Your latest DVD or Blu-Ray

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'll be picking up Predator at Best Buy tomorrow for $15. Isn't there also supposed to be a $10 off Predators admission in there?
 
Me too, and I work in video and effects so I don't see a problem with removing noise from film as long as it doesn't remove details, which this doesn't. Noise can make things look more realistic, but if it's already real then it's not an issue. Plus things only looked more realistic with film grain because up to now you couldn't avoid it.

Absolutely. I think it's funny - and a bit sad - that some folks are placing themselves above the so called unwashed film masses by acting like grain is a good thing. It never is. It doesn't improve a picture.

Now, I will agree that if it was the INTENTION of the filmmaker for it to be grainy for effect, then the restored version should likewise have said grain. A great example is Saving Private Ryan.

However, that's only true in a very small percentage of movies. Grain is an outcome of film, film processing, and light levels during shooting. Film makers would not have it if they could, so acting as though removing it when possible is some sort of blasphemy only hurts the general opinion of self appointed purists. It is true that the overuse of DNR CAN hurt the look of a film - Lord of the Rings is a fine example - but I'm not seeing it with Predator.
 
Did anyone pick up the Last Airbender Book 1 released a week or so ago? Do they have the pop up versions of the shows on there? I'm betting not...
 
Did anyone pick up the Last Airbender Book 1 released a week or so ago? Do they have the pop up versions of the shows on there? I'm betting not...


Do you mean the Complete Book 1 Collector's Edition? If so, I just got it in from Amazon today at work, but haven't opened it yet. If they weren't on the original Complete Book 1 box set, then they aren't on this one either... from what I've heard, this is same as the book 1 set, but with the edition of another disc with a documentary on it, a book, and new cover art.


EDIT: I just opened the package... it has the original book 1 complete collection box set inside (box within the box), with the bonus disc in a separate cardboard sleeve, and the art book preview (I already own the artbook!) The Book 1 Complete Collection is the same one you would find on a store shelf... shinkwrapped itself and UPC code on the back of the box.
 
Absolutely. I think it's funny - and a bit sad - that some folks are placing themselves above the so called unwashed film masses by acting like grain is a good thing. It never is. It doesn't improve a picture.

Now, I will agree that if it was the INTENTION of the filmmaker for it to be grainy for effect, then the restored version should likewise have said grain. A great example is Saving Private Ryan.

However, that's only true in a very small percentage of movies. Grain is an outcome of film, film processing, and light levels during shooting. Film makers would not have it if they could, so acting as though removing it when possible is some sort of blasphemy only hurts the general opinion of self appointed purists. It is true that the overuse of DNR CAN hurt the look of a film - Lord of the Rings is a fine example - but I'm not seeing it with Predator.

This "Predator" Blu-Ray will go down in history as the worst DNR travesty in the history of home video.

Also, there are plenty of directors, cinematographers, film preservationists and action figure reviewers (just kidding about that one) who disagree with you. I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but some opinions carry more weight than others. Reading your comment is like seeing photographer looking for a specific film stock and having a Geek Squad member trying to tell him to buy an SD card instead. It also brings to mind similarly ridiculous concepts like removing brush strokes from paintings and colorizing black-and-white movies.

Take something like the Coppola restoration on the first two "Godfather" films and you'll see that the grain remains after over a full year of restoration with input from people like Coppola, Willis, Robert Harris and Steven Spielberg and then you see something like this awful "Predator" botch job where you know it was pretty much a case of an existing transfer being run through a computer program with a grain-removing algorithm between some guy's coffee break and his lunch break.

Maybe John McTiernan and Donald McAlpine would have shot "Predator" on hi-def video if they made it today but they didn't. "Predator" was made in 1987 and should look like a movie made in 1987, and as it stands neither has lent his name to this disc. When some no-name technician at 20th Century Fox starts removing things that have always been a part of the film's image boundaries are being over-stepped, whether said technician's careless work is finding its way to store shelves due to poor quality control or actually mandated from up above, it's something that needs to be addressed. People aren't going to accept the films they loved looking like artificial CGI interpretations.

Your assumption that the filmmakers didn't want grain in the first place is doubly flawed. First, it's a generalization. The ones who abhor this trend are the ones on record but I have no doubt that there are filmmakers who would love this awful result. Regardless, like all other opinions its varied and the only way to be "right" is to get actual approval from said filmmakers, and again, this mess carries no such endorsement. Secondly, for better or worse they had to deal with the grain and said grain affected everything from lighting to blocking to makeup to post-production processing/color timing and as such it makes perfect sense that removing it from the equation wreaks such havoc on the look of the film itself.

But yeah, "Back to the Future" producer Bob Gale had this today about the new Blu-Ray discs:

And the film grain is preserved, so they still look like movies should look.

and considering that this is arguably the format's most high-profile release yet that can only be promising. The artists behind these films are starting to notice how the studios are destroying their films.
 
Last edited:
I can understand film grain in photographs or brush strokes in paintings--really most of the genius in paintings comes from the technique--and of course some movies intentionally have film grain, Battlestar Galactica added it in even when they had better cameras because they wanted a documentary type look. But for other movies, there's no point to the noise, like in Predator, it's not adding anything.
 
Although I've mentioned before grain doesn't bother me ( ecspecially if it's intentional ) I'll be interested to see if I prefer Predator without it since I have a feeling I will. I'll be buying that blu.
 
DSC01238.JPG


Just got these 5 DVD's for €10 :rock :rock :rock
 
Just got these 5 DVD's for €10 :rock :rock :rock

Nice bud :rock :hi5:

Watched Seraphin Falls a few months back, came across it by chance when it was on TV! Was pretty good film to watch, better than expected, especially for something like 1 am that you stumble across falling ass first into something :lol
 
Nice bud :rock :hi5:

Watched Seraphin Falls a few months back, came across it by chance when it was on TV! Was pretty good film to watch, better than expected, especially for something like 1 am that you stumble across falling ass first into something :lol

Thanks, bro! :rock

I remember seeing Seraphim Falls last year and I found it very awesome that the journey the main characters make is a metaphor of a journey to hell! :rock :rock :rock
 
Back
Top