Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition comparison *PIX* - Page 11

How the story is told is as important or more important than the story itself. That includes the canvas that it's painted on.


Do you honestly need an explanation for this, or are you just playing stubborn?


Which I assume is not very often, then.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philistine

philistine

Pronunciation: \\ˈfi-lə-ˌstēn; fə-ˈlis-tən, -ˌtēn; ˈfi-lə-stən\\
Function: noun

a : a person who is guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or artistic values b : one uninformed in a special area of knowledge

There may be other, less polite words that also apply, but that one really seems to cut to the heart of the matter here.

And I'm one of the consumers making that happen -- my "old version" copy arrived yesterday. Clearly I'm not alone.

If you want to send Fox a message, use your wallet.

For me, it's not as simplistic as "grain=good, DNR=bad." In this case, the DNR is simply overdone. No one can make the argument that, "clay face Arnold" looks good... by any standard.

WoW
Thanks for the GREAT news!
Even w/Movie Money making this a 'no brainier'; people still have the brains too stay away.

Maybe they released this junk sooooo they could sell out of the old release!

And now they wont have too pay much Movie Bucks!

Haha pretty good theory. They are definitely moving old stock! I bought 4 copies of the old release. 2 for myself and two to give out as gifts to my buddies tomorrow when we go watch Predators!!!!!!!

Wait... you buy Blu-rays for your friends as gifts for going to the movies?...







....Wanna be my friend?

Because of our schedules we only hangout 2 to 3 times a year so I figured get them a gift!

I want to know when RAH is going to call for Fox to cease releasing catalog titles because they are an affront to film.
I mean seriously has he reviewed this title yet?

The new version has already been in the top 10.

Old version is currently number 99 and has been in the top 100 BLU-ray list for the past 216 days...
New version is nowhere to be found in the top 100 blu-rays.

That is a case-by-case situation.




I am disappointed.
I thought you would recognize "every time I go" as the way it was intended: a joke.

For some reason, a lack of respect or possibly contempt has shown itself of late.

There have been postings where things have been taken a little...uhhh...too seriously.
I have deliberately NOT brought up some of those moments from the last couple of years by exercising some discretion from time to time.
I urge you to reflect on this.

Apologies can do wonders...

You said quite a bit in this post as well as in others that I agree with and I am only quoting a small portion, but the original Predator release is positively *crawling* with compression artifacts such that you can see them in practically every screen capture ever taken of this version. Whether or not this is caused by the choice of MPEG-2 or any particular bitrate is irrelevant, the end-result speaks for itself.

I feel this is worth reiterating just from the perspective that the original BD should not be considered to be now somehow magically transformed into a perfect and unfairly maligned release that people should automatically pickup simply because a new, inferior version has hit the market.

Besides the actual picture quality of the UHE, i'll found something interesting.

In the scene after Carl Weather's Arm is shot off by the Predator, and he turns around to reach for his other gun, the framing of the german UHE is slightly zoomed in and reframed, maybe to cover a goof or maybe it was done because of censorship, cause you don't really see the end of the chopped off arm.

Here are some pictures:
left : old Blu-ray , right : Ultimate Hunter Edition



My Question now, can any1 check if the new US BD is also zoomed in ?
Woudl be very thankful.

This is most likely an editing decision.. in the 4x3 version of predator you can see all of Karls real arm coming out from underneath his vest. You can still see the top of it in the 'unzoomed' version.. so my guess is they were trying to kill this little glitch entirely.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/goofs

Correct, it is impossible for the grain to obscure detail. That is like saying the cotton fibers that make up your clothes are obscuring your view of said clothes. Or perhaps the stars in the night sky are blocking your view of the night sky. I can't see my skin because of all the pores and wrinkles in the way!!!

Anyone stating grain obscures detail is so completely ignorant that I truly feel sorry for them.

Yup. Since it was the grain that captured the picture in the first place, fine details are also dependent on the grains that hold them. Detail at that level can be seen "through" the grain structure by our vision, especially in motion, since it interprets what we're seeing.

DNR systems aren't quite that smart yet. They miss detail on that level and throw it out with the grain.

Saw Predator (old version) again today to see how it stacks up in motion. The grain wasnt that difficult at all since when you watch it in motion, detail is build up with the series of frame for each scene. While on a still frame grain can very well "block" detail. But since the grain move from frame to frame. The detail comes out nicely despite of the grain. Sure the version could have been better with a remaster and better encoding.

But what impressed me the most, is how great filmmaking this movie really is. The pacing is almost perfect if not perfect. The musical score is fantastic, its one of the few Arnold movies were Arnold have an antagonist that could really beat the crap out of him. How often do gems like this get created?

If you mean the master print, then yes, that would be very interesting.

If you mean the camera neg, then that's irrelevant. It would be like listening to a single session record track from a music studio session: it doesn't have all the content in the final product.

The problem is, once they shoot the film, that negative gets duped for editing, it gets (at the time this was made) combined with other film elements optically to add visual effects and some shots are zoomed, color correct or otherwise altered to create the desired look and composition.

Just like the final mix master in an audio recording is what determines how every distribution copy sounds, the master print determines how all the release prints look.

I would say Die Hard was similar in that respect. Bruce Willis portrayed a realistic hero that got hurt, winded and didn't have any superhuman capabilities. Too many action heroes seem to be able to brush off bullet wounds, mountain climbing and catastrophic wrecks and crashes to keep moving at the same breakneck pace.

Alan Rickman Vs 'The Predator'? Wait that'd be awesome..

Imagine the conversation between the two as to what their motivation is...

Hans must keep possession of his C4 and detonators in order to have a chance against a Predator.

John Mctiernan 87-92 Predator, Die Hard, Hunt For Red October & Medicine Man - Nice Set of Flicks.

The original BD isn't the best transfer BD has to offer, heck no. But it's by far the best looking release of Predator available, and with the UHE being a smeared POS that proudly markets its' "Digitally Remaster" as a selling point, it's unlikely that we'll see a better transfer any time soon. It' no reference disc, but fans who want this film to look as good as it can aren't left with any better options, and even the flawed original BD is miles ahead of the SE DVD.

I finally broke down and bought that Predator/Terminator two-pack for $20, and I'm keeping my SE DVD for the extras. I might pick up the UHE for $10 or less, just for the new special features and a chance to unload my SD release, but I won't lose sleep if I never get around to it. All things considered I'm happy with the way Predator looks, compression blocks and all.

(Terminator, on the other hand...! )

Yes, agreed. PREDATOR, DIE HARD, RED OCTOBER is about as good a three punch combo as any from any top director. Pure perfection and astoundingly, the man just fumbled, repeatedly, since. He did have one bright spot with The Thomas Crown Affair, but that's been it. Everything else has ranged from disappointing to downright terrible!
B

Yes

I watched the first 30 minutes of the UHE with my girlfriend today, and she mentioned without me having to say anything that it looked like crap, particularly the characters faces. One quarter through the film I swapped it to the original bluray release without her knowing and within about 10 minutes she said it looked much better, again without me saying anything at all about the PQ. She is not a videophile by any stretch so I do wonder where Fox is getting feedback saying that people like waxy CG faces.

Get it in gear McTiernan! You rock!

It's really sad that anyone who actually likes the new version gets attacked & called names.. It's opinions.. Where are the mods.. I got the UHE yesterday, & for the most part I feel it looks better then the original, sometimes much better.. If the whole film looked like a few awful scenes, like the Arnie one that DNR haters post everywhere, then I would agree that the PQ would be outrageous.. But that just a exception IMO.. The jungle is more lively & looks more vivid & detailed.. I do believe removing grain does wash away detail, but to my eyes a lot of scenes looks much more 'clear.' It could be trickery or a illusion.. I'm just reporting what I'm seeing.. Yes, the DNR is too much. I would have removed it by 50%.. IMO, you must keep some integrity to the movie & the directors intent.. It is his vision.. I can appreciate both copies for what they are.. The original is how the director intended it to be & maintains the integrity of the film.. The new version is like a digital version, which I can enjoy as mindless fun & as a guilty pleasure.. I think people take this WAY to serious.. I am keeping both copies.. They each offer me a different take on the film.. One is reality, the other is fantasy..