or Connect
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 2

post #31 of 574
Little known fact...Predator was actually Pixar's first film.
post #32 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

PREDATOR is a grainy film. They used a film stock that did not require a lot of light, but the trade-off was it was grainy as heck. That is how the film is supposed to look.

I prefer the newer updated "look" of this title over the older "look" by a wide margin. I really don't care for that grainy look at all and I'm glad the studios are able to create something that, to me, looks a whole lot better than the way the actual picture was shot. Just an opinion....
Quote:
They have performed a full on Grain-Rape and it is deplorable. Someone should be fired for this.

On the contrary...I like the effort that was put into giving this title a modernized high definition look and applaud their efforts. I hope it sells well. I know my viewpoint run contrary to most viewpoints on this thread...but I'm just going with what my eyes tell me and not some notion about how things are supposed to look. Peace....
post #33 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post


Look at me! I'm a wax dummy!!

PREDATOR is a grainy film. They used a film stock that did not require a lot of light, but the trade-off was it was grainy as heck. That is how the film is supposed to look.

They have performed a full on Grain-Rape and it is deplorable. Someone should be fired for this.

But is that how the director would have wanted it to look if he had a choice in the matter? That's how the film is supposed to look, but is that how the movie is supposed to look?

Catalog titles and grain -- there's no end to this debate. Thank God for digital cinematography. This issue will go away eventually.
post #34 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

Thank God for digital cinematography. This issue will go away eventually.

And people will choose between having video noise or DNR that makes people look like wax.
post #35 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

But is that how the director would have wanted it to look if he had a choice in the matter? That's how the film is supposed to look, but is that how the movie is supposed to look?

Catalog titles and grain -- there's no end to this debate. Thank God for digital cinematography. This issue will go away eventually.


But it won't go away.

Even with digital, they'll just add grain digitally, and the grain haters will still be up in arms. Until the studio scrubs the digital grain (added by the director) away, to appease the HD video crowd.

Regarding Predator, I haven't seen either version, even though I love this movie. I prefer grain, as long as its not completely distracting, and I think they went overboard with the DNR dial.
post #36 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

But is that how the director would have wanted it to look if he had a choice in the matter? That's how the film is supposed to look, but is that how the movie is supposed to look?

This is the one point grain fans cannot answer.
Given an opportunity to use the newer film stocks of today, would Hitchcock, Ford, etc. have still used those crap stocks available back then?
Or even went digital?
post #37 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This is the one point grain fans cannot answer.
Given an opportunity to use the newer film stocks of today, would Hitchcock, Ford, etc. have still used those crap stocks available back then?
Or even went digital?

that shouldn't really matter. It's supposed to replicate how the director ACTUALLY SHOT it, not the Lucas view of things. If it looked like sh!t in the theatrical print and the director wanted it to look like Avatar, then I want it to look exactly as it looked in the theatrical print.
post #38 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This is the one point grain fans cannot answer.
Given an opportunity to use the newer film stocks of today, would Hitchcock, Ford, etc. have still used those crap stocks available back then?
Or even went digital?

There are no grain fans but true to the source (or the director's intention) fans.
post #39 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This is the one point grain fans cannot answer.
Given an opportunity to use the newer film stocks of today, would Hitchcock, Ford, etc. have still used those crap stocks available back then?
Or even went digital?

I can answer: who cares?
post #40 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJF View Post

I am already thinking of some especially grainy scenes in the SE version of Aliens... I am afraid, though, that grain is going to be synonymous with poor PQ to the vast majority....

Grain is poor PQ. It's poor film PQ in the first place. Grain is a technology limitation; it's not intentional. Film a movie with two cameras: One with film stock that produces noticable grain, and one with film stock that does not. Which will be preferred? I can't believe a director would want his work distracted by this if he had a choice in the matter.

So should the original film source, with all it's undesireable technical flaws (poor film stock), be transferred to BD, as is, on principle? 20th Fox doesn't give a fox's ass about principle, they want to sell product. Most people do not want it with that much grain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a DNR fan, nor am I a grain fan. Too bad there isn't a way to get rid of the heavy extreme grain without getting rid of the detail with it.
post #41 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormraper View Post

that shouldn't really matter. It's supposed to replicate how the director ACTUALLY SHOT it, not the Lucas view of things. If it looked like sh!t in the theatrical print and the director wanted it to look like Avatar, then I want it to look exactly as it looked in the theatrical print.

If it looked like **** and the director wanted it to look like ****, then you want it to look exactly like **** in the theatrical print.
post #42 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissen View Post

I once bought the Gulliver's Travels Blu (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...lliver+travels) just to have "The worst BD in existence" in my collection. This new release is a major contender in that department.

nah even this turd cannot begin to touch that pile

Gullivers Travels ended up looking like a cropped VHS to BD transfer
post #43 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

I can't believe a director would want his work distracted by this if he had a choice in the matter.

A lot of directors want film grain in the image. Listen to what Scorcese, Spielberg, and Landau have said.
post #44 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

I can't believe a director would want his work distracted by this if he had a choice in the matter.

Really? Then how do you explain movies that go to the expense of shooting 16mm, when they could simply shoot on video?

Regardless, it doesn't matter. The blu-ray should represent the movie, not someone's idea of a pretty picture.
post #45 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

Grain is a technology limitation; it's not intentional.

Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, and War of the Worlds say other wise.


Quote:
I can't believe a director would want his work distracted by this if he had a choice in the matter.

Spielberg had a choice. He chose to go with added grain.
post #46 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

A lot of directors want film grain in the image. Listen to what Scorcese, Spielberg, and Landau have said.

I'm guessing he never heard of a small film entitled 300. It had a tremendous amount of faux grain added. If I recall, the film was..mildly popular.
post #47 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJF View Post

I have to wonder if they could DNR this back in 1987 (or could they?) for the theatrical release, would they have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

But is that how the director would have wanted it to look if he had a choice in the matter? That's how the film is supposed to look, but is that how the movie is supposed to look

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This is the one point grain fans cannot answer.
Given an opportunity to use the newer film stocks of today, would Hitchcock, Ford, etc. have still used those crap stocks available back then?
Or even went digital?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

Grain is poor PQ. It's poor film PQ in the first place. Grain is a technology limitation; it's not intentional. Film a movie with two cameras: One with film stock that produces noticable grain, and one with film stock that does not. Which will be preferred? I can't believe a director would want his work distracted by this if he had a choice in the matter.

There isn't a director alive (or dead) that doesn't wish they had a bigger budget, longer schedule, better technology, better weather, better cast, better crew etc. for each and every single film they made.

It's entirely possible that the makers of the 1933 King Kong would have shot the film in colour and widescreen, with stereo sound and CGI effects had that option been available to them.

So what?

Should the film that they actually made - as opposed to some hypothetical film that may have existed in their imaginations - be altered now because the technology to do so exists? Should the back and white footage be colourized because colour is always better? Should it be DNRd to remove all of the grain, because a cleaner picutre is always superior? Should it be cropped and reframed into widescreen compositions because widescreen is always better? Should the soundtrack be tossed out and a new, noise-free 7.1 mix be created because that would sound better? Should Willis O'Biren's stop-motion work be replaced by ILM's CGI, because that's cleaner and better?

You tell me. Because if you're in favour of totally altering the way a film was originally photographed, you should have no problem with any of the changes suggested above.
post #48 of 574
Looks like a completely different film!
post #49 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

Grain is poor PQ. It's poor film PQ in the first place. Grain is a technology limitation; it's not intentional.

Completely, utterly and factually wrong. Steven Spielberg, a director you may have heard of, very specifically shoots many of his films with above average grain. In fact he refuses to shoot any films using digital cameras, he wants film grain *that* much. I'd say that's "intentional".

Michael Mann shoots digitally and sometimes cranks the gain up on his cameras to introduce additional "grain" into the image. This is a practice that videographers generally strive to avoid under all circumstances and he does it on purpose. That's certainly not Mann suffering from "technology limitation".

And there's of course 300, which was shot basically grain free and had masses of grain applied digitally. That's "intentional" use of "technology" to deliver grain.

Even George Lucas had ILM add some grain to EP:III because the Sony 1080P cameras were too sharp for his liking.

Generally speaking, on any recent, current or future films if there is grain it is not due to any limitations. If a director wishes to shoot a film with little, or even no grain, that's completely doable.
post #50 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

Grain is poor PQ. It's poor film PQ in the first place. Grain is a technology limitation; it's not intentional. Film a movie with two cameras: One with film stock that produces noticable grain, and one with film stock that does not. Which will be preferred? I can't believe a director would want his work distracted by this if he had a choice in the matter.

So should the original film source, with all it's undesireable technical flaws (poor film stock), be transferred to BD, as is, on principle? 20th Fox doesn't give a fox's ass about principle, they want to sell product. Most people do not want it with that much grain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a DNR fan, nor am I a grain fan. Too bad there isn't a way to get rid of the heavy extreme grain without getting rid of the detail with it.


Tell that to Spielberg who LOVES using grainy film stock
post #51 of 574
Do not forget William Friedkin and the digitally added grain in French Connection. (OK, he DNR'd the hell out of it first).
post #52 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

If it looked like **** and the director wanted it to look like ****, then you want it to look exactly like **** in the theatrical print.

yes
post #53 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy Lewis View Post

I prefer the newer updated "look" of this title over the older "look" by a wide margin. I really don't care for that grainy look at all and I'm glad the studios are able to create something that, to me, looks a whole lot better than the way the actual picture was shot. Just an opinion....

Only one problem with that opinion. Your television has features that can remove all the grain for you. I've tested DNR on my TVs before and it actually works quite well, sometimes the resultant image looks better than the DNR that studios bake into their Blu-Rays.

I on the other hand, do not have a TV that restores fine detail and original grain structure.

So the net result is that if the studio release the film as originally presented, complete with grain, everyone can enjoy the product. When they DNR scrub the film first, only a subset of the consumers can enjoy the product.
post #54 of 574
it looks totally awful in those shots, the original grain is way more palatable than the photoshopped filter look.
post #55 of 574
It's a bit of a technical article, but people who think grain is always a mistake should read the ASC mag's writeup on Babel... just search for "grain" (http://wwww.theasc.com/ac_magazine/N...abel/page1.php)

an interesting quote from Babel's cinematographer:
LaserPacific was very proud of how clean their 16mm scan was, and indeed, there was much less grain, he recalls ruefully. We didn't have time to rescan it because we had to get a print ready for Cannes. We tested methods for adding grain back in digitally, but we didn't like any of them, so we just went with the natural grain it had. We would have liked a little more, because the grain was the most important visual element of the story. That texture is there, but in the end, the 5289 is grainier than the [16mm]. It was a lesson in why it's important to determine where you will finish your movie during prep, and do your tests there.
post #56 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by philnerd View Post

Completely, utterly and factually wrong. Steven Spielberg, a director you may have heard of, very specifically shoots many of his films with above average grain. In fact he refuses to shoot any films using digital cameras, he wants film grain *that* much. I'd say that's "intentional".

Michael Mann shoots digitally and sometimes cranks the gain up on his cameras to introduce additional "grain" into the image. This is a practice that videographers generally strive to avoid under all circumstances and he does it on purpose. That's certainly not Mann suffering from "technology limitation".

And there's of course 300, which was shot basically grain free and had masses of grain applied digitally. That's "intentional" use of "technology" to deliver grain.

Even George Lucas had ILM add some grain to EP:III because the Sony 1080P cameras were too sharp for his liking.

Generally speaking, on any recent, current or future films if there is grain it is not due to any limitations. If a director wishes to shoot a film with little, or even no grain, that's completely doable.

I agree. When you have a choice to add grain intentionally, it is not unintentional. How about when you don't have that choice because of budget, or just poor quality film of the time. That's what I'm talking about. Are you saying Predator was shot intentionally with the grain it has?
post #57 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

How about when you don't have that choice because of budget, or just poor quality film of the time. That's what I'm talking about. Are you saying Predator was shot intentionally with the grain it has?

What difference does it make? All films are the net result of the limitations of their budgets, schedules and available technology.

Maybe McTiernan would have preferred that the film star Stallone rather than Schwarzenegger. Should Arnold be digitally replaced by Stallone because the technology to do so exists now?
post #58 of 574
What a ridiculous, circular argument!!! We all have DNR features in our ****ing displays, any of us can use it to remove grain ourselves! But, if the studios scrub the grain away, my player and my display can not add the detail back!!! What is it about this that some (many) of you studio appologists don't ****ing understand???
post #59 of 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan P. View Post

I agree. When you have a choice to add grain intentionally, it is not unintentional. How about when you don't have that choice because of budget, or just poor quality film of the time. That's what I'm talking about. Are you saying Predator was shot intentionally with the grain it has?

It may not have been intentional per se, but the filmmakers were perfectly aware they were making a gritty-looking movie. Even back then, they had some degree of choice to do otherwise. They could use more elaborate lighting setup and a finer-grained film, they could shoot in a more controlled location than a Mexican jungle, etc.
post #60 of 574
Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid has looked at these comparisons, and has this to say:



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*