- Time
- Post link
Where did the use a blue screen on that shot?
'Raiders of the Lost Ark' - bluray and colour timing changes (Released) — Page 17
- Time
- Post link
There's no blue screen, it's a matte painting on glass, which they would have projected the footage through (from behind?),
- Time
- Post link
That's my understanding how matte painting shots are done... any color changes to the shot are most likely deliberate.
- Time
- Post link
marvins said:
Hi. Not sure it can help because it's captured with my video recorder and it's not easy to capture the good colors, but here is a short video from my french 16mm reel (les aventuriers de l'arche perdue).
http://vimeo.com/140466806 (pass:ot.com)
Wow, marvins! How many films do you have on 16mm? It's quite impressive. Soon you'll tell me that you have Back To The Future on 16mm as well :P
“English, motherf***er! Do you speak it!?”
- Time
- Post link
Ok. My bad on how the shot of the amphibious plane was assembled but why does the image i posted have no black matte lines and dr dre image have a thick black matte line. that is why i said blue screen...
The painting part looks over exposed and the focus is well soft blurred even.
Even if they painted the matte paintings a certain way to allow for the final shot in terms of color difference this to me looks bad the other mattes look good comparitively.
I don't think it is intentionally all blurred and the sea is a weird color looks wrong and it is wrong because of the actual method. but most importantly if it was re-done as a composite it is pretty shocking it turned out like it did.
- Time
- Post link
The Blu-Ray has the original 1981 composite (as it should), whereas the DVD and some of the HDTV rips have a re-composited version. And clearly, in the history-revisionist tradition, the fake re-comped version was also used wherever that mattepainting-vs.-final-shot comparison came from.
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- Post link
That makes sense.
But it is lazy of them if they re-comped it for the DVD then it should have been recomped using the raw painting element and not the second generation image.
What classifies as presrrvation and what is revision. putting the raw painting overlay is preserving the matte is it not?
Preserving a partially blurred over exposed image?
- Time
- Post link
Well, I think it's simple: a preservation of the matte-painting is a high resolution scan of the matte-painting itself, a preservation of the scene where the matte-painting was used is a high resolution scan of the earliest possible generation of the final composite of the scene.
Any sort of digital recompositing is revision and not preservation.
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- Post link
The only flaw in this stance on preservation is that, this painting in question was only ever made for that particular scene and it did not come out quite right.
The 2 elements them selves both stand alone and combined are not the issue, the actual process and it seems to be a camera problem is what you are preserving and that is fine but it probably took much longer and much more hard work to create the painting than to point a camera at it for an hour.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yeah, that's why the painting itself should also be preserved independently of the movie, maybe as an extra on the BD, like the SW mattes.
Plus I don't really see anything wrong with the way it looks in the original movie - I've seen far worse matte-painting composites.
Plus it's not a great matte-painting to begin with - the background has a bit of a pencil-sketch feel to it - a bit of blur actually help it look more realistic.
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Harmy said:
Plus it's not a great matte-painting to begin with - the background has a bit of a pencil-sketch feel to it - a bit of blur actually help it look more realistic.
Yes agreed the Blur does help it I had a quick fiddle with it.. the only thing that would be worth taking from it and adding would be the actual sky which is what really seems to have got lost in the original composite.
It was not a huge difference after adding all of it.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
–
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
.
- Time
- Post link
Does any one have the original HDTV file
- Time
- Post link
One of our members here tracked down a rare 1982 LPP of Raiders. There were only 200 made for the '82 re-release. It was mastered from the same 35mm materials as the 1981 prints only unlike the '81 prints there is no fading. As usual the only thing stopping us is the approximately $600 to $750 it costs to scan it. So would anyone be interested?
I saw this old post from September, and was wondering if anything ever happened with this print. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my favorite films, and I’ve been waiting for a 35mm scan to happen, so that it can have proper colors. I’m personally a fan of Dr Dre’s color correction, but that isn’t really 35mm based anymore, and for good reason, though I personally would prefer a color correction based on the second or third examples in his thread.
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.
- Time
- Post link
captainsolo said:
What is atrocious is the complete reworking of the soundtrack from new elements and the abandoning of the original, despite the DVD multichannel mix being a bit restrained (made very obvious in the new 35mm which used this track unlike the IMAX version).
I may get some flack for saying this but I actually prefer the LD for picture despite the aliasing as it seems a bit more natural than the DVD and it is similar to the VHS I grew up with.
Audio…LD wins. No contest. Hands down. End of discussion. The score’s integration alone nails it along with directional panning and fine detail not present in the DVD 5.1 derived from the 70mm master.
I was under the impression that the Blu-ray sound mix was just the same as the DVD (70mm), with the rears redone for 7.1. Is it really significantly different from the dvd? (I’ve only seen the IMAX version, so I don’t know.) I really like how the DVD sounded.
Sorry if this response is late and if its been answered but yes theyre not the same mix. The DVD mix was similar to my old VHS edition. I prefer this mix personally. I dont know the complete list but I know the BD added some additional ‘richocet’ noises during the gun battles which I really dont like. These ‘new’ noises were also on the 1999 VHS (not the same VHS I mentioned before)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
captainsolo said:
What is atrocious is the complete reworking of the soundtrack from new elements and the abandoning of the original, despite the DVD multichannel mix being a bit restrained (made very obvious in the new 35mm which used this track unlike the IMAX version).
I may get some flack for saying this but I actually prefer the LD for picture despite the aliasing as it seems a bit more natural than the DVD and it is similar to the VHS I grew up with.
Audio…LD wins. No contest. Hands down. End of discussion. The score’s integration alone nails it along with directional panning and fine detail not present in the DVD 5.1 derived from the 70mm master.
I was under the impression that the Blu-ray sound mix was just the same as the DVD (70mm), with the rears redone for 7.1. Is it really significantly different from the dvd? (I’ve only seen the IMAX version, so I don’t know.) I really like how the DVD sounded.
Sorry if this response is late and if its been answered but yes theyre not the same mix. The DVD mix was similar to my old VHS edition. I prefer this mix personally. I dont know the complete list but I know the BD added some additional ‘richocet’ noises during the gun battles which I really dont like. These ‘new’ noises were also on the 1999 VHS (not the same VHS I mentioned before)
The Blu is definitely a remix. Ben Burtt went back to the original dialogue/music/sound effects tracks and added a few new things. There are a few slightly different sound effects and level changes. A new subwoofer channel was created, which messed up some of the effects IMO because they were pulled out of the main mix and only the lower tones are heard from the subwoofer. The biggest change is they created stereo surrounds, which is great, but also added a heavy echo in some parts, which is rather obnoxious, it sounds like the orchestra is in a cave. There is more fidelity in the music, but less dynamic range in some parts.
Supposedly the DVD is the 70mm mix converted to 5.1, but the surrounds are too loud and the dynamic range is a little squashed. If you turn the surrounds down a bit it sounds very good. The wowow uses this mix. The widescreen LD is a remix, but pretty faithful and has good dynamic range. The original dolby stereo mix from theatrical prints has excellent dynamic range, especially for an optical track. Not a lot of surround action, but still probably the best overall mix and certainly the most nostalgic because it’s what was heard in theaters. It would be great to have that mix directly from the original tapes.
- Time
- Post link
A preservation of the original mix would definitely be good, absolutely!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
A preservation of the original mix would definitely be good, absolutely!
I do have it from the optical track on a print. I really want the early/alternate mix which can only be found on some 16mm and Super 8mm prints. That has some major differences. This mix is used in film clips on the DVD special features and may have been used for a TBS broadcast, but I have never found a full copy of the broadcast to confirm.
- Time
- Post link
I have the last 10 minutes of the film on 16mm. (Maybe a dupe).
It’s an odd print. Part of it is polyster non-faded for a few minutes,
and then it goes to red faded, but very clean. It is also in widescreen format.
Doesn’t seem to be missing any frames.
Also, it has MGM mentioned in some of the header.
Anyways, the colors look good, and the red faded part can be corrected easily.
Will post a sample of it.
- Time
- Post link
The first 2 minutes of the 16mm are unfaded. The rest was color matched.
This comparison with the 35mm is more for detail.
=========
http://i.imgur.com/Lr2Vhcx.jpg
- Time
- Post link
The 1990s reissue print looks closer to the blu ray. If not as orange in the skin tones.
I have seen film cels that look closer to the blu ray than the 35mm scan.
I wish i had them in hand and a scanner but i don’t.
Really makes me wonder what the color looked like in 1981 if there was a non faded Eastman print.
All the film copies i have seen for sale or film cels from the original release are red and pink.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
The 1990s reissue print looks closer to the blu ray. If not as orange in the skin tones.
I have seen film cels that look closer to the blu ray than the 35mm scan.
I wish i had them in hand and a scanner but i don’t.
Really makes me wonder what the color looked like in 1981 if there was a non faded Eastman print.
All the film copies i have seen for sale or film cels from the original release are red and pink.
I haven’t seen any 1990s era prints. Film prints made 2012 and later are from the blu-ray master, not the original timing, I have snippets of a print.
The 35mm release here:
is from an unfaded original Eastman print.
Here are a few comparisons between the original print, 2003 DVD, 2011 30th anniversary restoration and 2012 blu-ray. The blu-ray is likely based on the 2011 version, but they have brightened it and applied orange and teal filters. The color is fundamentally altered, some shots more than others. The shot of Indy and Marion is an extreme and almost absurd example. And many shots have overexposed elements such as the shot of the angelic apparition.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Why is every release since Lowry so soft looking, and a heavy use of DNR.
You would hope a fresh 4K scan that is as sharp as possibly without artificially sharpening the image or using digital video noise reduction techniques, would be the next step for a 4K UHD release.
But knowing Paramount and Lucasfilm it will be the 4K Imax restoration with the messed up colors. Since that is also the current 4K DCP most likely.
Edit:
Well i watched the blu ray version again as it aired on thanksgiving on Paramount Network. I have no idea how this version ever was passed off as releasable. First you have the problem with Satipos face morphing at the beginning of the film and no consistency in the color timing from reel to reel, sharpness or anything really.
Some scenes are heavily DVNR’ed some are okay, but far too many are overexposed and Indy has sunburn in almost the entire movie with an orange face. The colors are overly muddy looking in places and others too much brightened. I hope this is not the version that makes it to 4K and we get a new scan.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I think the 4k blu-ray has some good colors.