It looks like the digital bits has joined in on the Predator discussion.
http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocentsWhat do you guys think? I get where he's coming from but I also like a cleaner image. Is an image full of grain because of limitations in the filming process 20 years ago? Or is it intentional. If John McTiernan was shooting this movie today would he have used digital or a better/less grainy image? We don't know. The assumption is that the grain is intentional.
That being said I like film as well as digital. I don't mind if a movie looks like it was shot on film. The issue I had with the first Predator cut wasn't so much the grain but the low bit rate and generally poor image quality. I noticed artifacting, etc. In the sample image shown I see what he's talking about related to Arnie's shirt. No texture what so ever.
I think studios need to balance with original intent versus superior quality. The Godfather BD still looks like it was shot on film but the colors and the quality is very high. The main issue is that the masses feel that BD should be pristine and look like it was shot yesterday which isn't necessarily the point.