logo Sign In

'Raiders of the Lost Ark' - bluray and colour timing changes (Released) — Page 12

Author
Time
 (Edited)

That's fair enough. To be fair they said it was a new scan. That doesnt mean they had to have started it like 3 months before they said that. It could've been in the works for a while.

That being said, it doesnt mean the wowow colors are correct. What if they went for colors that were closer to other home media before they decided that no, they were going to make it more like the original release this time.

edit: when I say "correct" I mean, at least close to the original coloring. Since prints would've differed based on a number of circumstances, there will never be one 100% solid "correct" color timing.

Author
Time

jero32 said:

litemakr said:

 on the blu-ray. It is kind of shocking how bad some of the shots are once you see how they are supposed to look and how much detail is lost.

 But...we dont KNOW what its supposed to look like. (In fact, with a lot of negative1's scans turning out so dark. I'm starting to think theatrical prints weren't very good at detailed blacks. It'd be nice if a guy with actual experience with this stuff could chime in on that.) That's kind of why we're posting screenshots of trailers and stuff isn't it?

Overexposure and such can all be used as an effect.

I agree its more gold (with some red so thats why its orange) tinted than blue/teal.

edit: about the wowow being a different master. I might be wrong, but didnt screenshot comparisons not match up exactly? Since film will move a bit in the scanner typically right? (So you'll never get a 100% identical scan, although it might be close) That suggests its a different scan.

Effects shots are completed separately and then cut into the negative. Any "intentional" overexposure would be done then. And since no other release has those serious overexposures (and clearly the negative doesn't) I think we can safely say it is not supposed to look like that. When the VHS has more detail than the blu-ray, something is wrong.

They clearly tried to correct the overexposure by dulling the highlights in Davinci or whatever color correction program they used instead of properly balancing the shots. It's pure amateur stuff and it looks bad, especially on a large screen. The ark opening scene is supposed to be dark, not bright. I have a super 8 version of the sequence and the background should be dark and the ghosts and fire should be brighter and glowing, but not overexposed to the point of blowing out detail. Indy and Marion are not supposed to look like oompa loompas. Seriously, I just don't understand why people defend the blu-ray despite its many obvious problems. You can argue color preference and accuaracy all day, but not overexposed, blown out whites and crushed blacks. Those are mistakes. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

jero32 said:

litemakr said:

 on the blu-ray. It is kind of shocking how bad some of the shots are once you see how they are supposed to look and how much detail is lost.

 But...we dont KNOW what its supposed to look like. (In fact, with a lot of negative1's scans turning out so dark. I'm starting to think theatrical prints weren't very good at detailed blacks. It'd be nice if a guy with actual experience with this stuff could chime in on that.) That's kind of why we're posting screenshots of trailers and stuff isn't it?

Overexposure and such can all be used as an effect.

I agree its more gold (with some red so thats why its orange) tinted than blue/teal.

edit: about the wowow being a different master. I might be wrong, but didnt screenshot comparisons not match up exactly? Since film will move a bit in the scanner typically right? (So you'll never get a 100% identical scan, although it might be close) That suggests its a different scan.

Wowow is cropped slightly differently, there is more picture at the top. I assume a scan takes in the full frame and cropping is done later. It could be a different scan, but it doesn't make much sense from a cost perspective. The camera negative would be all over the place timing wise and it would be very expensive to repair and recolor 2 times when the wowow was a very good scan and was done by the same company. To me, the blu looks like wowow with tweaked gamma and the orange/teal/gold (whatever) filter haphazardly applied. 

This article mentions Laser Pacific having recently done a full restoration of Raiders (the wowow version):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/technicolor-completes-acquisition-laser-pacific-237165

Here is the Laser Pacific colorist discussing that Raiders will be getting a full restoration (and possible 3D version lol). This is all before Techinicolor bought them:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2011/04/colorist-lou-levinson-on-restoring-and-sometimes-re-thinking-movies-with-the-baselight/

If we use the blu ray trailer as a timeline guide (because it uses wowow when touting the restoration) then the blu-ray re-color must have been done late in the game, very close to the blu-ray release:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba2eMxx0oHs

Maybe they decided at the last minute to try to make the 4 movies match more closely or wanted to create a more modern "look" and it was done quickly.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Who says I'm defending the bluray? I just see a lot of people bashing on it, and I'm just asking questions to try and figure out what the correct color timing should be.

The info you just posted is actually a great example of an argument I LIKE to hear, because its thought out and explains the process of making a film (Which I love to read about).

But about the negative, even if effects are cut in seperately. The negative stil isn't timed right? On top of that wouldn't generational loss cause a bit over overexposure? It's very obvious on star wars near the wipes sometimes.

Could be that they were keeping that in mind?

(edit: Unlikely though if thats not what it looks like on your super8 print)

Granted, in this case I agree it's most likely that the bluray took some liberties with these things. (I stil don't agree that as a whole the bluray is a bad release though)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

jero32 said:

Who says I'm defending the bluray? I just see a lot of people bashing on it, and I'm just asking questions to try and figure out what the correct color timing should be.

The info you just posted is actually a great example of an argument I LIKE to hear, because its thought out and explains the process of making a film (Which I love to read about).

But about the negative, even if effects are cut in seperately. The negative stil isn't timed right? On top of that wouldn't generational loss cause a bit over overexposure? It's very obvious on star wars near the wipes sometimes.

Could be that they were keeping that in mind?

(edit: Unlikely though if thats not what it looks like on your super8 print)

Granted, in this case I agree it's most likely that the bluray took some liberties with these things. (I stil don't agree that as a whole the bluray is a bad release though)

I wasn't trying to call you out, I enjoy the spirited discussion here ;-)

The Raiders effects were done on Vista Vision (35mm shot horizontally for a much larger and sharper widescreen image) so that they would have less obvious generational loss and less grain. I believe Star Wars did this as well, but could be wrong. Transitions like wipes and dissolves use regular 35mm elements, so the dupes won't look as good. There is a Cinefex article where the artists bemoan losing some of the fine detail on the ghosts during compositing, so I find it hard to believe they would intentionally overexpose to remove even more detail. Still the look would vary from print to print. My super 8 print is more overexposed on some shots than the DVD version (which was made from an IP) but not to the extent of the blu-ray.

Author
Time

A new state of the art 4k scan would show more detail than the wowow surely?

Author
Time

Wasn't there also a BBC HDTV version of Raiders that looks the same as the DVD but in HD? I'm sure there was a comparison somewhere between it and the wowow.

Author
Time

Yep was on again over Xmas, it's what the cgi truck bit came from 

Author
Time

At some point we will be working on the Indiana Jones trilogy. But that will be some time from now. Will be interesting to see the colors on the prints.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

Oh wow, I can't wait for that. Do you have a lead on an LPP of Raiders, like the one that was on eBay a couple years back?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

dvdmike said:

Yep was on again over Xmas, it's what the cgi truck bit came from 

That version has also aired on USA/SyFy. I think it's the Lowry DVD version before the final digital cleanup. (The big blue line in the dig scenes is still in evidence, while it was digitally removed on the actual DVD.)

I can't remember if we know the story behind the CGI truck shot. Did Lucas commission it, then Spielberg nixed it? Did Spielberg ask for it, then change his mind?

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

At some point we will be working on the Indiana Jones trilogy. But that will be some time from now. Will be interesting to see the colors on the prints.

Team Negative1

 That made my day thanks guys

Author
Time

dvdmike said:

Yep was on again over Xmas, it's what the cgi truck bit came from 

 I'd like to see that, is there a torrent anywhere you know of? They used to broadcast it in the US on Spike network, but now they show the blu-ray.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

team_negative1 said:

At some point we will be working on the Indiana Jones trilogy. But that will be some time from now. Will be interesting to see the colors on the prints.

Team Negative1

 That would be amazing. Do you have a print already? I've only ever seen one 35 print offered on eBay, but it had pretty bad red shift. I almost got a very nice low fade 16mm print a few months ago but was outbid at the last second.

Author
Time

Fantastic work all. What the flip is up with the light change???

Here's my two cents:

Remember the DVD was a Lowry job, so it may not be fully accurate. It does seem to match the LD overall and not be a "new scan cleanup" like they always advertised and then proceeded to remove all grain.

On the big screen in 35mm the new restoration was FAR too overexposed 100% of the time and the level in brightness really contrasted with the boosted and re-timed color. It didn't sit right with me at all.

I agree that the BD likely uses the same base scan as the WOWOW with further tinkering done by both those involved and Spielberg's own admitted tweaking to the opening. (not even getting into Ben Burtt completely redoing the sound mix.)

My overall thought? The film was shot fast and dirty, without a light meter and is likely going to be a bit on the brighter side especially in the exteriors. The scan reflects this, the BD overemphasizes this, and it appears that this was tamed for VHS/LD in the days of early video and maintained by Lowry for the DVD as it was deemed more correct in terms of video of the era. (They did  this all the time. Just go back to their atrocious North by Northwest DVD)

Of course, we've seen trailers in various states of color and brightness and have no idea if they, 16mm, BD, WOWOW, 8mm or anything else available is correct.

I do believe that all three have this odd dark /bright exposure dynamic as cells from TOD are different from video and LC looked this way when on ebay a few years back.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

We should have access to the entire trilogy, the second and third movies are LPP. The Raiders print is supposed to be in good condition, but we don't have all the details yet.

The planning for that is in the very early stages. Once we are ready to announce something, we'll be more definite.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

captainsolo said:

Fantastic work all. What the flip is up with the light change???

Here's my two cents:

Remember the DVD was a Lowry job, so it may not be fully accurate. It does seem to match the LD overall and not be a "new scan cleanup" like they always advertised and then proceeded to remove all grain.

On the big screen in 35mm the new restoration was FAR too overexposed 100% of the time and the level in brightness really contrasted with the boosted and re-timed color. It didn't sit right with me at all.

I agree that the BD likely uses the same base scan as the WOWOW with further tinkering done by both those involved and Spielberg's own admitted tweaking to the opening. (not even getting into Ben Burtt completely redoing the sound mix.)

Indeed, why would they fix the light of all things but then go back and include the original matte shot of the plane (when the digitally tweaked shot  does look better and isn't really noticeable)? 

I agree that the restoration/blu-ray looks worse when projected. On a computer and smaller TV the flaws are not as noticeable. I have a 110" screen so it looks pretty bad, especially the overexposed shots. I really noticed it during the IMAX screening. My non movie obsessed friend commented on how orange it looked.

On the same note, the Wowow looks better projected than on a computer screen. It has more depth than the blu-ray, which isn't as evident when viewed on a computer. The wowow projected is a nice experience.  I recently showed it to some friends who had never seen Raiders on a big screen and they were impressed.

What did Spielberg tweak in the opening? The boulder shots?

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

We should have access to the entire trilogy, the second and third movies are LPP. The Raiders print is supposed to be in good condition, but we don't have all the details yet.

The planning for that is in the very early stages. Once we are ready to announce something, we'll be more definite.

Team Negative1

 I am VERY excited to see that

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

We should have access to the entire trilogy, the second and third movies are LPP. The Raiders print is supposed to be in good condition, but we don't have all the details yet.

The planning for that is in the very early stages. Once we are ready to announce something, we'll be more definite.

Team Negative1

 Badass. I shouldn't say this on a Star Wars forum but I would look more forward to that then A New Hope and ROTJ (and I love those movies)

Author
Time

team_negative1 said:

We should have access to the entire trilogy, the second and third movies are LPP. The Raiders print is supposed to be in good condition, but we don't have all the details yet.

The planning for that is in the very early stages. Once we are ready to announce something, we'll be more definite.

Team Negative1

 Team Negative 1 wins the internet again

Author
Time

litemakr said:

This is a comparison I made to demonstrate exposure/gamma problems during the Ark opening sequence. That is by far the most botched scene on the blu-ray. It is kind of shocking how bad some of the shots are once you see how they are supposed to look and how much detail is lost. Wowow is better but still has problems. The DVD has the best exposure and matches the look of the laserdisc.

This also shows a digital tweak to the blu-ray I haven't seen discussed elsewhere.

Note that the descriptions refer to the screenshot below them, not above. I am curious to hear what people think. 

http://imgur.com/a/BnYld

Thanks for posting. Your comparisons aren't frame accurate though, in other cases where it's done to show a general timing it may not matter much but in these particular shots where there's a lot of things going on from one frame to the next, it's quite misleading. The contrast and brightness between DVD and Wowow aren't as different as your comparisons lead us to believe. Just an example...

Yours:

Frame accurate:

As you can see the Wowow isn't any brighter, the DVD in this shot is actually a bit warmer and more contrasty.

 

And this is fucking ridiculous. What about the light in the left corner of the frame, will that one be lit on the next release? It seems like the filmmaker's still can't decide on how they want their film presented, or is it just the computer nerds who call themselves "restoration artists" who simply cannot leave the fx-work alone?

litemakr said:

What did Spielberg tweak in the opening? The boulder shots?

Except for the altered boulder shots, the only concrete I've heard is the minor info we got from producer Frank Marshall in the radio interview the year before release...

"Frank Marshall, the producer of all 4 films, was on "Geek Time" and said the transfers for the blu-rays are done and approved by Spielberg with modifications. All he said was changed was the brightness during the jungle chase at the beginning of the film. Spielberg felt it was too dark. He gave no release date..." http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=21508

Unfortunately I can't find the broadcast any longer, we discussed some of this here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Re-mixed-audio-tracks-on-video-releases/post/579169/#TopicPost579169

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time
 (Edited)

msycamore said:

litemakr said:

This is a comparison I made to demonstrate exposure/gamma problems during the Ark opening sequence. That is by far the most botched scene on the blu-ray. It is kind of shocking how bad some of the shots are once you see how they are supposed to look and how much detail is lost. Wowow is better but still has problems. The DVD has the best exposure and matches the look of the laserdisc.

This also shows a digital tweak to the blu-ray I haven't seen discussed elsewhere.

Note that the descriptions refer to the screenshot below them, not above. I am curious to hear what people think. 

http://imgur.com/a/BnYld

Thanks for posting. Your comparisons aren't frame accurate though, in other cases where it's done to show a general timing it may not matter much but in these particular shots where there's a lot of things going on from one frame to the next, it's quite misleading. The contrast and brightness between DVD and Wowow aren't as different as your comparisons lead us to believe. Just an example...

As you can see the Wowow isn't any brighter, the DVD in this shot is actually a bit warmer and more contrasty.

 And this is fucking ridiculous. What about the light in the left corner of the frame, will that one be lit on the next release? It seems like the filmmaker's still can't decide on how they want their film presented, or is it just the computer nerds who call themselves "restoration artists" who simply cannot leave the fx-work alone?

litemakr said:

What did Spielberg tweak in the opening? The boulder shots?

Except for the altered boulder shots, the only concrete I've heard is the minor info we got from producer Frank Marshall in the radio interview the year before release...

"Frank Marshall, the producer of all 4 films, was on "Geek Time" and said the transfers for the blu-rays are done and approved by Spielberg with modifications. All he said was changed was the brightness during the jungle chase at the beginning of the film. Spielberg felt it was too dark. He gave no release date..." http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=21508

Unfortunately I can't find the broadcast any longer, we discussed some of this here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Re-mixed-audio-tracks-on-video-releases/post/579169/#TopicPost579169

You are right about that frame being slightly off. My main point was the difference in the blu-ray, not the wowow, although I still think the wowow is slightly brighter in your frames (look at the sand and curtains on the left). Regardless, the wowow looks acceptable but the blu-ray is too bright for that entire sequence. 

And yes, the continuous tweaking is annoying, made even more so because now they just deny they are doing it. Spielberg made a big deal about the blu-ray being a "warts and all" restoration of the theatrical version and it couldn't be further from the truth. New digital changes, new color, new gamma, new sound mix.  There is nothing original about it.

Author
Time

I can see it now: on sale this week with s*** digital copy included, the Ultimate Special Edition of Raiders of the Lost Ark: Reflecting the Snakes, Warts and All...no changes, Dolby 35mm+Dolby 70mm+abandoned split surround VistaSonic mixes...

The new release being a "restoration"...it is sooo apparent on film that it is not.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

By the way, which laserdisc are people referring to as being closer to wowow?

My laserdisc seems warmer and closer to the blu-ray...Weird.