Predator (3D MX Dic 20)

[octavio]

Confirman Restauracion para edicion Ultimate Hunter.

Veremos que tanto mejora la imagen, yo la verdad no creo que haya forma de mejorar significativamente la imagen debido a la forma en que fue filmada, el material que se usó, etc.

Lo que temo, como dije, es que le apliquen el DNR hasta la muerte, y entonces si no habrá mas grano, pero el detalle disminuirá en la misma forma. Eso sería el peor de los escenarios.

Cantado vale doble, como dicen por allí. Esta es la reseña de Blu-ray.com que confirma mis temores, le han dado en toda su jefa a esta película:

Blu-ray review
Movie 4.0 of 5
Video 2.0 of 5
Audio 4.0 of 5
Extras 3.5 of 5
Overall 2.5 of 5


Predator Blu-ray, Video Quality

When Predator debuted on Blu-ray in April 2008, on a 25 GB disc, it featured a relatively low bit-rate MPEG-2 transfer, prone to excessive noisiness and compression artifacts. While the film has never been a slick-looking production, and though the 2008 version was certainly the best the movie had looked on home video up until that time, there was an outcry from videophiles who felt it could look even better. 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.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Predator- ... 75/#Review

Y lo peor es que ni los extras son realmente algo nuevo, son los mismos extras que vienen en la edicion de 2 discos en DVD + 1 "featurette" nuevo de unos 11 min, eso es todo!

Mejor me quedo con mi copia antigua de Depredador y el 2do disco de extras de la edicion especial (el disco 1 donde viene la pelicula lo regalé).