The reason the characters look waxy is because of a number of reasons, other than the DNR. I believe make up, film location and directors shooting style are the culprit.
Arnold was smeared with Vasoline, including his face. R.G. Armstrong was covered with make up, because of his age.
"John McTiernan admitted that actor R.G. Armstrong was too old for his part, but kept Armstrong simply because he liked him. Added to this, the actor wore "too much" tanning makeup to hide his age somewhat."
It was filmed in the jungles of Palenque, Mexico. It was vary cold at night, and vary humid in the day. Running in a humid jungle = sweat. Sweat = oily skin.
I believe the opening sequence with Arnold, Weathers, and Armstrong were filmed from a far distance with the camera zoomed. Meaning a soft picture. I cant find the source for this, but will edit when I do later.
I heard the rumor that Carl Weathers mustache was airbrushed in. That is simply not true.
I think the UHE is a marvel in restoration. It's a shame the the Hi Def community blame DNR for the wax look of the actors. Maybe the film looks to new to some. But I assure that any doubts about loss of detail because of too much DNR is simply because there was not any detail to loose to begin with.
Reputable reviewers Gave poor rating on picture quality based on the use of DNR. I have seen DNR and know all about it. I don't know how the restoration was done, but fine detail is retained. If there is not enough detail in the actors faces, it was because of reasons above, which reviewers should have noted.
Film is altered all the time weather it be for removal of crew and equipment, or to fix effects. This film was altered simply because of heavy grain, and because the film looked dated. Does it look natural? No. Some scenes with the actors look unnatural but still has some nice scenes. The old disc looks natural because of the layer of grain. The old looks better in some scenes and the new one looks better in others.
