Derniers achats DVD ??

Le master du Predator est à chier!   

En gros ça donne ça:


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Predator-3D-Blu-ray/68710/#Review


avec des ajouts d'effets visuels en 3D


http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=part&action=1&image=14&hd_multiID=1415&cap1=31320&cap2=31292&disc1=3402&disc2=3401&lossless=&x=484&y=242#vergleich

Dsl doublon

crevardo a écrit:

Le master du Predator est à chier!   

En gros ça donne ça:


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Predator-3D-Blu-ray/68710/#Review


avec des ajouts d'effets visuels en 3D


http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=part&action=1&image=14&hd_multiID=1415&cap1=31320&cap2=31292&disc1=3402&disc2=3401&lossless=&x=484&y=242#vergleich

    

Tu as tiré ta conclusion de Blu-ray.com, si je part dans leur délire le master est catastrophique...
Je possède la première édition Blu-ray et la seconde sortie en digibook jusque la ses éditions écrase le DVD d'origine...
Mais le master du dernier predator, est comme je l'ai dit plus haut irréprochable!!
Maintenant je l'ai vu sur mon Samsung 55" peut être que j'ai une meilleur image que sur un tube cathodique combiné magnétoscope...

La différence je l'ai fait a l'œil nu pas besoin d'etre journaliste pour dire la vérité, si le master de predator aurait été chaotique j'aurais été le premier a le dire...mais après tous peut se jouer sur le matériel de l'utilisateur, écran, hdmi, connexion...  

J'oubliais je ne l'ai toujours pas vu en 3D je juge la version 2D (la batterie des lunettes est a plat  ) 

Pour finir j'adore le négationnisme de ce site peut fiable,qui ressemble de plus en plus a wikipedia, exemple culte...

Note de Blu-ray.com
The killer 2.6
Police story 1.5
sanctum 3.1     
batman begins 3.9
point break 3.3   
the lost world 5.0 (et pourquoi pas 6???)

Note des editeur "officiel europeen"
The killer 4.2
Police Story 4.0 (même si l'Edition européenne est sur 2 disque)
Sanctum 5 (comme quoi Blu-ray.com c'est vraiment du flan!!)
batman begins 5
Point Break 1 (            meme pas besoin de parler)
The lost world 2.5

Bref c'est fou la différence de note qu'il y a entre Blu-ray.com et les catalogues d'éditeur officiel   , déjà qu'il se sont fait cartonné par la presse allemande, belge et française...La seul chose qui font c'est de la spéculation pour vendre du Blu-ray a partir d'information plus que douteuse   

Ah oui predator 3D c'est bien un ratio de 9.9 en europe, 10 en asie mais il sont moins lourd que nous les asiatiques   

Bon "à chier" j'exagère un peu mais ça reste du massacre au DNR, textures pâte à modeler, grain inexistant, rendu lisse et sans détail, effet wax etc..

Quelques review du 2e blu-ray:




Home Theater Forum
"From the moment one’s eyes spy the Twentieth Century Fox logo in all its soft, buttery ooze, it’s obvious the film has been heavily scrubbed with massive amounts of DNR (there isn’t a speck of grain in sight), and while edge enhancement hasn’t been heavily applied, there’s enough there for it to be unmistakable on several occasions. The shots that have always been soft now take on an added mushiness that’s ugly and almost unwatchable, and naturally countenances appear waxy and unnatural after all of the digital processing. "

Bluray.com
"The solution, really, was simple: do a remaster, use a less antiquated encode, a higher bit-rate, and put it on a 50 GB dual-layer disc. 20th Century Fox complied for this new Ultimate Hunter Edition, but unfortunately, they've must've taken complaints about the film's graininess/noisiness to heart, because they've also slathered this re-release with an ungodly amount of digital noise reduction. Now, this is bound to be controversial. The vocal minority of so- called "grain-haters" will praise this transfer because there's no longer any evidence that Predator was shot on film—it now has a bright, glossy, smeary, plasticized sheen that's as far from filmic as you can get. And, it should be said, about as far from how Predator is supposed to look as you can get. This is revisionist re-releasing at its worst, and most film collectors —who tend to want films to look as close to their original appearance as possible—are going to be severely disappointed. I know I'm going to get hate mail, but I can't conscionably give this transfer any higher than a 2/5.

The texture of the film's grain structure has been stripped entirely from the picture, obliterating the finest details in the process. Arnie's face looks like a candle wax stump, oily and smooth. Carl Weathers' mustache seems airbrushed onto his face. The jungle might as well be digitized. Even the 20th Century Fox logo that opens the film appears soft, under a thick coating of Gaussian blur. This is easily one of the worst abuses of DNR to hit Blu-ray yet. What's frustrating, then, is that in most other regards, this transfer could have been a massive improvement. What's the point of a higher bit-rate if you're just going to scrub away the film's texture? Yes, the transfer looks clean, ultra-colorful, and bright—a good deal brighter than the previous release—but it also looks unnatural, artificial, unnecessarily tampered with. The good news—if you want to call it that—is that black levels are solid, compression artifacts are absent this time around, and edge enhancement is nowhere near as prevalent or overzealous as it is in other DNR'ed-to-oblivion titles. None of this really matters, though, when you're watching an image that looks like it's been rubbed down with Vaseline. I suddenly feel the urge to pray for the fidelity of the Alien quadrilogy box-set being released later this year."

DVDTalk
"Fox responded to the griping and grousing about the initial gritty Blu-ray release of Predator by digitally pressure-washing away every last trace of grain. This no longer looks like a movie shot on film...it looks like low-rent video. By filtering out the grain, all sense of texture and detail has been drained away too. Edges are frequently smeary and indistinct, kind of like an oil painting. Arnie looks like he's been jabbed in the forehead with a barrel drum of Botox. Instead of being able to pick out individual fibers or subtle textures in clothing -- the sort of intricate details that typically shine on Blu-ray -- a muddy, monochromatic smudge takes its place. Rather than being able to discern the veins and texture on the foliage of the jungle, the overprocessed imagery makes it all look more like a bunch of rubber plants from the discount shelf at Michael's. As inconsistent as Predator has looked in the past, the movie still seemed to settle comfortably into its erratic appearance. This re-release has been scrubbed so raw that when the image falls slightly out of focus, it's so much more jarring now than it used to be. In shots that have always been extremely grainy -- such as Dutch tumbling off a cliff and into the dazzlingly blue water below -- the digital noise reduction is just cranked up that much more, and what's left can be almost completely indiscernable.

One of the frustrating things is that some of the tech specs here are what the initial release of Predator should've had in the first place: a high-bitrate AVC encode with the sort of expansive headroom a BD-50 disc has to offer. With that alone, I bet that early Blu-ray release would've been a lot more warmly received. I'm still impressed by how punchy the colors are compared to the duller, muddier transfers I've watched over and over again in years past. There are even a few scattered moments that genuinely struck me as looking terrific, despite all of this processing, although maybe that's just strictly by comparison. None of that matters. This is embarrassingly shoddy work and scrapes the bottom of the barrel as one of the worst presentations to claw its way to Blu-ray. You are one ugly motherfucker. "

DVDTalk, autre test
"The amount of DNR applied to the image on this disc is, to be blunt, appalling. Skin now looks like wax and detail has gone absent without leave. Close up shots of faces show actors who once looked tough and earthy now sporting complexions looking something more akin to a Barbie Doll. Human skin now looks fake and smeary and while the colors tend to look much better than the previous release, the loss in detail and texture is a massive strike against the image quality on this release. On the plus side, the black levels are solid and there aren't any obvious compression artifacts to complain about, but it's hard to look past the fact that the detail that was once in the film has been mowed down like a jungle with a gatling gun. To call the transfer disappointing is an understatement, especially because there is a noticeable improvement in compression, color reproduction, and the edge enhancement that plagued the last disc is noticeably improved as well. But the DNR here is off the wall - remember how bad the original Gangs Of New York Blu-ray looked because of the excessive noise reduction applied to it? This release of Predator looks worse. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the Alien collection release stated for fall of 2010 doesn't look like this..."

AVForums
"Apparently this is a brand new digital master from an existing transfer from Fox. But, in terms of restoration, this is just a heavily processed hack-job that has been authorised to please all those punters who believe that all hi-def imagery should be bright, colourful and totally shorn of grain, no matter how, or when the movie was made.

Thus, in a move that is massively controversial and already causing heated debates on forums around the world, this new edition of Predator has been cleaned-up and scrubbed with almost unparalleled use of DNR. Screengrabs hit the scene a while ago and vitriol and scorn poured forth at Fox. Was such anger justified, or is the new-look, grain-free Predator something to be proud of?

The answer, folks, comes courtesy of Arnie, himself, because, as it stands now, stripped of all texture and bereft of anything even remotely resembling a film-like appearance, this transfer is “one ugly motherf*cker!”

Predator Ultimate Wax Edition now sports an AVC MPEG-4 encode that, at least, clears up some of the compression issues and artefacts that the previous MPEG-2 transfer had on a crammed BD-25, but it does this in conjunction with raised contrast and much brighter colours. On the surface of things, when you first look at this 1.85:1 image (after being so familiar with the softened grainy, and highly variable picture that Predator has always had) there is a truly eye-popping difference. With no grain left and the fidelity boosted, this looks like a totally new movie, albeit one that has been produced digitally.

“The jungle … it just came alive and took him.”

Well, ironically enough, the jungle in this image has come alive and in such an uplifted and vibrant manner that many will, I’m certain, be blown away. Colours are richer and more saturated. The primaries lift from the screen and the green of the jungle is varied and dynamic. Explosions have plenty of visual bite to them. The glow-stick blood of the Predator positively throbs, and the thermal vision of the alien's surveillance system is a rich and flamboyant rainbow canvas of thick primaries and bubbling hot points. The light blue of the river provides a nice contrast to the earthy tones of the mud and the foliage. Even the eyes and the tans of certain characters have a greater lustre.

But you cannot get away from the fact that Predator now looks overly processed and totally unrealistic. Many of the more notorious shots – the ones that always looked horribly soft and out of focus – now look considerably worse. You know the main one, when Dutch takes that plunge over the cliff and drops down, down, down into the river? Never looked good, did it? Well, you strip the grain away from that – the grain being the only thing that actually added any sort of depth or dimensionality to the blurry image in the first place – and you are left with a staggeringly bad series of frames that completely ruin the visual momentum and conspire to take you out of the film. Again, the few distance shots of the landscape - the view down into the jungle as Poncho stands on the ridge after the battle, or the view up the river-course that snakes away beneath and behind Dutch, Billy, Anna and the battered Poncho as they stand on the King Kong-style log across the chasm – look crisper and more colourful, but they lack proper depth and naturalism, coming across as resolutely flat and two-dimensional. The film, even when viewed in a faithful transfer, wasn't abundant in its depth of field either but, once again, the grain itself lent the image greater integrity than displayed here.

I’m not convinced that some tiny shots, usually nano-second cuts of one of the lesser characters suddenly making a move, don’t still have some fine-grain left in them. And there is an argument that some close-ups, mostly of Dutch, do look extremely detailed and cause the little mischievous devil on your shoulder to whisper in your ear that this is, indeed, a nice looking image that is showing you things that you’ve never seen in the film before. Certainly, if we choose to be absolutely finite about this (which, of course, we do), you can see that Arnie’s stubble, eyelashes, facial pores and cam-cream, his hair, slab-like teeth and even the damn blood vessels in his eyes all seem to stand out a lot more. But then cross-check this with practically everybody else, who will find look nothing but false and waxy by comparison. If Arnie comes across as the best looking of the bunch, then Bill Duke, Richard Chaves and, most obviously of all, Carl Weathers, look uniformly atrocious. Just Vaseline-smeared effigies. The moment when Anna, in the left forefront of the image, tells of the “demon who makes trophies of man” you can see more clearly the bead of sweat trickling down the side of her nose, yes, but her face still looks irredeemably plastic. Then, when an impatient Dutch steps out into the Boy Scout trap, his brawn is like a lump of sunburned play-dough. And, again, when our hero is hiding under the upturned roots and vines and is covered with grey mud. Yes, of course, he is covered in sludge, but look again at the cartoon blandness of his face in the those shots. Even the Predator's plasma-beams look too horribly shrill and clinical, almost like shonky low-budget TV superimposition. Okay, they never really looked all that grandly integrated, but they look a hell of a lot better than this on the older transfers.

Now, all is not lost. It is true that the most ghastly looking DNR occurs in the first few scenes when Dutch is given his mission, but it is also true that the image seems to get better as the film goes on. The jungle foliage is neater, cleaner, and seemingly more detailed. Intricate leaf patterns, say. Shadows are considerably better etched because there is no grain swirling around within them. They now look deeper, darker and far more atmospheric. But, you must take this as being part of a transfer that has heightened contrast and a brighter all-round image. There are a few occasions when the picture looks good … and you will notice them.

But, there is even evidence of motion-drag during some elements of fast-action. I’ve seen a few complaints regarding this but, to be honest, I wasn't troubled too much by it. Plus there are those who cite Gladiator-style “now-you-see-them, now-you-don’t” patches where the scrubbing has removed things such as the fast-rappelling ropes – now, once again, I didn’t notice anything as untoward as this, either. In something of a pleasant surprise, edge enhancement is not a problem at all, objectivity cleanly blended. No, for me, the densely processed and un-film-like image is, by far, the most damning aspect and, pretty much, negates any of the good points that this transfer has to offer. Predator now looks flattened, unrealistic and, at worst, borderline CG.

Now, I have watched the original SD 2-disc edition and this, back-to-back, as well as had a look at the previous BD, but despite my initially horrified misgivings about what has happened to one of my favourite and most-watched SF-thrillers, I have, perhaps unforgivably, grown somewhat used to this glossy, high-sheen, T-cut version. There is a vibrancy and a colour to the image that, damn my soul, I've sort of come to like. But the absence of depth and texture still mean that this transfer is a failure. Blu-ray is meant to preserve the original look of the film whilst still bringing its inherent higher definition home to us. This means that the grain should be there. It doesn’t “mask” any detail whatsoever and it enables a movie to look true, textured and faithful. Despite the positive radiance of the picture, Fox’s transfer is none of those things.

In summary, there are those who will love what has been done to Predator – indeed, I have seen this release with a couple of people who positively lapped it up – and nothing that I, or anybody else, says will alter their opinion. For others, this will remain another travesty of completely unnecessary tampering that has been done merely to appeal to the mass-market. How do we score this then? Moments that still contrive to look great in a film that has been completely transformed from its former self. This is Predator, the Botox version. It can't earn more than 5 out of 10, can it?"

AVManiacs
"Fox previously brought Predator to Blu-ray a few years ago in a transfer that was a bit on the dirty side and which didn't really look all that impressive. Perhaps that's the reason they've gone completely insane with scrubbing out all of the grain from this reissue, presented in the film's original 1.85.1 anamorphic widescreen aspect ratio in an AVC encoded 1080p high definition transfer. The amount of DNR applied to the image on this disc is, to be blunt, appalling. Skin now looks like wax and detail has gone absent without leave. Close up shots of faces show actors who once looked tough and earthy now sporting complexions looking something more akin to a Barbie Doll. Human skin now looks fake and smeary and while the colors tend to look much better than the previous release, the loss in detail and texture is a massive strike against the image quality on this release. On the plus side, the black levels are solid and there aren't any obvious compression artifacts to complain about, but it's hard to look past the fact that the detail that was once in the film has been mowed down like a jungle with a gatling gun. To call the transfer disappointing is an understatement, especially because there is a noticeable improvement in compression, color reproduction, and the edge enhancement that plagued the last disc is noticeably improved as well. But the DNR here is off the wall - remember how bad the original Gangs Of New York Blu-ray looked because of the excessive noise reduction applied to it? This release of Predator looks worse. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the Alien collection release stated for fall of 2010 doesn't look like this..."

Highdefdigest
" When 'Predator' was originally shot, the makers used a specific film stock with a color temperature that required little filtration or expensive lighting equipment. Given the schedule and limited budget before dailies were shown to investors, photography was done quickly and with available, natural light of the Mexican jungles. On this hi-def presentation, the benefits are fairly clear in many exterior shots where foliage is distinct and excellently detailed. The finer lines in clothing, weapons and the alien costume are terrific while facial complexions are often revealing with beautiful, lifelike texture. Colors are nicely saturated and clean, with primaries looking really vibrant but not overstated. While I couldn't detect any edge enhancement, I did notice sharpening tools were in definite use. Thankfully, it wasn't to the point of annoyance, but it's still there.

Now, the one drawback of shooting with a high temp stock and poor lighting conditions is a much grainer picture, especially during dim, night scenes. With this being the case, 'Predator' should show heavy amounts of film grain, but it's not to be seen. It's pretty obvious that much of this structure — a natural and expected result of celluloid photography — has been digitally removed via noise reduction. Most immediate and damning is the indoor, dimly-lit scene where Dutch and Dillon first reunite early in the story. Both actors look artificial and synthetic, lacking any definition in their aged faces and plenty of soft edges. Adding to the disaster are a couple of frames which appear natural one second and then strangely foggy and dreamlike the very next instant. Carl Weathers' moustache is a deplorable and unacceptable travesty (because of the noise reduction mind you!) .

Later, in the final fight at night where grain should be thickest, minor background info is missing and the entire sequence loses its overall gritty nature. This is not only a disappointment which distracts from the picture's better parts, but it's also a significant detriment to the film's entire presentation. Complicating matters, contrast has been boosted somewhat. Granted, there are no issues with clipping and the image possesses a nice pop, but this is at the cost of weaker black levels during night scenes. In daylight, things look acceptable, but when Schwarzenegger goes 'Lord of the Flies,' we lose depth, gradational details are lacking, and shadows are murkier. All things considered, this is nowhere near how 'Predator' was originally shot or even presented theatrically.

I don't doubt Fox has gone out of their way to strike a new HD master for this presentation — as seen in several sequences of this Blu-ray edition — but it is unfortunate they deemed it necessary to alter a great deal of the image. For a true remaster, the original film elements should have been scanned and cleaned with the least amount of digital manipulation. Sadly, this latest version of a Schwarzenegger classic appears less like an improved restoration and more like digitized man-handling with some scenes almost looking computer-generated. I don't believe making an entirely new internegative (IN) for a fresh, "untouched" release print is too much to ask of a studio, especially for a film with such a strong following.

When that day finally comes — and hopefully, it will — we'll, of course, have yet another version of 'Predator.' But as long as it's done properly, we'll at last be given the film as it should've always looked rather than this presentation of wax figurines. "

DVDVerdict
"Most fans have read countless reviews of Predator, so the big issue is going to be what the image quality is for this double dip release. Alas, as you may have read, Fox's newly minted transfer is pretty terrible depending on what you're looking for. First the good news: this is a transfer free of almost any grain, dirt, or filmic imperfections. In fact, this transfer is too clean—and this is where Fox got it wrong. The screen almost looks like it's been wiped over with petroleum jelly. Actors have a very waxy quality that is almost unnatural. Detail is lessened because of digital noise reduction (DNR) that permeates every inch of this new transfer. Fox has gone to great lengths to fix some of the outstanding issues with the previous Predator Blu-ray release, but it's been at the expense of a worse picture than the original transfer. Now the image is unnatural, overly perfect, and lacking any of the warmth film generally offers. If you want my personal suggestion, hold on to your original Blu-ray release of Predator; it may not be the pinnacle of high-def, but it's a far better representation of how this film is supposed to look."

Digital Bits
"
All right, here we go again. The rants just keep a-coming these days...

I wanted to say a few words about 20th Century Fox's new Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition Blu-ray. Remember how last week I was ranting about how the studios are putting HD mastering and transfer quality too low on their priority lists? Well... here's a timely example of EXACTLY what I was talking about. Predator is a bit of an interesting case. Let me be perfectly clear: The new Blu-ray is an unmitigated disaster. You remember how awful Patton looked? Well, the new Predator disc is every bit as bad. So much Digital Noise Reduction (the infamous and dreaded 'DNR') has been applied to this disc, that even the sky looks like it was molded from shinny plastic. Fox has actually managed to take a dark, gritty film and make it look like video. Not even high-def video, but old analog video. There is not a speck of grain to be seen anywhere, and hardly a speck of fine image detail either. The subtle textures of clothing, walls, hair, skin - they're nearly all gone. And Fox did this deliberately.

Why, you might be asking? I'll tell you why, and in my mind this is the even bigger travesty: Because when the first Blu-ray edition came out, a bunch of fans and reviewers in all the online A/V forums complained about the video quality. "There's too much grain! The transfer looks like crap!" Well, let me tell you... I'll take that original Blu-ray over the new one any day. It's just deeply disheartening to see a Blu-ray released with shockingly mishandled video like this. But it's even more disheartening that there are apparently so many fans online who don't seem to understand the most basic, most important thing about film restoration and mastering: A FILM SHOULD LOOK LIKE A FILM! Yes, I know that original Predator Blu-ray was full of sometimes coarse grain. But how many of those who complained about it have actually seen Predator projected in a theater? That's how the film looks, guys. That's how it looked on Day One when it hit theaters. It's ALWAYS looked like that - dark, gritty, grainy - the result of choices in film stock and camera process made by director John McTiernan and his cinematographer. Predator does not look crisp and clean like Watchmen, and it's not meant to look like that. It was NEVER meant to look like that! In this particular case, the studio (and I'm giving them a bit of credit by recognizing this, and the fact that they have generally improved their catalog BD quality in recent months) was stuck between a rock and a hard place: They released the film on Blu-ray once, and some fanboys online freaked out that there was too much grain. So now they've responded and re-released the film on Blu-ray in a version so scrubbed to death with DNR that the film now looks like Pixar produced it. Don't believe me?

Here's a screenshot from the new Blu-ray to illustrate what I'm talking about (the screenshot was originally posted here, and all credit due to our friend Justin Sluss of HighDefDiscNews for taking it). The last time I saw the Governator's cigar-chomping mug polished up this shiny was at the Hollywood Wax Museum. His shirt is so smooth it looks like Mattel molded it for Mr. Potato Head. If you're not fully sickened by this, what kind of film fan are you? Now, if the film in question were Plastic Man, that'd be one thing. But trust me, this is NOT how Predator was EVER intended to look...

This is fucking appalling...

The problem here two-fold: First, too many people in both the fan community and film industry have taken Blu-ray's "look and sound of perfect" marketing far too literally. Once again, the word "perfect" with regard to Blu-ray does not and should not mean 100% sharp, crisp and completely blemish free - that everything should look like it was shot with an HD video camera yesterday. It means that the film on the disc should look as good as it did in the very best theatrical screening on Day One. If you were sitting in the director's private screening room on opening day, that's how good the film should look - THAT'S the experience that Blu-ray should work to recreate in the home.

Second, there are WAY too many fans today who came of age in a world in which DVD always existed and so they've rightly grown to love lots of great films... but without EVER having seen these films projected in an actual theater. Too many guys first experienced Predator and similar films on late-night HBO and on DVD in the old analog TV days, and so they never actually saw all the detail - and yes, the inherent defects - that were present in the negative. Standard-definition, analog TV simply didn't have the resolution to show all the detail. So now, those fans are seeing their favorite films for the first time as they actually are, and they're freaking out. "Oh my god, look at all that noise?!" It's not just noise - it's film grain. Some of it is actually supposed to be there. And NO, it's NOT simply a matter of preference any more than colorizing a black and white film is a matter of preference. Image grain is an inherent part of what makes film look like film.

But lest you think me harsh, you should know that I'm not a hardliner for grain either. A few years ago, Home Theatre Magazine interviewed Mike Inchalik about the film restoration process at DTS Digital Images - formerly Lowry Digital. Here's what he had to say about film grain in the age of high-def discs...

Question: How much film grain is appropriate in a modern video master?

Answer: Film purists have often taken the position that film grain should never be changed. Having worked for Eastman Kodak for 25 years, I am extremely sensitive to this way of thinking and completely agree that many cinematographers use film grain as a part of their craft and make it an integral part of their storytelling. Nevertheless, I believe that the opinion that the film grain should never be altered is too sweeping a generalization.

I agree with this position - it's a balance that's required here. You know who's getting it right (aside from Criterion, of course)? Grover Crisp and his team over at Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. Here's an interview with Crisp done by our friends over at HDNation (Love you guys!) from the Blu-Con 2.0 conference last year, where he talks about some of these very issues. And now here's what director Martin Scorsese had to say about the proper presentation of films on Blu-ray from the same conference (and the same HD Nation episode). Note his comments about the importance of grain, and how Blu-ray should work to replicate the original theatrical experience of a film. The amazing thing to me is that Scorsese and Crisp were speaking before a conference of MOSTLY studio executives, and what they were saying about Blu-ray was CRITCIALLY important! I even said so at the time, in my column here on The Bits. But it's obvious that painfully few of them seem to have been paying attention.

Look... modern audiences aren't used to seeing film grain, and modern HD display technology is capable of showing every flaw in an image. Coarse film grain can be distracting for some, and I understand that. So if grain can be reduced without compromising fine image detail and without removing so much of it that the film look is actually lost, that's one thing. But it's very subtle work and should be done by trained digital film restoration technicians with a light, careful touch. Dialing up the DNR knob to '11' and heavy-handedly stripping every bit of grain away in a process that is actually destructive not only to the film look but also to the integrity of the image is absolutely wrong and downright APPALLING. And to the extent that ANYONE - fan, digital technician or studio employee alike - thinks that's okay or a good thing, all I can say is shame on you! Sadly and predictably, there are far too many "expert" online reviewers (based on a sampling of comments about the disc on the Net today) who clearly don't understand any of this and are all but raving about how clean and wonderful Predator now looks, and what an improvement this disc is over the original Blu-ray. Guys, you are actively undermining EVERYTHING that a lot of good film preservation people in this industry have worked so hard for over so many years. You are doing yourselves, the film, the legacy of classic, pre-digital cinema, your fellow movie fans, and the Blu-ray format as a whole a terrible, TERRIBLE disservice.

In any case, as someone who personally put their reputation on the line to see high-def discs get a chance to thrive, and to ensure that movie fans would get to enjoy the very best quality versions of their favorite films in high-definition... well, for me, seeing a disc like this is just truly depressing. After all that - after fighting for anamorphic-enhancement of DVDs and slogging through two format wars - is this REALLY "The Look and Sound of Perfect" we were fighting for? God, I hope not...

Make no mistake, the new Predator Blu-ray is a disaster. It's simply unwatchable. Compare it to the original and you will be shocked at just how much image detail has been scrubbed away. You want to see DNR, you want to see a perfect example of everything that Blu-ray SHOULDN'T be? Exhibit A: The new Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition Blu-ray. The other sad thing is that all the previous DVD extras that SHOULD have been included on the first Predator Blu-ray? They're all here... on a double-dip disc that TRUE fans of the film should want to run over with their cars. I don't mind a double-dip that really gets things right. But this isn't one of 'em.

To all of you readers of The Digital Bits who care about presentation quality and about the Blu-ray format, it's time to make some noise. Do it politely, but do it loudly and don't stop until the industry responds. Don't let those who are misinformed or apathetic decide the future of film presentation quality in this new digital age. Let the studios know that this is a HUGE problem and that your Blu-ray spending will reflect your desire for the proper A/V treatment of films on disc. And for goodness sake, PLEASE DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN to educate yourself and others as to what exactly a "perfect" quality film presentation on Blu-ray should be, and what it should really look like! This is even more important than the debate about Pan and Scan vs original aspect ratio presentation of films on DVD, or of colorization vs. original B&W presentation of vintage films on DVD, or of anamorphic enhancement of widescreen films on DVD. Demand a higher standard... or the likes of Spartacus, Patton and Predator will become the new, all-too-easy normal on Blu-ray.

Stay tuned... "

Robert H Harris sur home theater forum
"I wanted to spend a bit more time examining the new Blu-ray of Predator. This is a film that appears to have been shot thin, with all the requisite problems that come along with fast stock, etc.

I believe I may have figured out what we're now looking at.

And from a technological perspective, I've not come away displeased. Everyone who cares is aware that Disney has gone back to original elements for the scanning of their classics, has de-grained, cleaned and made every effort to create something that is not restored, but rather a new edition created by using the same elements in a slightly different way, as aided by digital technology. The film elements are fully preserved, and I've never thought this a bad thing.

I believe that a similar situation may have occurred here.

I've put out requests through normal channels for information, and have received back very little. Except for a strange comment from someone who may be in the know. And it's led me in an interesting direction.

What I'm thinking is that the new Blu-ray of Predator is not some heavy-handed hack job, where a tech took a pile driver to the grain and then fully cleansed what remained to the point of oblivion.

Rather, I'm beginning to believe that this may be an entirely new film.

Using only the original audio mix as a basis, it appears that either Pixar or Dreamworks Animation, may have been brought in to digitally create an entirely new image for the film, based upon the original photographic information.

I'm thinking this because Predator looks decidedly like Monsters vs. Aliens 3D, but of course not yet in 3D. That may be coming.

If this is what's occurred then the new product is rather beautifully rendered, lifelike, and potentially yet another new process.

The overall concept is brilliant. The more that I think about this, the more I need to return to Patton and Longest Day, as I may have erred in my appreciation of those Blu-rays.

If those were earlier incarnations of this same technology..."

Robert H Harris sur HTF, autre critique
"Whatever post facility created this master should be tarred, feathered and rode out of town on a log.

In the past I suggested that they should best be working in the manufacture of plastic combs, where nothing artistic might be harmed. No longer. And people actually get paid to create this garbage.

En faite j'ai une question crevardo.
A tu acheter le predator 3D?
parce que comme tu la compris je me méfie a mort de la critique journalistique, j'ai eu trop de mauvaise surprise et de fausse joie en 30 ans   

Moi je te le dit honnêtement j'aurais une plus grande confiance en ta critique et celle des membres du forum, que sur un site internet qui te fous des liens pour acheter   

Vous vous gavez trop de blockbuster au rendu video sérieux, ça se voit l'abus de réducteur de bruit sur un master HD!

Non je n'ai pas la version 3D mais la précédente! Je ne fais plus d'achat à l'aveugle , et surtout pour les disques HD j'aime bien lire les review, comparatifs etc! dernier achat à l'aveugle ---> Night of the living dead chez twilight time..   

Je pense que tu peux faire confiance à ces sites sincèrement, après c'est vrai que chez blu-ray.com les avis sont tranchants mais en général les mecs savent de quoi ils parlent!

crevardo a écrit:

Vous vous gavez trop de blockbuster au rendu video sérieux, ça se voit l'abus de réducteur de bruit sur un master HD!

Non je n'ai pas la version 3D mais la précédente! Je ne fais plus d'achat à l'aveugle , et surtout pour les disques HD j'aime bien lire les review, comparatifs etc! dernier achat à l'aveugle ---> Night of the living dead chez twilight time..   

Je pense que tu peux faire confiance à ces sites sincèrement, après c'est vrai que chez blu-ray.com les avis sont tranchants mais en général les mecs savent de quoi ils parlent!

En faite ce qui me fait le plus rire, c'est que Blu-ray.com avez fait la promotion en juin du predator 3D en disant que c'était a s'en crever les yeux avec des comparatif d'image plus vraie que nature   

Bref tu me donnera ton avis personnel quand tu aura acheter le Blu-ray a 9.99 euros dans quelques mois   tu va l'acheter  

Pour the night of the living dead j'en ai a l'heure actuel entre 10 et 15 en Blu-ray   mais rien d'extraordinaire question image...
Par contre en France on a eu une 3eme edition qui est "certifier" full 4/3 donc aucune bande noir...mais je ne l'ai pas encore acheter!
En remasterisation je te conseil vivement le Blu-ray UK ou Japonais du retour des morts vivants bluffant    tu va l'acheter  

Night of the living dead, le remake de Savini! Pour le Romero j'ai le coffret br trilogie fr Opening//filmedia et dans mes souvenirs c'est du tout bon! tu parles de cette version ?

Racheter encore Predator ?? pas pour l'instant, attendons le blu-ray 4k!   

Suis-je le seul à ne pas dépenser comme un fou? Moi je n'achète les editions collector que sur mes films préférés qui vont rester avec moi jusqu’à' ma mort.

Les livres et les meubles fait pour par contre...

crevardo a écrit:

Night of the living dead, le remake de Savini!    Pour le Romero j'ai le coffret br trilogie fr Opening//filmedia et dans mes souvenirs c'est du tout bon! tu parles de cette version ?

Racheter encore Predator ?? pas pour l'instant, attendons le blu-ray 4k!   

Ouch le Blu-ray du remake de savini était une catastrophe      
Image bleue intégral... je l'ai revendu 20 euros sur eBay    (a quand un the fog en vert intégral...)
Non je parlais de la version 68, le problème c'est que l'image du film est en 4/3 centré avec 2 barres noir de chaque coté...Un peut lourd quand tu as un grand écran.
Sinon l'image des films est impeccable, meilleur que le dvd.

Arthas_117 a écrit:

Suis-je le seul à ne pas dépenser comme un fou? Moi je n'achète les editions collector que sur mes films préférés qui vont rester avec moi jusqu’à' ma mort.

Les livres et les meubles fait pour par contre...

Tout dépend de ton revenu arthas   
Personnellement je doit acheter entre 50 et 60 film par ans, mais j'ai 30% des films gratuit.
Sans oublier que la plus part des films (hors coffret spéciaux) je les achètes entres 2.99 et 9.99 euros!
Donc du coup je dépense beaucoup plus en essence et cigarette!

TRENTE POUR CENT DES FILMS GRATUITS!!!! Mais t'est chanceux toi!

Comment ça?

Arthas_117 a écrit:

TRENTE POUR CENT DES FILMS GRATUITS!!!! Mais t'est chanceux toi!

Comment ça?

Cela na rien avoir avec la chance   
1/je profite toute l'année des offres amazon.
100euros d'achats en Blu-ray/dvd = 50 euros (tu peut t'en tiré facilement avec 15 film gratuit) les dvd on tellement chuter que tu peut faire de véritables affaire comme money train a 1.99 ou daylight en Blu-ray a 3euros!
3 Blu-ray acheter le 3eme est offert!
5 Blu-ray acheter 2 Blu-ray offert!
Sans compter touts les bon de réduction que je reçois par mail toutes les semaines!

2/Il y a aussi les grand distributeur comme la fnac ou les hypermarché qui font des offres toute l'année!
10 Blu-ray acheter 5 Blu-ray offert (donc tu n'en paye que 5)
Quand le distributeur Virgin a coulé cette été il faisait des offres pour vider les stock 20 Blu-ray acheter 20 offert!     

3/J'ai depuis 10 ans un distributeur allemand qui me fait des prix de gros!
Donc je part a Hanovre deux fois par ans et lui me fait une offre spécial, 20 Blu-ray acheter 10 offert donc 30!
Sinon il fait aussi 30 Blu-ray acheter 20 Blu-ray offert!
Le seul soucie chez lui c'est quoi prendre??
C'est un grossiste pour les hypermarché allemand et hollandais.
Mais bon j'aime bien passer chez mon distributeur car l'Allemagne et le pays qui distribue le plus de film d'horreur au monde, le catalogue américain en Blu-ray dvd et extrêmement pauvre a coté!

Sinon les seul Blu-ray/DVD que je paye cash sont les éditions spécial comme the walking dead ou predator, bref la le prix reste le même!
Mais si il y a bien une passion qui me ruine c'est tous ce qui provient du japon!
La je paye mes dramas et animé entre 199 et 399 euros, mais c'est de l'introuvable car aucun droits a la vente dans le reste du monde et surtout la qualité et au rendez vous!

juge-rico a écrit:

crevardo a écrit:

Night of the living dead, le remake de Savini!    Pour le Romero j'ai le coffret br trilogie fr Opening//filmedia et dans mes souvenirs c'est du tout bon! tu parles de cette version ?

Racheter encore Predator ?? pas pour l'instant, attendons le blu-ray 4k!   

Ouch le Blu-ray du remake de savini était une catastrophe      
Image bleue intégral... je l'ai revendu 20 euros sur eBay    (a quand un the fog en vert intégral...)
Non je parlais de la version 68, le problème c'est que l'image du film est en 4/3 centré avec 2 barres noir de chaque coté...Un peut lourd quand tu as un grand écran.
Sinon l'image des films est impeccable, meilleur que le dvd.

C'est le format d'origine du film, il a été shooté en 16 mm ! Perso sur mon plasma Pana, je change le format en 14:9 pour avoir moins de bandes noires sur les cotés!

J'ai vraiment été gâté à Noel, je vais vous partager ce que j'ai reçu !   

3 pour 20 chez Videotron:
- La chasse de Thomas Vintterberg
-The World's End d'Edgar Wright
- Aftershock de Nicolas Lopez
Un des meilleurs films de l'année et deux nanards.

Derniers achats et Cadeaux!

Continuum: Season One




Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor




The Dark Knight Trilogy de Christopher Nolan




The Final Destination de David R. Ellis




Alcatraz: The Complete Series




Machete de Robert Rodriguez




Three Kings de David O. Russell




The Legend of Drunken Master de Lau Ka Leung




Magnolia de Paul Thomas Anderson




Mortal Kombat de Paul W.S. Anderson




Elysium de Neill Blomkamp




Don Jon de Joseph Gordon-Levitt

l'intégrale chucky (all zone) avec piste française d'origine. 30euros

le remake coréen du syndicat du crime. 7.99 euros

Majikoi. 4.99

blood C 4.99

jurassic park 3D 19.99

T'as vraiment de magnifiques aubaines pour ces animes, je t'envie beaucoup.

The hills have eyes 1 & 2 Remake BLURAY - 10$ dans un petit coffret
Requiem for a dream BLURAY - 6$
Nekromantik 1 Barrel entertainment Red box special edition

Arthas_117 a écrit:

T'as vraiment de magnifiques aubaines pour ces animes, je t'envie beaucoup.

Merci mon pote   
Je suis un fanatique de l'animation japonaise!!
Et avec la technologie Blu-ray les mangas sont de toutes beauté, le seul hic c'est que sur mes 100~125 titres je n'ai que 12 Blu-ray en VF   

Trois Blu-ray box trouver au hasard en boutique d'import.

Akira kurosawa the masterworks 1:(140euros)

Akira kurosawa the masterworks 2:(140euros)

Akira kurosawa the masterworks 3:(150euros)

School idol project l'intégrale Blu-ray:  (50euros)

WOW! Jolies pièces les Kurosawa, chanceux!   

Pour moi, deux petites raretés trouvées pas chères:
- The Man From London de Béla Tarr
- La Chinoise de Jean-Luc Godard

Et pour décompresser, du Will Ferrell:
- Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy
- Triple Feature: The Other Guys/Step Brothers/Talladega Nights

Les 7 saisons de Tales From The Crypt