The Hal Blog II

Original THE HAL BLOG http://halmasonberg.wordpress.com/
JULY 12, 2010 10:25PM

DNR Madness. Fox's New PREDATOR Blu-ray Offends

Rate: 0 Flag

Fox's new Blu-ray release, PREDATOR: ULTIMATE HUNTER EDITION, sadly tries to correct complaints that the previous Blu-ray release was a bit too grainy by overcompensating and making this 1987 film look like it was shot on modern HD video. For those interested in their films actually looking like film, this is not good news. DNR, when over applied, ends up removing not only a film's natural grain, but important details as well (for more on this, check out my article over at Examiner.com BLU-RAY KVETCH SESSION).

Below are two identical shots from PREDATOR. The top one is from the original Blu-ray release, the bottom from the new "fixed" version.

Notice how in the bottom image, Arnold's face looks waxy, fake. Even his stubble has lost its texture. Yes, it's sharper, but it no longer looks like film.Now this is clearly apparent on a small image. Imagine what it might look like on your large TV or front projector. It would be nice if the studios that are still over-applying DNR would listen to the folks that buy their products and stop making film look like video. One need only visit any web site devoted to DVD and Blu-ray to find such complaints.

Thanks to The Digital Bits for pointing this out.

Author tags:

waxy, blu-ray kvetch session, predator: ultimate hunter edition, examiner, blu-ray, dnr

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:
Cancel

Comments

Type your comment below:
Cancel
You know, I actually bought "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition" and I have to say the cleaned up "DNR" version looks good. Darn good!

I think also think it's funny how people credit DigitalBits for pointing out how bad the Blu Ray looks when DigitalBits is a white-on-black-background travesty of a web design nightmare. I'm not sure how that guy became some sort of expert on aesthetics with a site like that. :-p

Anyway, if people give the movie a chance, they may be like me and think the cleaned up version has an incredible amount of pop to the picture.

See here for images of how the image quality is drastically improved:
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/articles/predator-blu-ray-comparison/
boulder_bum
August 31, 2010 11:42 PM
In part, it comes down to a matter of taste. But the other part of the equation is how far should a studio "clean up" a film until it no longer resembles the film as it was intended? While the image may now "pop," as you say, it also doesn't look as much like film and tends to look a bit more like hi-def video. For me, that's a negative. I love the look of film and my personal interest is to have Blu-rays capture film looking like film. The article you sent (thanks for the link, by the way) mentions how grain has been removed in all shots, but doesn't address how that is not always a good thing. Some people want their films to look sharp and crisp, even if that's not how the film was intended. I love the look of film. And grain is an inherent part of that look. Excessive grain removal is more distracting to me than grain could ever be. While I agree that the old PREDATOR Blu-ray was not a great transfer, removing all the grain was not the answer. Regardless of whether or not you like thedigitalbits, they raise a valid point. I won't be buying the PREDATOR Blu-ray. Perhaps some day they'll rerelease this title due to all the negative press they received. When they do, and some of the natural film grain is returned to the film, I will excitedly pluck down my money and bring that puppy home. Until then, I'm afraid I have to side with the folks who are disappointed with this transfer.
Hal_M
September 01, 2010 12:11 PM