I’m hoping and anticipating this to be the final,best of both worlds, ultimate version of Raiders I’ll ever need. The pictures look stunning! Keep up the good work!
Visit my *NEW* Star Wars on Video Collection site:
I’m curious Dr. Dre, why is it that so many home releases of movies have a revisionist colour timing like we’ve seen with Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park or the Original Star Wars trilogy? and it’s not just the Blu-rays, they’ve been doing it since the VHS days.
I think a lot of times they just think it looks better. You really only see it on releases of older films. Perhaps the thinking is that people don’t want an old-looking movie. Many of the VHS color changes were just brightness and contrast, making it more pleasant on TVs of the day.
I’m curious Dr. Dre, why is it that so many home releases of movies have a revisionist colour timing like we’ve seen with Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park or the Original Star Wars trilogy? and it’s not just the Blu-rays, they’ve been doing it since the VHS days.
I think it is related to the fact, that the limitations of home video made it virtually impossible to accurately represent the theatrical color timing in the old days. Additionally the scanning techniques used were pretty inaccurate, and required adjustments in color and contrast to be presentable. Current home video standards allow a much more accurate representation, but in many cases the color timing, that people remember, are the ones from their old home videos, and not the one they saw in theatres decades earlier. As such, modern transfers are often scanned directly from the negative, and color timed to be reminiscent of previous home video releases, or in some cases revisionist attempts to modernize classic films. That’s my theory at least.
@DrDre: Looks awesome. Do you have a release date already? What about the audio tracks? I hope i could get it on myspleen 😉
@DrDre: Looks awesome. Do you have a release date already? What about the audio tracks? I hope i could get it on myspleen 😉
Thanks! There’s no release date yet. It’s a shot by shot regrade, which is why it is very time consuming. I currently estimate it will take several months to complete, so hopefully it will be released before the end of this year. Since, the final release will be synced to the bluray, all the bluray audio tracks will be there at least. However, since the initial release will be as a mkv file, followed later by a bluray version, any number of audio tracks can be added.
This weekend I will post a sample video of the famous opening shot of Raiders. It should a nice teaser for the eventual regrade.
Edit: there’s been a little delay, because I’m working on a longer video sample.
I just want to say a couple of things, I am liking the adjustment but…
It’s just I don’t think they would make the opening credits difficult to read?
I just want to say a couple of things, I am liking the adjustment but…
- The re-grade on the opening credits on my screen looks a bit hard to read. But the WOW WOW is much easier to read. Do you think that perhaps that 35mm scan has pushed it a bit too bright?
It’s just I don’t think they would make the opening credits difficult to read?
- The Regrade on the bar shot, although the red tint is mostly gone you have a magenta remnant left in the image, I would also say it’s still a bit too red saturated. I assume it’s still early days on that but something is not right here in the bar. That is a black leather jacket Marion is wearing?
Thanks for your input! I’m going with litemakr’s judgement on this. He balanced the colors to match the projected print. It’s not my intent to improve on the original theatrical color timing. The color matching algorithm will hopefully ensure, that color differences with the print will be minimal, but the first version will be the WOWOW with the print colors and contrast.
In case of the bar scene, the current regrade would look something like this:
35mm LPP:
WOWOW:
WOWOW matched to 35mm LPP:
You should also consider how difficult it is to approach the look of the print for this scene, taking into account the limited color depth, aggravated by the color crush due to the red shift, and the massive differences in colors, brightness, and contrast.
@DrDre: Looks awesome. Do you have a release date already? What about the audio tracks? I hope i could get it on myspleen 😉
Thanks! There’s no release date yet. It’s a shot by shot regrade, which is why it is very time consuming. I currently estimate it will take several months to complete, so hopefully it will be released before the end of this year. Since, the final release will be synced to the bluray, all the bluray audio tracks will be there at least. However, since the initial release will be as a mkv file, followed later by a bluray version, any number of audio tracks can be added.
Please consider including the the LD and DVD tracks. Those are original mixes (or at least very close to original). The Blu-ray track is a remix and not really in the spirit of what you are doing.
@DrDre: Looks awesome. Do you have a release date already? What about the audio tracks? I hope i could get it on myspleen 😉
Thanks! There’s no release date yet. It’s a shot by shot regrade, which is why it is very time consuming. I currently estimate it will take several months to complete, so hopefully it will be released before the end of this year. Since, the final release will be synced to the bluray, all the bluray audio tracks will be there at least. However, since the initial release will be as a mkv file, followed later by a bluray version, any number of audio tracks can be added.
Please consider including the the LD and DVD tracks. Those are original mixes (or at least very close to original). The Blu-ray track is a remix and not really in the spirit of what you are doing.
Certainly, do you have these available by any chance?
@DrDre: Looks awesome. Do you have a release date already? What about the audio tracks? I hope i could get it on myspleen 😉
Thanks! There’s no release date yet. It’s a shot by shot regrade, which is why it is very time consuming. I currently estimate it will take several months to complete, so hopefully it will be released before the end of this year. Since, the final release will be synced to the bluray, all the bluray audio tracks will be there at least. However, since the initial release will be as a mkv file, followed later by a bluray version, any number of audio tracks can be added.
Please consider including the the LD and DVD tracks. Those are original mixes (or at least very close to original). The Blu-ray track is a remix and not really in the spirit of what you are doing.
Certainly, do you have these available by any chance?
Schorman uploaded the laserdisc audio to the spleen for all three Indiana Jones films.
she/her
mwah
@DrDre: Looks awesome. Do you have a release date already? What about the audio tracks? I hope i could get it on myspleen 😉
Thanks! There’s no release date yet. It’s a shot by shot regrade, which is why it is very time consuming. I currently estimate it will take several months to complete, so hopefully it will be released before the end of this year. Since, the final release will be synced to the bluray, all the bluray audio tracks will be there at least. However, since the initial release will be as a mkv file, followed later by a bluray version, any number of audio tracks can be added.
Please consider including the the LD and DVD tracks. Those are original mixes (or at least very close to original). The Blu-ray track is a remix and not really in the spirit of what you are doing.
Certainly, do you have these available by any chance?
Schorman uploaded the laserdisc audio to the spleen for all three Indiana Jones films.
Perfect, thanks!
I’m curious Dr. Dre, why is it that so many home releases of movies have a revisionist colour timing like we’ve seen with Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park or the Original Star Wars trilogy? and it’s not just the Blu-rays, they’ve been doing it since the VHS days.
The studios (and sometimes artists) like to tinker to make things more palatable to what they think the current consumer wants to see. Home video releases up until the last 10 years or so were created from low contrast prints which had the theatrical color timing as a base, but they were tweaked using analog (and later digital) tools, usually in a more general way in terms of tint and exposure.
More recently they have been going back to scan the camera negative, which offers better resolution, but is all over the place in terms of exposure and color (because it comes from different cameras, lighting conditions and film stocks). This process requires a totally new shot by shot digital color grade because the original photochemical color timing only exists downstream from the camera negative. In theory, they should attempt to faithfully re-create the original theatrical timing. The reality is that wholesale color and exposure changes are often made and more “modern” color schemes are used. This is why there has been so much uproar about many recent HD transfers. The reason for this is to make old films look like modern, pristine HD video. Supposedly so they will sell better.
The bar scene is another great example of the horrible effects of DNR applied to the bluray. Here is a comparison, this time using the raw WOWOW footage.
35mm LPP:
Bluray:
WOWOW:
WOWOW regraded:
I imagine this will be the best-looking version of the film compared to the 35mm LPP scan?
I’m not very sure of it myself though. From seeing the comparisons of the HD TV/Blu-ray with the 35mm scan, the 35mm version almost looks excessively dark. I gave it a pass until I noticed the same when comparing the 35mm scan of Star Trek III (released by the same group as this project’s 35mm master) with the HD TV cap, the colours look a hell of a lot more muted, desaturated, and dark.
Perhaps I’ve been ruined by all the extremely bright and vibrant Blu-ray releases of classic films and don’t know how they’re truly supposed to look, but are we absolutely sure that the film’s not just faded or weathered after all this time? Is this fairly accurate to the original presentation?
EDIT: Apologies for all the questions, but does anyone know what master this TV broadcast was sourced from?
I imagine this will be the best-looking version of the film compared to the 35mm LPP scan?
I’m not very sure of it myself though. From seeing the comparisons of the HD TV/Blu-ray with the 35mm scan, the 35mm version almost looks excessively dark. I gave it a pass until I noticed the same when comparing the 35mm scan of Star Trek III (released by the same group as this project’s 35mm master) with the HD TV cap, the colours look a hell of a lot more muted, desaturated, and dark.
Perhaps I’ve been ruined by all the extremely bright and vibrant Blu-ray releases of classic films and don’t know how they’re truly supposed to look, but are we absolutely sure that the film’s not just faded or weathered after all this time? Is this fairly accurate to the original presentation?
EDIT: Apologies for all the questions, but does anyone know what master this TV broadcast was sourced from?
I can’t speak for ST III, but the brightness of the 35mm Raiders is accurate, it isn’t faded at all. The home video versions are created from low contrast prints or negatives and are overly brightened, have less contrast and more shadow detail. The contrast on theatrical prints is higher so there is a larger extreme between brightest and darkest areas, with less detail in those areas. This is difficult to represent in the more limited dynamic range of HD video without crushing the blacks or blowing out the brighter areas. If you watch the bar scene in motion it looks natural, like a low lit, dingy dive bar. Exactly what the filmmakers intended.
The Wowow is a full restoration directly from the camera negative, which required a brand new shot by shot digital color grade. It is mostly well done, at least staying within the same color range as the theatrical. It is over brightened and over saturated, but consistent. This was the intended master for the blu-ray and was used in the early blu-ray promotional trailers.
The same scan was most likely used for the blu-ray, but fairly close to release they decided to change the color. They inconsistently applied an orange/teal “modernized” color palette, reduced contrast, increased brightness (to the point of overexposure), increased DNR and increased saturation. Plus the soundtrack was remixed.
I imagine this will be the best-looking version of the film compared to the 35mm LPP scan?
I’m not very sure of it myself though. From seeing the comparisons of the HD TV/Blu-ray with the 35mm scan, the 35mm version almost looks excessively dark. I gave it a pass until I noticed the same when comparing the 35mm scan of Star Trek III (released by the same group as this project’s 35mm master) with the HD TV cap, the colours look a hell of a lot more muted, desaturated, and dark.
Perhaps I’ve been ruined by all the extremely bright and vibrant Blu-ray releases of classic films and don’t know how they’re truly supposed to look, but are we absolutely sure that the film’s not just faded or weathered after all this time? Is this fairly accurate to the original presentation?
EDIT: Apologies for all the questions, but does anyone know what master this TV broadcast was sourced from?
I can’t speak for ST III, but the brightness of the 35mm Raiders is accurate, it isn’t faded at all. The home video versions are created from low contrast prints or negatives and are overly brightened, have less contrast and more shadow detail. The contrast on theatrical prints is higher so there is a larger extreme between brightest and darkest areas. This is difficult to represent in the more limited dynamic range of HD video without crushing the blacks or blowing out the brighter areas. If you watch the bar scene in motion it looks natural, like a low lit, dingy dive bar. Exactly what the filmmakers intended.
Cool, makes sense.
With that said, you make it sound like scanning from the negative is a BAD thing. Would you think so?
I’m not exactly sure how theatrical prints would have better contrast than the negative itself.
I imagine this will be the best-looking version of the film compared to the 35mm LPP scan?
I’m not very sure of it myself though. From seeing the comparisons of the HD TV/Blu-ray with the 35mm scan, the 35mm version almost looks excessively dark. I gave it a pass until I noticed the same when comparing the 35mm scan of Star Trek III (released by the same group as this project’s 35mm master) with the HD TV cap, the colours look a hell of a lot more muted, desaturated, and dark.
Perhaps I’ve been ruined by all the extremely bright and vibrant Blu-ray releases of classic films and don’t know how they’re truly supposed to look, but are we absolutely sure that the film’s not just faded or weathered after all this time? Is this fairly accurate to the original presentation?
EDIT: Apologies for all the questions, but does anyone know what master this TV broadcast was sourced from?
I can’t speak for ST III, but the brightness of the 35mm Raiders is accurate, it isn’t faded at all. The home video versions are created from low contrast prints or negatives and are overly brightened, have less contrast and more shadow detail. The contrast on theatrical prints is higher so there is a larger extreme between brightest and darkest areas. This is difficult to represent in the more limited dynamic range of HD video without crushing the blacks or blowing out the brighter areas. If you watch the bar scene in motion it looks natural, like a low lit, dingy dive bar. Exactly what the filmmakers intended.
Cool, makes sense.
With that said, you make it sound like scanning from the negative is a BAD thing. Would you think so?
I’m not exactly sure how theatrical prints would have better contrast than the negative itself.
It’s not a bad thing in theory because you get more resolution and more shadow detail. But it can be bad because a completely new digital color grade must be done and often they don’t respect the original theatrical timing. If done correctly, a good digital grade can look like the theatrical and have the benefits of more shadow detail. Too often though, the contrast is reduced too much so the image can be made brighter (like the Raiders blu-ray) and the saturation is over-cranked. And they can’t resist the temptation to change the color and scrub away the grain (reducing the detail they got from the negative in the first place).
Theatrical prints have higher contrast because they are 4 generations from the negative and printed on higher contrast film stock. The details in the brights and darks are reduced with each generation. However you don’t really notice when watching it projected because of the high dynamic range. The range from light to dark looks more natural and less extreme. It is more noticeable on HD video.
Have you seen the new blu-ray remaster of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Some scenes are darker and have more contrast than any previous home video versions, which I assume more accurately reflects the theatrical version. I think it plays much better and looks more like a projected film, even though they did scrub too much grain. I hope we see this in more film remasters.
With that said, you make it sound like scanning from the negative is a BAD thing. Would you think so?
I’m not exactly sure how theatrical prints would have better contrast than the negative itself.
As far as I know, the negatives were never meant to be seen when these films were made and released (before the digital projection era, that is). The wide release of any film was going to be on a third or fourth generation 35mm print, with a limited release on 70mm prints (which, while holding some more detail than 35mm prints due to larger film, would still suffer generational loss).
Also, because it was something that couldn’t be worked around back then, generational grain and contrast was sometimes used to the advantage of the filmmakers; for example, to cover up special effects.
Take a look at this shot comparison:
35mm:
WOWOW (HDTV):
Notice how obvious the matted background is in the HDTV version, compared to the properly lit print image.
EDIT: Sorry to butt in here, haha 😄.
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
With that said, you make it sound like scanning from the negative is a BAD thing. Would you think so?
I’m not exactly sure how theatrical prints would have better contrast than the negative itself.
As far as I know, the negatives were never meant to be seen when these films were made and released (before the digital projection era, that is). The wide release of any film was going to be on a third or fourth generation 35mm print, with a limited release on 70mm prints (which, while holding some more detail than 35mm prints due to larger film, would still suffer generational loss).
Also, because it was something that couldn’t be worked around back then, generational grain and contrast was sometimes used to the advantage of the filmmakers; for example, to cover up special effects.
Take a look at this shot comparison:
Notice how obvious the matted background is in the HDTV version, compared to the properly lit print image.
EDIT: Sorry to butt in here, haha 😄.
Not at all, those are great points. Films were shot and processed at the lab with this in mind. They were never intended to look like the negative looked. They knew the prints would have higher contrast and less shadow/bright detail. Generally speaking, scenes were shot brighter than they would eventually play out, because they had the option of making them darker if needed. It was much easier to make them darker than brighter in the lab, because brightening (called pushing) made the shots more grainy. You can see a number of pushed shots in Raiders during the opening temple scenes. They stand out as grainier and with washed out blacks. Home video versions correct these shots but I left them looking as they would in the theater.
Your screencaps are also a good example of how scrubbing grain and increasing brightness can reveal things not intended to be seen in effects shots. That shot is even brighter on the blu-ray. The opening of the ark scene is the most botched sequence on the blu. MUCH too bright, with some shots which are supposed to be dark looking like daylight. Some of the ghost shots are absurdly overexposed. Inconsistent color from shot to shot. I can’t believe Spielberg ever approved it.
I was shocked when I saw how it looked in the theatrical version. Dark and moody. Mostly dark backgrounds with bright objects like ghosts and fire. It looks great projected and was hard to get right in HD. The wowow is better but still too bright. The DVD is closest, because nothing is overexposed, with more detail than even the theatrical. But it doesn’t get the contrast right.
Another annoying thing about that shot - they digitally altered it to turn on the light.
35mm
WOWOW
Blu-ray
I imagine this will be the best-looking version of the film compared to the 35mm LPP scan?
I’m not very sure of it myself though. From seeing the comparisons of the HD TV/Blu-ray with the 35mm scan, the 35mm version almost looks excessively dark. I gave it a pass until I noticed the same when comparing the 35mm scan of Star Trek III (released by the same group as this project’s 35mm master) with the HD TV cap, the colours look a hell of a lot more muted, desaturated, and dark.
Perhaps I’ve been ruined by all the extremely bright and vibrant Blu-ray releases of classic films and don’t know how they’re truly supposed to look, but are we absolutely sure that the film’s not just faded or weathered after all this time? Is this fairly accurate to the original presentation?
EDIT: Apologies for all the questions, but does anyone know what master this TV broadcast was sourced from?
I can’t speak for ST III, but the brightness of the 35mm Raiders is accurate, it isn’t faded at all. The home video versions are created from low contrast prints or negatives and are overly brightened, have less contrast and more shadow detail. The contrast on theatrical prints is higher so there is a larger extreme between brightest and darkest areas. This is difficult to represent in the more limited dynamic range of HD video without crushing the blacks or blowing out the brighter areas. If you watch the bar scene in motion it looks natural, like a low lit, dingy dive bar. Exactly what the filmmakers intended.
Cool, makes sense.
With that said, you make it sound like scanning from the negative is a BAD thing. Would you think so?
I’m not exactly sure how theatrical prints would have better contrast than the negative itself.
It’s not a bad thing in theory because you get more resolution and more shadow detail. But it can be bad because a completely new digital color grade must be done and often they don’t respect the original theatrical timing. If done correctly, a good digital grade can look like the theatrical and have the benefits of more shadow detail. Too often though, the contrast is reduced too much so the image can be made brighter (like the Raiders blu-ray) and the saturation is over-cranked. And they can’t resist the temptation to change the color and scrub away the grain (reducing the detail they got from the negative in the first place).
Theatrical prints have higher contrast because they are 4 generations from the negative and printed on higher contrast film stock. The details in the brights and darks are reduced with each generation. However you don’t really notice when watching it projected because of the high dynamic range. The range from light to dark looks more natural and less extreme. It is more noticeable on HD video.
Have you seen the new blu-ray remaster of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Some scenes are darker and have more contrast than any previous home video versions, which I assume more accurately reflects the theatrical version. I think it plays much better and looks more like a projected film, even though they did scrub too much grain. I hope we see this in more film remasters.
With the new Star Trek II Blu-ray, I think the image can look a little soft at times, not because of digital processing, but coming from the source.
Star Trek II had a very small budget, so they had to shoot on cheaper film stock. As well, a lot of shots you can see are blatantly out of focus, probably another result of just running out of money for reshoots or more retakes. It’s not so much they scrubbed too much grain, but more it’s just unavoidable. A lot of shots, most shots, still do have a healthy helping of grain, it’s just some shots that can look a little soft.
I’m very interested to see how it looks on UHD BR though, I believe they will be releasing it sometime next year.
I just want to say a couple of things, I am liking the adjustment but…
- The re-grade on the opening credits on my screen looks a bit hard to read. But the WOW WOW is much easier to read. Do you think that perhaps that 35mm scan has pushed it a bit too bright?
It’s just I don’t think they would make the opening credits difficult to read?
- The Regrade on the bar shot, although the red tint is mostly gone you have a magenta remnant left in the image, I would also say it’s still a bit too red saturated. I assume it’s still early days on that but something is not right here in the bar. That is a black leather jacket Marion is wearing?
I struggled with the opening shot credits as well. They are slightly more readable when projected due to more dynamic range when watching on film (there is more range in the upper brights which just can’t be replicated in HD video when scanned from the high contrast theatrical print), but that is basically how they look. That shot from the negative is lower contrast, so it can be manipulated to be more readable in HD video (such as the wowow). Plus it is a second generation optical, whereas the theatrical print would be 6th generation for those shots. Hopefully that makes sense. I am curious to see how that shot looks if we get the second print scanned. It is possible that it is too bright on this print.
Ive been following this thread and really enjoy what Im seeing being done for this restore. It took me a while to figure out what the WOWOW meant. What exactly was it? I know it is a Japanese broadcast company, or something, but what does the acronym stand for? Also, the WOWOW was sourced from what?
Ive been following this thread and really enjoy what Im seeing being done for this restore. It took me a while to figure out what the WOWOW meant. What exactly was it? I know it is a Japanese broadcast company, or something, but what does the acronym stand for? Also, the WOWOW was sourced from what?
The WOWOW is an HDTV broadcast of Raiders of the Lost Ark from the Japanese pay television satalite channel WOWOW:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOWOW
The way I understand it, it is the Lowrey’s original restoration of the film based on a scan of the negative, and color timed to closely match their earlier restoration done for the 2003 DVD, that was also meant to be released along with the other two films in the trilogy, that they also restored around the same time. For some reason Steven Spielberg wasn’t satisfied with the result, and the restoration was redone, with a more modern orange and teal color timing, which was released on bluray.