Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > DVD and Blu-ray Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 24-05-2010, 22:51   #21
Guest 54308
TAWT-A-HELLO
 
Guest 54308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Above a bowling alley and below another bowling alley.
Posts: 1,279
Thanks: 25
Thanked 84 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho View Post
* ALL-NEW Digital Restoration of Predator
I hope that doesn't translate to "We've DNR'd the **** out of this." Apart from some dirt and print damage near the start, I think the existing Predator Blu-Ray is pretty good. I'll wait for some reviews before picking up the new edition.
Guest 54308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2010, 23:05   #22
Niceguygeoff
I Do Deny Them My Essence
 
Niceguygeoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Swanage, Dorset
Posts: 10,176
Thanks: 129
Thanked 49 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by simong View Post
Might have to pick up Predator 2 on blu too, it appears to carry all the special features from the DVD, anyone know what the picture's like?
It's okay, but there's been a bit of DNR applied to smooth out the grain which was beautifully handled on the SE DVD. There is better fine detail but it's not a night-and-day difference IMO, and the DNR gives the film an unnaturally oily image. I almost wish I hadn't sold my SE DVD - almost. Linky: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...on=1#vergleich

Patton and The Longest Day apart, Fox just don't do DNR, but the sequel to the uber-grainy Predator just so happens to appear on BD with a freshly scrubbed sheen. That's what's causing my (admittedly slightly irrational) worry about the Predator BD redux.

Last edited by Niceguygeoff; 24-05-2010 at 23:10.
Niceguygeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2010, 23:07   #23
anephric
Kidney Thief
 
anephric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 22,698
Thanks: 33
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
It's okay, nothing spectacular.
__________________
www.khaaan.com
anephric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2010, 08:26   #24
simong
I'm taking it back!
 
simong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 2,066
Thanks: 57
Thanked 205 Times in 72 Posts
Cheers, guys. It's not that much of an improvement is it? Still, it's only Ł6.99 at Amazon so I might pick it up anyway.
simong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 13:08   #25
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Some forums are saying that German version of the new transfer has loads of DNR and that there's smearing on smoke scenes. Need to see it for myself of course.

Either way, I think I'll hang onto my old bare bones Blu-ray.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 14:01   #26
simong
I'm taking it back!
 
simong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 2,066
Thanks: 57
Thanked 205 Times in 72 Posts
What a surprise
__________________
For Sale / Feedback / My Blus
simong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 15:35   #27
allan
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 13,809
Thanks: 282
Thanked 302 Times in 241 Posts
Exactly, they are just appealing to the lowest common now by removing things that are true to the original image. Film companies are in danger of alienating the very people that made DVD and Bluray take off in the first place.
allan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010, 17:03   #28
Guest 13833
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Torquay
Posts: 1,022
Thanks: 12
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Can't say it surprises me either. It was always going to be the problem when the masses get hold of bluray. Suddenly everything has to look as clear and sharp as Avatar.
Will wait for more reviews but I think I will be holding onto my original release.
Guest 13833 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 20:23   #29
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
This French review has some grabs, and they don't look like the disaster early reports were suggesting. It's not Zulu territory certainly.

http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...tion-10498.htm
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 21:39   #30
Niceguygeoff
I Do Deny Them My Essence
 
Niceguygeoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Swanage, Dorset
Posts: 10,176
Thanks: 129
Thanked 49 Times in 30 Posts
There are a lot more caps in the Predator thread at blu-ray.com. It certainly looks cleaner and, in some cases, actually more detailed than the original, but the texture, that ephemeral quality that makes film look like film, has been scrubbed clean away. And while some shots appear more detailed, others lose detail, and some look every bit the waxy-faced monstrosity that we feared this would be.

Either people are fiddling with these caps to fit their own agenda (I have a hard time believing that this is what the new encode stoops to ), or the film has been processed on a shot-by-shot basis. If it is this variable, then it's a shame that so much effort has gone into this 'digital restoration' without any real intent to keep a consistent grain structure.
Niceguygeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 21:45   #31
simong
I'm taking it back!
 
simong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 2,066
Thanks: 57
Thanked 205 Times in 72 Posts
And I'm interested in this release once again.

EDIT - I change my mind.
__________________
For Sale / Feedback / My Blus

Last edited by simong; 11-06-2010 at 21:46.
simong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 22:13   #32
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niceguygeoff View Post

Either people are fiddling with these caps to fit their own agenda (I have a hard time believing that this is what the new encode stoops to ), or the film has been processed on a shot-by-shot basis.
Somebody must have tampered with that in photoshop. I don't think even Zulu looked as awful as that.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 22:21   #33
Roberto
OMG! it's full of stars!
 
Roberto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Londoner
Posts: 16,916
Thanks: 867
Thanked 600 Times in 252 Posts
i agree some one must have there own agenda, no way on this god green earth that is real
__________________
Saddam✓Osama✓Gaddafi✓Kim Jong-un☐Justin Bieber☐

Last edited by Roberto; 11-06-2010 at 22:22.
Roberto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2010, 22:29   #34
Niceguygeoff
I Do Deny Them My Essence
 
Niceguygeoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Swanage, Dorset
Posts: 10,176
Thanks: 129
Thanked 49 Times in 30 Posts
The only caps I trust implicitly are Xylon's at AVS, although caps-a-holic will never usually steer you wrong. Screenshot science is no way to properly assess an encode for yourself, but in my humble experience it can give you a bloody good idea of what to expect.
Niceguygeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 08:52   #35
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
This zoom in comparison someone has done shows that you aren't really losing any detail from the old to the new.





In fact there's visible compression on the old BD (grain doesn't compress well of course) compared to the new BD.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 11:50   #36
Guest 69911
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
The problem with the old disc is the MPEG2 encode - doesn't handle grain too well.

The new one does have a healthy AVC, but the perceived extra detail is really just the result of contrast boosting - any detail boost from the superior encode is negated by the use of DNR.

Even in that comparison shot you've posted, the old image is the more detailed: compare the vertical line's running down the top of Arnie's bottom lip, or lack thereof on the new version. Most comparisons show a greater discrepancy between images, btw.

So judging by caps from a trusted review site (there's at least one highly suspicious cap doing the rounds), the original is good for detail retention and reasonably natural 35mm textures, whereas the new one is hot for pop and detail obliterating smoothness - some dodgy waxiness in skin textures, too.
Guest 69911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 12:54   #37
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
That vertical line on the old cap is compression. His mouth area shows square compression artifacts. That's the sort of compression in the old caps I was talking about. It's impossible to miss in the old jungle cap.

Last edited by thescrounger; 12-06-2010 at 12:55.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 13:01   #38
Guest 69911
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
It's a blocky compression artefact over actual detail. Definitely.

Have a look here for some more examples:

Predator caps comparison

Worth mentioning that the original caps are less compressed jpegs than those from the French review site, but you get the idea.

Last edited by Robert S; 12-06-2010 at 13:02.
Guest 69911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 13:06   #39
thescrounger
Trusted User
 
thescrounger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 19,802
Thanks: 93
Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
The French caps look pretty good actually. This film's never going to be demo material grain or no grain unless it's a proper restoration from the negative, which for a film like this I can't really see happening.
thescrounger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 14:49   #40
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,657
Thanks: 924
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
Not sure what the relevance of the old BD being an MPEG2 encode is? While AVC is more efficient, with 50GB to play with, there is no reason that one would look better than the other. Even 25GB is fine for a film less than 2 hours long with no extras.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[PS2/XBOX] Mashed:Fully Loaded hezzer Bargain Forum 5 21-03-2005 18:03

All times are GMT. The time now is 19:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network