yes, all newer films just look like games and are towards people who want that clear image.
almost like Photoshop when you remove pixels, it makes it clearer but then you can't see it since it's blurry in a way.

That's very true in regards to the market of newer films, and the 2010 Blu-Ray of Predator was unfortunately trying to cattle into that uneducated group who don't fully understand how film should look or should be treated..

Says who? Blu ray is not suppose to be sharp? I think that's the whole point. If DNR removes that horrible grain I'm okay with that because it reveals the actual picture and detail that was filmed. Not how it looked on film, because it's on Blu ray. If you like grain then Blu ray isn't for you. Most Blu rays remove most of the grain, as they should, to give maximum detail.

It is a matter of opinion on whether or not there should be grain or removed, not fact. You're not watching it on film so it makes no difference. Super 35 is generally supposed to have grain, so what? As a viewer I want to see what was filmed, not how it looks on a particular format.

When they were originally released on VHS and LD they didn't accurately represent the grain either, nor did DVD because the grain was too small to be encoded on those formats. Blu ray is the only format today that could actually represent the grain that is present on film as pictured in the 2008 pics. But it's just your opinion on grain or no grain. It's basically split between grain lovers and haters. I say the grain should be removed because that was how it looked on Super 35 and it's a limitation to displaying the true image. If you think the grain is a part of the movie that's basically like saying we should just buy film stock and go with that because it's more true to the original. If we had high definition cameras back when Predator was shot, then you'd be seeing the same image as the 2010 version.

I don't get the whole waxy talk either. It looks correct and much better than previous version.

I can post comparisons again too from other reviewers that feel the same way:
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/articles/predator-blu-ray-comparison/

So apparently the position 20th Century Fox has taken is that the undue heavy grain on Predator was a flaw and they have removed it to correct the issue. There's some grain lovers out there that will complain, but it really doesn't matter, it's done and fixed. Most likely grain will go away on most older films as movies are remastered with higher bit rates and HD lossless audio. It really depends on the studio, right now it looks like they're just removing it, though some earlier releases with MPEG 2 might have retained some grain.

That's right after he jumps off the waterfall, which is a daytime scene. You can see daylight when he swims out of the pool and daylight behind the Predator, nearing dusk.

Blu-Ray is suppose to faithfully and accurately emulate the source material the way it was originally shot. I did not say Blu-Ray was not suppose to be sharp. The FACTS are Predator was SHOT with high speed cameras with grainy film stock which as I said is apart of the artistic style of the film, its an integral part of the cinematography which boils down to the director's vision. The jungle in Predator is SUPPOSE to be a gritty dirty place and the 2010 Blu-Ray is a digitally manipulated contradiction of this because it boosts the contrast and colour levels to the point that they are too bright and colorful which mixed with DNR that gets rid of the grain structure which both preserves detail and is a deliberate decision byb the director, being washed away with artificial sharpening tools used to try and make up for the lost detail which the DNR caused. Removing grain does not stride for maximum detail, that is factually incorrect, it REMOVES detail because the grain which is an inherited part of the image IS DETAIL in itself, so being scrubbed away is erasing that. Predator was NOT SHOT witn HD digital cameras, it wasn't shot in 2013, it was shot in 1987 and the Blu-Ray should reflect that. Plus again you are wrong if you think modern films which are shot with digital cameras look anything like the 2010 Blu-Ray of Predator. Just take Predators (2010) for instance which is a perfect example because its a modern Predator movie. No waxy faces, no blown out highlights, no blurriness, no contrast boosting, no artificial sharpening edge halos, no digital manipulation. The facts are the 2010 Blu-Ray of Predator looks NOTHING like film old or new, it doesn't even look like something shot with digital cameras because digital cinematography, just like something shot in 35mm or 70mm film, has DETAIL and just looks right. The Ultimate Hunter Edition just looks like some idiot who has no idea about film preservation or historical artistic integrity jacked up the contrast, colour, brightness, sharpness and then DNR'd all the grain on a computer. It looks NOTHING like ANYTHING resembling film.

You couldn't be more wrong if you think other Blu-Ray transfers are handled the same way. We don't live in 2010 anymore. The 2010 Blu-Ray of Predator is seemingly the last of its kind who try to cattle in to the audience who are not educated about accruate faithful preservation . Transfers like The Godfather, Jaws, the new remaster of The Terminator, The Exorcist, Ben Hur, the new remaster of Casablanca, To Kill A Mocking Bird, Alien, Alien, Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, The Godfather 2 etc etc, all look magnificent on Blu-Ray with a proper grain structure in tact which means more resolution which equals more detail. They all look faithful to the source as they should, in fact they arguably look better then ever before (with the possible exceptions of Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia which were shot and projected on 70mm film.)

The orignal Blu-Ray of Patton was a DNR disaster too just like The Ultimate Hunter Edition of Predator. Thankfully just last year we got a NEW Blu-Ray of Patton WITHOUT the DNR and WITH all the grain in tact which made it look better because it was both more natural, was sharper and had more detail.

That review on AVP galaxy is an extremely rare positive review which has no credibility because the poster doesn't under what film or Predator should look like.

Here are some more creditable well educated reviews of people who actuelly know what they are talking about:

* http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3429/pr ... l#Section3

* http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/43615/pr ... r-edition/

* http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Predator-Blu-ray/11375/

* http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/30172 ... er-edition

* http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/preda ... bluray.php

* http://www.dvdfile.com/reviews/blurayre ... ew?start=1

* http://www.highdefjunkies.com/showthrea ... PDvbmdzMrA

* http://www.theblurayblog.com/2010/07/pr ... sc-review/

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ5i78Ihmi4

Need I go on? There are many many more reviews that all say the same thing.. Also a couple of posters in this very thread see what I am saying and agree with me as well.

Also its important to note whether or not your vision is up to scratch, what size HD TV you have and what is your viewing distance. For me I have perfect vision, I have a 55" HD TV and I sit about 5 feet away, but even on a smaller HD TV, the horrible lack of detail should be obvious. Those pictures show blurriness and glowing (edge halos) wax figures.

I think it would be beneficial for you if you watch this video. It is quite informative and will put things into prospective better then I could - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3CArAmOeA

I have avoided predator bluray because of circling roamers of DNR and I don't want to have that f%R$()ing crap I'd stick to the Laserdisc and DVD.

No, I don't mean to say that it will look like Predators 2010 in overall quality, just that it lacks grain like HD Cam movies unless they artificially add
it. I don't see any way a movie shot on film could look like something shot digitally no matter what level of DNR was used. They're just completely
different. And when I mention without grain here I'm really saying less grain, as there is still grain present on the 2010, just much less of it. I would label
it as no noticeable grain from normal viewing distance.

Given that it's an older film it would really only matter to people from this generation and film purists, I can see why most reviewers would agree, it looks
different without the grain and if they prefer grain and it is robbed from them, they'll surely let you know about it. Yet I have read that some enjoyed it
as I did and that doesn't even cover the 95 percent of people that bought the 2010 Blu ray and don't care either way or actually prefer it without as much grain
as the 2008 release because it matches newly released HD content without grain.

In the pics that I did and looking online I don't see any detail lost between the two versions as a result of the extra reduction. The increased bit rate, added
DNR provide more detail in my opinion. With the grain intact in the 08, all I see is white speckles. Granted the 2010 does give the movie a overall sheen
that wasn't there before. It never bothered me when I watched it the first time on BD and comparing it to DVD I find it vastly superior. There are several
scenes where the contrast was increased and I'll agree that changed the perspective, most notably the "mud" scene which is a day scene, just dimly lit in
jungle. The entire shadow was removed on the right side of the Predator and gave incredible detail that was never there before. That could be good or bad
depending how you look at it. I felt it gave the scene a totally new look, exposing the Predator in a more imposing way, more open, but I can understand why
the darker version would be more true to the original film.

I just find it funny because Blu ray is a digital format, totally un effected by grain, yet we can't take too much away or it will offend someone. It wasn't until
Blu ray that we finally saw grain the way it really is on film on a home video format, yet it varies drastically from movie to movie. There's no set formula on
how much grain a 35mm movie should have when put to Blu ray. It really depends on the studio. In the case of Patton, it was the reverse, I have the earlier
version, which I think also looks fine but with much less grain. I don't have the newer one so I can't compare it, just to pics online. It may be just a matter
of studios trying out different methods and seeing what works best with Blu ray and providing the best amount of DNR and compression to get the best
results.

Watching Sahara on HD DVD Super 35, no noticeable grain. Apocalypse Now Redux, no noticeable grain, Army of Darkness, no noticeable grain. Close Encounters,
overall no noticeable grain, very minor in some scenes. Deep Impact, very minor grain. Dr. No, very minor in most scenes, some noticeable grain in some darker
scenes. Star Trek movies, very slight grain, more noticeable in 1 and 2. Last of the Mohicans, very slight grain, hardly noticeable in darker scenes which I would
expect more. Just a few that I have. I'm sure I can name just as many with more noticeable grain that I have, but just to point some out that don't.

I have no idea where studios are going with it, are the adding back grain now? I certainly haven't read that is the case, have you? Most big name popular
movies from 35mm catalogs have already been released on Blu ray by now, so there will likely be less and less releases of older movies to compare the
amount of DNR used. Predator and Patton are rare re releases. Most older movies only have one release at this point. There's really nothing to compare
Predator to, other than Patton and movies that have managed to get by with the least amount of grain as possible. But I would label Predator and Patton
in the category of no noticeable grain, meaning you really can't see it at all, unless you zoom in or stand a foot away and most other low grain movies as
very slight grain. But it's anything but consistent from film to film, maybe balance would put it better as they attempt to make it look right. I have no idea
how they could do it since they're not putting it on film. It seems more hit and miss to me. I find too much grain annoying and prefer less of it myself.

2010:

2008:


These are not my images but from the same ones you posted on prev. page. I don't have the 2008 version so I have to use these to
keep the resolution on equal footing rather than a capture on mine and one from online. This is a 495 percent zoom in the same
sector showing the same image. Both of these images are limited to their original source but provide sufficient comparison.

The biggest difference is grain and sharpness, then I'd say contrast which is a tad whiter on the 2008. The 2008 is more blocky with
pixel arrangement, 2010 version does have some very minor grain to the right of arnold in the darker background but the background
is also less blocky. The newer compression has cleaned that part up nicely.

Specific glare points on each image, notably the one at the corner of Arnold's mouth and the vertical glare on the back of his neck are
both a tad whiter on the 2010. The black region under his color is also blacker than the 2008 overall but it also blends into the color
better. The outline of red on the collar actually bleeds into the background on the 2008 whereas the 2010 it is sharper and no red
bleeds into background. The 2010 I can see Arnold's clean-shaven, the blocky mess on the 2008 I wouldn't know.

but you do see that on the upper picture 2010 the hair on the face is a grey smear.
and the 2008 with grain you can see there is facial detail and it looks like hair.

and you can also see on the cheek of the 2010 that it looks like a painting or CGI or even a video game character.
but the 2008 looks like a zoomed in picture, or zoomed in still.

No it looks like you're taking a higher megapixel image and zooming in to me and detail is sharper. The 2008 I don't even see hair.

The 2010 images are ghastly and the skin texture looks like plastic that's been shaded with photoshop. Good God it's ugly. Images like this make me weep for the loss of quality that's taking place in new releases.

i should say stubble not hair.
it's not any more megapixel it's more of an added blur / sharpen or that's what they call it on photoshop.
i just did it, the one on the left is the original with nothing done, the one on the right has blur and sharpen added.
you can see the one on the right is clearer but really shouldn't look like that as you are missing details.



and this picture was taken with a 3.2 megapixel camera, higher resolution will give a better picture
BUT when you use filters you will get what that filter gives you.

even if you take a picture with a higher megapixel and use filters you will not have the original image.
as for predator, i don't know or care what the director wanted. the LD is fine for me, i paid a lot for it when it was released
and don't want to pay for it again.

thanks for posting disclord.

let's get this topic back on track with what have you been watching we want to know

i went to see monsters inc in 3d.

Wrapped up the Blu Ray trilogy of the Lord of the Rings: Extended cut last night. Too long, but very satisfying. Also watched Close and Present Danger on LD over two days. Good flick, I might write up a review in the near future.

The 2010 Blu-Ray lacks grain yes, but the core problem is it also lacks detail because the DNR is stripping it away in place of a processed filtered image. What might look clean at first glance is actuelly the result of smearing which makes it look plastic and fake. Predators (2010) being shot with modern HD cameras lacks the heavier grain of the orignal predator because its a newer film with better quality stock. The difference is unlike the 2010 Blu-Ray of the orignal Predator, PredatorS is loaded with detail and isn't digitally manipulated with like the Ultimate Hunter Edition. They look nothing alike and share no similarities as far as cinematography and style goes. Predators look like a well shot natural film, the 2010 Blu-Ray of Predator looks processed, artificially sharpened, has over blown contrast, too much brightness, out of whack coloring and a lack of detail because of DNR. Also Predator being shot in 1987 should not be entitle to look anything like a modern film because it isn't a modern film and thus should reflect the time period it was shot in which is what a well mastered faithful Blu-Ray transfer does. Blu-Ray is not a format that should so drastically alter a film's look just so it looks glossy and modern, that is disregardful to the director, the cinematographer and just everyone in general that were involved in the creative process of Predator. They filmed it a certain way with a certain style in mind that should be replicated as such.

The disappointing part is that yes you are right, the 2010 release had the superior technical specifications as far as bit rate, encode, disc storage etc goes, but if you competently destory the very fabric of the film with digital tools like tweaking the contrast, sharpness, colours, brightness, grain structure etc, the fact that initially the disc was better all of a sudden becomes irrelevent because the damage has been done which has actuelly made it far far worse as a result. Anyway the overall conclusion seems to be that even though you can acknowledge the contrast boost and the sheen that the 2010 transfer gives to the film, you are basically saying that you don't care for how the film SHOULD look and how it was INTENDED to look because obviously the director wasnt involved for the 2010 transfer which is quite obvious given how poorly mastered it is. Granted he wasn't there for the early 2008 release either, but the 2008 version is factually much CLOSER to how the film originally looked which is what Blu-Ray should always aim for. If only the 2008 release had the technical advantages of the 2010 release, without the digital tweaking, overall that would make for a great looking disc. Getting the best out of both worlds.

Yes Blu-Ray is the first home format where grain has actually be visible and no there isn't any set formula for much grain should be present in a 35mm film transferd to Blu-Ray, but once again grain IS detail and even though many films have there variables as far as how visible grain is depending on lighting conditions, locations, film stocks, colour filters etc, grain especially on older films should always be obviously seen to a degree. The Ultimate Hunter Edition has pretty much none, it looks completely scrubbed clean which is why there is so little detail which is why it looks artificial and which why it is bashed to great lengths by the Blu-Ray community.

I can only speak from the ones I have seen. Apocalypse Now grain is present and well preserved, Army of Darkness lacks grain and is a victim of DNR which is why it lacks detail and for why it is bashed and is in need of a new transfer. Close Encounters has tons of film grain, especially the first half of the film. Its a very good transfer because it looks natural and has plenty of detail thanks to the well excused grain. Dr. No is a film where the majority of it is shot in broad day light or in well lit conditions, so grain is always going to be minimal regardless.

As for those zoomed in pictures, nobody watches films zoomed in like that in front of a computer screen. Granted it does show up some of the technical limitations of the 2008 Blu-Ray which I've said many times is far from perfect, but at the end of the day it looks the more natural, the more filmitic, the more detailed and the more faithful presentation of the 2 releases. The 2008 release WAS NOT digitally tweaked to try and give the fake illusion of more detail like the 2010 release ended up doing, it remained true to the source which in itself alone makes it 10 times better. It also should be said that the 2010 Blu-Ray due to its over blown contrast and brightness levels lights up things in the background/foreground etc that were never meant to be seen because the film was never systematically shot that way which once again comes back to director's intent. Case in point that Predator image I posted previously when he is looking for Arnuie in the mud. The 2010 version blows out highlights so much that it reveals things that never should have been seen since that scene was meant to be low lit and dark. Its kind of like film aspect ratio when some TV broadcasts open up the mattes or crop the image to pan and scan. Its going agienst the director's wishes because the film was NEVER suppose to be seen in such a way.

OMG you've DNR the laserdisc

I've never used photo-shop.

I doubt John Mctiernan oversaw the bluray as I'd expect the extras to be the same as the DVD 2 disc set and its a Fox re-packet the Predator cash-cow. I think studios should be ashamed of their profession producing garbage like DNR bluray. They should fit DNR onto the players with variable control to allow those who don't like grain to DNR it and for "us" that do like grain keep the DNR switched off!

Sgt. Lew Slade: [to the citizens bombarding him for help] "Shut up! You're all going to have to help yourselves! Most of the police in this district were killed in that station house. And the guys that were on patrol when the quake hit, well they probably got more to do than they can handle. Now look you, get as many volunteers as you can, go to that hardware store over there. Now if it's locked, break in, find as many picks and shovels as you can, and start looking for people who are buried alive, there are plenty of them believe me. Give him a hand. MOVE YOUR a**"!

EARTHQUAKE (1974) now playing in Dolby Digital 5.1 Lucasfilm THX Sound System

Are there surrounds on the PAL 5.1 mix? The US 5.1 mix has almost no surround activity and the .1 bass doesn't go as deep as it should. The original pan and sca LaserDisc had the best mix because they used a real Sensurround box and sent its outputs into a Dolby encoder, plus they used the mag surround track for extra effects.

The surrounds are reasonable and fairly active even on some of the quietest moments like chapter 13, that carries score and sound effects. When Jody c**cks on the M-16 its heard on the surrounds as well the left and right with an echo. Its dryer sound on centre when its cocked back.





I'll have to buy the R1 and compare to see if its the same as the R1 DVD even thou that version comes with 3.1 mix I wonder if the 5.1 is the same as region 2?

Does the region 1 start off with the original Universal logo as the region 2 has that new version used and it ruins the opening as I have to mute the sound until the film starts with soft John Williams score.