" of the many.
Isn't that what this whole DNR thing is about?
An effort to sell more copies?
post #138 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Actually, if not for the DNR replacing a good quality master scan and moderate cleanup, you'd realize the entire lower and left and potion of the frame is a matte shot. Only the upper right potion above the log (including the center and right hand potions of the log itself) is real.

Yup. After staring at that frame for a few seconds wondering why the entire lower section looked so odd on the new encode, I then realised that the whole section is a matte painting. The effect is virtually seamless on the original BD.

As for Aliens, Cameron approves all of his transfers. He does not run the rule over what actually ends up on the disc, re: additional processing, or at least he didn't with the Skynet edition of T2 (he may have been a little busy on some film he was making ). And did I hear that the ancient transfer used for Gladiator was Ridley-approved? What happens to said transfer once some deluded video tech gets a hold of it is another matter entirely, and that's why I'm fearing for Aliens, and I have been ever since I read that Predator would be getting an "all new digital restoration". We joked about it, but we all knew what was coming.

"You're one ugly mother ****er."
post #139 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

As for Aliens, Cameron approves all of his transfers. He does not run the rule over what actually ends up on the disc, re: additional processing, or at least he didn't with the Skynet edition of T2 (he may have been a little busy on some film he was making ). And did I hear that the ancient transfer used for Gladiator was Ridley-approved? What happens to said transfer once some deluded video tech gets a hold of it is another matter entirely, and that's why I'm fearing for Aliens

MUST....BE....POSITIVE....MUST....KEEP....POSITIVE....MUST.. .
post #140 of 551
Watched this last night and personally thought that some scenes looked really nice and others looked amazingly bad. The closeups of Dillon especially looked horrible. The Arnold "wax" look is nowhere near as bad as the Dillon "wax" look. I personally like that the grain was removed but I wish they could have done so without creating the waxy closeups.
post #141 of 551
It's extremely disappointing that Fox chose to exploit their fanbase again by not properly remastering the film. You would think people that work in the industry for a living would know better than we do and care even more, instead of letting ignorant consumer criticism from people who don't care enough to know better, dictate how the film should look. Instead they should be educating them, so that they can either better appreciate film more or learn how to use a sharpness control and noise reduction algorithms to tweak it how they like.

Hopefully, Fox will get such a bad rap in the industry for this that directors and DPs will start taking notice of how studios are treating their lifes work and demand better, since most studios don't seem to care about the art, more than their profit margin. Even Sony, who is still doing a little better than others, seems to have gotten lazy again.
post #142 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore View Post

It's extremely disappointing that Fox chose to exploit their fanbase again by not properly remastering the film. You would think people that work in the industry for a living would know better than we do and care even more, instead of letting ignorant consumer criticism from people who don't care enough to know better, dictate how the film should look. Instead they should be educating them, so that they can either better appreciate film more or learn how to use a sharpness control and noise reduction algorithms to tweak it how they like.

Not only that, but aren't most new tv's set to torch mode / high DNR out of the box anyway? The vast majority of the ignorant consumers aren't gonna realize this and - even if they do - won't bother to change it unless they realize what it means. Why then are the studios getting so many complaints about noisy/grainy picture? Aren't the settings on people's televisions scrubbing it away before they can even see it? How would the old predator disc look on your average hdtv on its out-of-the-box settings?
post #143 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Not only that, but aren't most new tv's set to torch mode / high DNR out of the box anyway? The vast majority of the ignorant consumers aren't gonna realize this and - even if they do - won't bother to change it unless they realize what it means. Why then are the studios getting so many complaints about noisy/grainy picture? Aren't the settings on people's televisions scrubbing it away before they can even see it? How would the old predator disc look on your average hdtv on its out-of-the-box settings?

If sharpness isn't maxed out from the factory, many consumers max it out first thing, dramatically magnifying any natural video noise into an unsightly mess and even exacerbating relatively minor compression issues into something worse than they should appear. Why Sony choses to hide their calibration patterns instead of including a primer leaflet telling people how to use them, I can't figure out.

Consumers need to be educated not pampered. And I'm sure that's what most would want, considering there are directors like Spielberg who hold grain in such high regard as comparing it to brushstrokes in a painting, who will probably never let a studio butcher their work like Fox has with this title. If they want to ever be able to enjoy certain films on the format they will need to develop an understanding of, if not an appreciation for the nature of film, or they need to learn how to adjust their equipment on their own to achieve the desired look they want.

Its a little disheartening to read customer reviews on Amazon and see people returning their BD of SPR on the grounds that the disc is defective, citing grain and light smearing effects, that are innate to the photography and extremely well documented as such online, as their reason instead of the widely reported lip-sync issue. Nothing much has changed since the early years of DVD when people ignorantly and quite arrogantly complained about losing part of the picture with widescreen on their 4:3 displays.

I understood filtering grain with DVD. The format is too lossy and too compromised to be able to effectively preserve it. But with BD that process has got to go and recycling masters that were created with DVD in mind (filtered and artificially enhanced) isn't helping the format; it's teaching educated consumers to be leary of catalog films on the format, at least until the reviews are out. Sadly, there are many reviewers who don't bother to try to learn any thing about film or disc authoring that you can't trust either. They seem content in their un-researched opinions of movies themselves as being qualification enough to write a review. Some even have their own popular sites.

Hopefully, this was a very poorly gauged experiment that won't happen again. Or at least with time and enough negative feedback, we can hope it'll sort itself out like the widescreen thing did. Though I suspect that had a lot to do with the shift toward 16:9 displays, so maybe getting bigger displays in the home is the answer, where the loss of detail will be more evident. But studios still have to treat it just as they did widescreen and try to educate consumers with packaging inserts or info spots on the discs and have faith in peoples desire to learn.

Sony used to include an insert justifying their superbit philosophy inside every single superbit disc. Maybe the same needs to be done for Blu-ray. But, currently, many studios, Fox in particular, aren't putting any effort into their BD packaging, printing on only one side of the cover despite the fact that the case is practically transparent and other studios have set a better standard. And the only inserts included (aside from generic disclaimers that some features may not work in older players) are for digital copies, movie rewards codes, and video cable advertisements. I don't think I've even seen a single D-box promo insert, despite far more discs supporting D-box than movable subtitles, when far more consumers could benefit from the later. Sony includes a semi-informative advertisement promoting the most obvious merits of BD, but it's hardly educational. It's like an instruction manual troubleshooting guide that only suggests making sure the power is on and the player is plugged in if something isn't working.
post #144 of 551
That's a good point, Chad. While the DNR is usually set to medium or high, the sharpness is cranked up as well. I guess that's why they're noticing the grain after all. Yeah, now I can see what the studios are doing with releases like this. They're optimizing these transfers for those out-of-the-box settings.
post #145 of 551
Thread Starter 
I grossly understimated the popularity of this movie among A/V geeks. I never had this much bandwidth used up from a comparison thread since The Dark Knight in a short amount of time

To other forums (you know who you are) please use the thumbnails I included if you are going to use the images. After all this for all the A/V nerdom benefit
post #146 of 551
Actually, I've never seen it (heh). I just care about film preservation in general. It's a relief to know - in this situation - that there's a decent looking transfer out there (the old one), should I ever want to watch it in hi-def.

Y'know, this might be somewhat of a first. How many blu-ray double dips can we say actually look worse than the original?!
post #147 of 551
What technique would be best in hitting the studios over the head until they accept that: the best possible source plus players with controls and instructions to tweak the output, to each customer's personal requirements, is the most efficient way of satisfying all and thus maximising sales?

Don't they realise that you can "turd a polish", but not "polish a turd"?

Maybe players with Cinema (no processing) and Tussaud (DNR up the wazoo) presets would make it simpler for the masses.
post #148 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

I grossly understimated the popularity of this movie among A/V geeks. I never had this much bandwidth used up from a comparison thread since The Dark Knight in a short amount of time

It is one of the very best action films of pure machismo. It deserves an induction to the National Film Registry for that reason alone.
post #149 of 551
Uh, I guess I should have kept it down to soundbites if I wanted anyone to read my rant. I'll be more concise next time.

Maybe I just succeeded in annoying both sides...
post #150 of 551
Yikes... Pass for me...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition comparison *PIX*