TCFHE Press Release: Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition (Blu-ray)

ALL-NEW Digital Restoration of Predator

Let the dissection begin!

always thought this was one of the better Arnie movies

Still ticks me off that they release another version of the film with a new transfer. It wasn't that long ago that they released it on Blu the first time. Between this and the decision to release the 'Man with No Name' movies only in a set so that those of use who already have TGTBATU must buy it again really sticks in my craw. 

All this double and triple dipping is just inexcusable for a format this young and really points up how much utter indifference the studios have for their customers. This is especially irritating in that this is still very much a niche market, especially when it comes to catalog titles. When Sony releases 'Jason and the Argonauts', will they then follow it up six months later with another Harryhausen box packaging the same movie with other films that are only available in the box, like they did last time? 

It gets to the point where you're really afraid to make a purchase because you don't know what is coming next. If the studios offer some kind of rebate program, fine, but a lot of them don't. I'm glad that the studios are taking the time to make the best transfers possible, but don't release a shit transfer in the first place just to make a quick buck. That's nothing but a big F-You to the consumer and I think, sooner or later it's going to come back to bite them in the butt. 

I'm a little skeptical about the "all new digital restoration". I saw this a couple of times when it came out and the current blu-ray replicates the look of the film faithfully as I remember it. 

I wonder if the new disc will be a real improvement or if they'll just DNR it to death in order to appease the grain haters.

It'll probably just be a re-encode in AVC to make room for special features. If it's DNRed to death, I'm sure we'll get fair warning.

But a re-encode alone wouldn't be enough for anyone to notice. DNRing it would, unfortunately (for those that like it and hate it). I'm hoping it will be something more along the lines of revisiting source material but we all know the cost is too prohibitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holer 

Still ticks me off that they release another version of the film with a new transfer. It wasn't that long ago that they released it on Blu the first time. Between this and the decision to release the 'Man with No Name' movies only in a set so that those of use who already have TGTBATU must buy it again really sticks in my craw. 

 

All this double and triple dipping is just inexcusable for a format this young and really points up how much utter indifference the studios have for their customers. This is especially irritating in that this is still very much a niche market, especially when it comes to catalog titles. When Sony releases 'Jason and the Argonauts', will they then follow it up six months later with another Harryhausen box packaging the same movie with other films that are only available in the box, like they did last time? 

 

It gets to the point where you're really afraid to make a purchase because you don't know what is coming next. If the studios offer some kind of rebate program, fine, but a lot of them don't. I'm glad that the studios are taking the time to make the best transfers possible, but don't release a shit transfer in the first place just to make a quick buck. That's nothing but a big F-You to the consumer and I think, sooner or later it's going to come back to bite them in the butt. 

The original Blu-Ray looks like utter crap, though. Anything new could only be a huge improvement, at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshEH 

Quote:

The original Blu-Ray looks like utter crap, though. Anything new could only be a huge improvement, at this point.

You can argue that the film looks like crap, but the transfer is pretty faithful to the source.

Things aren't looking too good for this new edition, though. A (not terribly good) translation of a German review:

http://www.hd-reporter.de/blu-ray-reviews/predator-ultimate-hunter-edition-blu-ray/

At the first meeting of Carl Weathers and Arnold Schwarzenegger Weathers looks as if he or silk fabric would have been filmed by a scattering filter. This shows his face any pores or wrinkles and looks like a wax doll, similar to "The Longest Day". The anti-noise filter has massive problems with movement and produced here frayed, soft edges. Here and noise is also seen standing. In the jungle, when the camera pans slowly to be very, denoised, the edges smooth and clean and the picture looks from a distance a little bit of plastic and clear. This image appears however, that any artificial or digital, that is, relatively sharp edges and small details within these edges. This effect can not be with the image of, for example, "The Untouchables - The Untouchables"or"dust million from Charlie - The Italian Jobcompare ", because there was the picture still tolerable. The image is sometimes a touch too dark, other times is the black level low and the black looks gray.For film grain haters may represent an improvement in this new version, but the image has nothing to film-like reproduction of the original material.

It's just that the version that's out now looks unflinchingly in certain places like a swarm of Mexican mosquitoes are obscuring the director's framing -- a major Iraqi sandstorm-effect, that could've been mitigated slightly. I'm no film-grain hater, but for a movie that was shot as relatively recently as this one, the sheer speckage and dust is almost kinda absurd, especially given this format.

If they keep the original transfer, and simply do a better cleanup job, that'll certainly be fine with me.

They even included an English outline below their German review. The gist: save your money.

this is going to be a funny discussion.  People complained that the original BD (and DVD) looked too grainy.  Now people will complain that it's been wiped out and want it back again.  Is there a middle between the two?  Probably not.  My guess is that the grainy image was one that best represented the film.  I've always wondered about those "hot reds" though...they've never looked right.  Based on the comments from this German site, did they take the existing master and feed it through every possible electronic tool for something completely different?

It would be nice to have an insider on this one...

I see all the time people say "the BD looks like crap, looks dark, looks grainy" but what they fail to realize is that this is how the film has always looked, even in theaters.

As long as they don't DNR it to death and take away from what the film is supposed to look like than I'm all for this release.

Not really concerned about the extras, all of that is on the DVD special edition including McTiernan's sleep-inducing commentary.

I agree with Michael and John about the current Blu-ray representing what the film looked like during its theatrical run.

Crawdaddy

For me, the movie spread out on a BD-50 with an AVC encode, and with every extra from the 2-disc DVD would've been enough. I thought Fox was on the right track, concerning their BDs? Maybe I'll pick up the older while I still have the chance. I don't see a second re-release coming that soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worth 

You can argue that the film looks like crap, but the transfer is pretty faithful to the source.

 

Things aren't looking too good for this new edition, though. A (not terribly good) translation of a German review:

 

http://www.hd-reporter.de/blu-ray-reviews/predator-ultimate-hunter-edition-blu-ray/

 

Due to the heavy traffic my little review experienced in the last few days, I added a detailed English text.

So the terrible translation is no longer necessary ;-)

So, here it is
"“Predator” was shot flat on 35 mm film. It is well known that due to the used film stocks and the shooting conditions the picture of “Predator” was always a bit rough, raw and grainy. The DVD verions offered a quite grainy but also somewhat dirty picture. Only little DNR was applied on the DVD versions. The first Blu-ray edition offered (except for the higher resolution) a similar picture quality as the DVD. But the quality was not really convincing and everybody hoped for a real restoration. This new “Ultimate Hunter Edition” was announced (on US sites) as beeing “digitally remastered”. The German press release reads like “For the first time the cult movie will be available uncut and rated FSK 16. Additionally Fox splashes out a new HD master and a lot of unseen special features”. But after putting the disc in and clicking on “Play” we are confronted with a soft and blurry version of the 80’s FOX logo. It is quite unlikely that this BD originates from a new HD master drawn from the original camera negatives. The credits were treated in a similar way: no grain and a bit of edge enhancement to make the letters stand out. In the smoky scene were Carl Weathers meet Arnold Schwarzenegger, Weathers looks like he has been filmed through a fog filter or a fine net stretched across the lens. Thus, his face has neither pores nor wrinkles and it looks like a waxwork from Madame Tussauds, like a lot of faces in “The Longest Day” or “Patton”. The degrain/denoise filter was not optimised for movement and creates hazy/soft edges. In the jungle scenes where the camera pans are much slower, the filter works better and the edges are cleaner and sharper. So (from a distance) the picture offers even a sense of 3-dimensional depth. However, the picture looks a bit “digital” and/or artificial, with sharp edges and low detail inbetween these edges. This effects is not like those of “The Untouchables” or “The Italian Job” - the picture quality of those BDs was still somehow bearable. The picture is sometimes a bit too dark, sometimes the black levels are a bit weak and look greyish. For the so called “film grain haters” this new version may be a welcome improvement - however, this picture quality has nothing to do with a filmlike reproduction of the source material. Maybe Fox can persuade John McTiernan and Don McAlpine to supervise a new transfer (from the OCN) so Fox can sell a new “25th Anniversary Edition” in 2012."

But I was wrong about my assumption that is quite unlikely that this BD originates from a new HD master:

I received feedback from Fox Germany today that, believe it or not, a brand new HD master was used for this new BD.

They just should have left out that heavy DNR....

Thomas Konradt

hd-reporter.de

This makes me glad I bought the original release.  No way am I interested in this DNR'd to death version.  It's simple:  A Blu ray should look like the film that's on it.  If the film is grainy, then the BD should look grainy.  If someone doesn't like the look of the film, why is he watching it?

Another DNR mess involving a classic film? Great! The people responsible should be sacked. And then the people responsible for sacking the people responsible should ALSO be sacked! I just watched "WaxSpartacus" on Blu-ray last night and wow, it is absolutely horrid. Now Predator has fallen, um, prey to whatever misguided decision-making process is being used by the powers-that-be. Hey Hollywood - ENOUGH ALREADY!!! This crap is really getting ridiculous!

I'm not really ready to condemn the release until I see it, it might not be as bad as we think.

I suppose I should do the same John, but that review certainly ticks off all the hallmarks of a heavy digital processing job. Coming fresh off of the Spartacus travesty I viewed last night I may be a bit twitchy. I'd be overjoyed if they were wrong. My gut tells me they aren't. We'll find out soon enough.

Take a look at the screen shots in this discussions:

http://forum.cinefacts.de/182786-predator-blu-ray-19.html#post6807331 (German)

http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies-north-america/141479-predator-ultimate-hunter-edition-june-29th-44.html

Thomas Konradt

hd-reporter.de

Ewww, Arnold's face appears computer generated in that pic.

The image is faaaarr too smooth.

I now fear for the Fox Alien boxset. Alien is my absolute favorite for an HD release (ok, Barry Lyndon perhaps) and it has to be gritty and detailed, not waxy and sloppy! 

Given the fallout over the Gladiator BD release, and James Cameron's fastidious standards for presentation, I doubt if we'll see the same thing happen to AQ. John McTiernan doesn't possess the same kind of pull with the studios.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshEH 

It's just that the version that's out now looks unflinchingly in certain places like a swarm of Mexican mosquitoes are obscuring the director's framing -- a major Iraqi sandstorm-effect, that could've been mitigated slightly. I'm no film-grain hater, but for a movie that was shot as relatively recently as this one, the sheer speckage and dust is almost kinda absurd, especially given this format.

 

If they keep the original transfer, and simply do a better cleanup job, that'll certainly be fine with me.

Try adjusting your sharpness control, i tend to find those annoyed the most about film grain have the sharpness control too high, that can make grain stand out a lot. Now i'm not saying you do but try it just in case.

For me i never found Predator too grainy, it looked like film, the worst thing about the original transfer is some compression artifacts because they used a single layer BD and the average bitrate couldn't quite handle the film grain. It mostly does but compression artifacts are on the last release.

This new one is a lot worse, you want cleanup, well you got it but cleanup to Fox is DNR, contrast boosting and edge enhancement.

I wrote about it on my site. http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/2010/06/12/predator-ultimate-disappointment-edition/

If they were serious about making a better transfer then they should have gone back to the original negative and did a scan using the latest film scanners, this would have probably yielded a better transfer with more detail, instead they decided to pull the old trick of contrast boosting, DNR and edge enhancement, now you have some people getting the wool pulled over their eyes thinking this new release has more detail than the last, it doesn't, it has less, the edge enhancement and contrast boosting is giving a fake illusion of detail when in reality it isn't there due to DNR.

I too fear for the Alien movies, especially Aliens which is a naturally grainy movie.

Incidentally if reviews online had not been so negative towards the original Predator release then this new edition as well as Predator 2 would not have been treated this shoddily, negative reviews come from people who sometimes have the sharpness control set too high and they attack what they perceive as too much film grain and then we get DNR.

I would ask anyone here to do a little experiment, put in the original Predator and then turn your sharpness control on the projector or television up and see how bad it looks, you are seeing exaggerated grain, too high a sharpness will also add edge enhancement.

Now turn the sharpness control down and see how nice that original Predator really looks.

Anyway that is just my theory on why the original reviews were so negative towards Predator, for me i never found it too grainy, it looked like proper film with only the compression artifacts in some scenes letting the transfer down.

Fox and any other studio that wants to persist in the DNR, contrast boost and edge enhance game will lose me as a potential customer, sure they will sucker many into thinking a new release has 3D pop due to the tinkering but in the long run as sets get bigger and people get more knowledge i believe people will not put up with this sort of cheap route pretend improvements and they will want proper film restoration using the latest digital technology.

I wouldn't know a DNR'd transfer from one that wasn't "enhanced" with DNR because I'm not familiar with what the process does or is supposed to do. Can someone give an example of a Blu-ray that's been "cleansed" with DNR? I suspect that Basic Instinct may be one of them because the picture quality (for the most part) looks almost too good, more than it probably has any right to, to the point where you could understand if someone said the transfer has a "fake" look to it. In the case of Predator, I could see why the director would choose to shoot this type of film "guerilla-style" for effect but I don't buy the argument that they intentionally used such a poor-quality film stock which, barring less than ideal shooting conditions, would result in such a crappy-looking movie. Tell me that the original negatives are lost but don't say there is NO WAY for this film to look better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luisito34 

I wouldn't know a DNR'd transfer from one that wasn't "enhanced" with DNR because I'm not familiar with what the process does or is supposed to do. Can someone give an example of a Blu-ray that's been "cleansed" with DNR? I suspect that Basic Instinct may be one of them because the picture quality (for the most part) looks almost too good, more than it probably has any right to, to the point where you could understand if someone said the transfer has a "fake" look to it. In the case of Predator, I could see why the director would choose to shoot this type of film "guerilla-style" for effect but I don't buy the argument that they intentionally used such a poor-quality film stock which, barring less than ideal shooting conditions, would result in such a crappy-looking movie. Tell me that the original negatives are lost but don't say there is NO WAY for this film to look better.

It's not about film stock, it's about light. There's no technical reason that Predator couldn't have looked virtually grain-free in 1987, but to do so would have required more complicated lighting set-ups - and that would have necessitated a longer shooting schedule and a larger budget.

The more light you have, the cleaner film can look. Shooting with available light and in dimmer conditions is quicker and easier, but at the expense of a grainier look.

I suspect Predator could look a little bit better if they went back and rescanned the original negative at 4K (or even 2K) - but I suspect Fox was unwilling to spend the time and money to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luisito34 

I don't buy the argument that they intentionally used such a poor-quality film stock which, barring less than ideal shooting conditions, would result in such a crappy-looking movie. Tell me that the original negatives are lost but don't say there is NO WAY for this film to look better.

I don't understand why you don't believe that the choice of film stocks was deliberate, or that the film was made under less than ideal conditions.  Why not?

There are quite a few examples of DNR'd Blu Rays, unfortunately--Patton, The Longest Day, the original Gangs of New York release, to name a few, plus this latest Predator release.  The screenshot of Arnold's face referenced above is an example.  He looks like a wax mannequin in the shot, not a real person.

Arnie talks like he's made of wax so this new look suits him :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luisito34 

I wouldn't know a DNR'd transfer from one that wasn't "enhanced" with DNR because I'm not familiar with what the process does or is supposed to do. Can someone give an example of a Blu-ray that's been "cleansed" with DNR? I suspect that Basic Instinct may be one of them because the picture quality (for the most part) looks almost too good, more than it probably has any right to, to the point where you could understand if someone said the transfer has a "fake" look to it. In the case of Predator, I could see why the director would choose to shoot this type of film "guerilla-style" for effect but I don't buy the argument that they intentionally used such a poor-quality film stock which, barring less than ideal shooting conditions, would result in such a crappy-looking movie. Tell me that the original negatives are lost but don't say there is NO WAY for this film to look better.

You think Basic Instinct looks good on blu ray.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/2010/02/23/blu-ray-screencaps-basic-instinct/

I can now understand why Fox and other studio's do this sort of thing but i will keep my mouth shut. ( or in this case keep the keyboard away from my hands )