logo Sign In

Info Wanted: Question regarding 'Jurassic Park 3D'... (and info) — Page 2

Author
Time

CEE   Central and Eastern Europe

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TServo2049 said:

I understand all of that, it fits with what poita told me, and I am willing to defer to him because I know he knows his shit.

Don't worry, I am not criticizing this transfer. I absolutely think it looks amazing. I also donated to make this scan happen.

What is CEE?

Central Eastern Europe, I believe.  It seems that a fair amount of releases in this area of the world have far better video quality than in other parts.  I have only a few CEE Bluray releases and it does seem to have validity especially if one gets to see a graph on the video attributes by the numbers.

JEDIT: Damn you Doombot, you beat me to it, LMAO!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, CEE also sometimes gets better transfers too? I remember that before the Shout Factory release of Battle Beyond the Stars, there was a PAL version floating around on Russian trackers that was a better transfer than the New Concorde DVD (it had the 80s WB logo at the front). Or was that just an existing PAL transfer from Western Europe?

Author
Time

TServo2049 said:

Yeah, CEE also sometimes gets better transfers too? I remember that before the Shout Factory release of Battle Beyond the Stars, there was a PAL version floating around on Russian trackers that was a better transfer than the New Concorde DVD (it had the 80s WB logo at the front). Or was that just an existing PAL transfer from Western Europe?

If it was an existing transfer (I don't know the details) it was probably a better transfer from the start. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TServo2049 said:

Forgive my use of the word "amateur." ... I should have used another word, I just couldn't think of one.

 I usually use the term "fan project" ;)

Those shots do look very de-saturated, but still pretty awesome. Any comparison shots?

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Took a preview of the print:

======================

- The first reels colors look off, tones do not look natural.

- The colors get better near the middle, but again vary at the end.

- There are some frame jumps and skips.

- Damage, while minimal, appears throughout the film, and especially at the heads and tails.

- The dark scenes seem to have pixelation or artifacts in them.

===========

- Both sound mixes seem rather low in volume, even when turned up to maximum in MPC-HD.

- Hard to hear some of the dialogue at times.

Overall, a good rough first release.

=====================

Started cleanup, split movie into 4 parts. Should be done with a first pass next week.

We will be removing cue marks.

No current color correction will be done, just cleanup work.

Team Negative1

Author
Time

Checked this out earlier, looks wonderful! If it were tweaked a little and all the damage was removed, it would be perfect. Can't wait to see the outcome of more work.

Author
Time

So, is this the thread where the Jurassic Park 35mm release is discussed?

Anyway, I just watched it, and it was indeed a pretty cool experience. I saw it in theater in 1993 and couldn't remember how it looked. So now, I know that the 3D Blu-ray is a close match colorwise.

Now I know that this is a raw v1.0 that I just watched, but here's my comments anyway, and I'm sure the guys behind it are already aware of these:

- colors do look pale. I believe it would need to be more saturated.

- night scenes are really dark. Is that supposed to be so dark? Maybe to create a creepy mood? I don't know, but that's not how it looks on video since whenever and a lot of details are lost in this dark environment, even on the actors' faces.

- some stabilization would be good, as the movie shakes on many occasions.

- there are some brightness on the left and right sides that is very noticeable, especially in the beginning and ending credits, where the whole frame is black, except for the inscriptions of the credits of course.

And finally, on the plus side: digital creatures do integrate a lot better on film, that's for sure. The T-Rex, the raptors, the galimimuses never looked so real on video. So thanks. Looking forward for the next v2.0 release.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

poita says the print as projected isn't much more saturated. He told me the saturation could be boosted by about 2-3%, but not any more. I guess it really did look like this projected in theaters.

There is definitely more color that can be pulled out of the scan, but if poita says cranking the saturation makes it not theatrically accurate, I believe him.

Author
Time

Beber said:

So, is this the thread where the Jurassic Park 35mm release is discussed?

Anyway, I just watched it, and it was indeed a pretty cool experience. I saw it in theater in 1993 and couldn't remember how it looked. So now, I know that the 3D Blu-ray is a close match colorwise.

Now I know that this is a raw v1.0 that I just watched, but here's my comments anyway, and I'm sure the guys behind it are already aware of these:

- colors do look pale. I believe it would need to be more saturated.

- night scenes are really dark. Is that supposed to be so dark? Maybe to create a creepy mood? I don't know, but that's not how it looks on video since whenever and a lot of details are lost in this dark environment, even on the actors' faces.

- some stabilization would be good, as the movie shakes on many occasions.

- there are some brightness on the left and right sides that is very noticeable, especially in the beginning and ending credits, where the whole frame is black, except for the inscriptions of the credits of course.

And finally, on the plus side: digital creatures do integrate a lot better on film, that's for sure. The T-Rex, the raptors, the galimimuses never looked so real on video. So thanks. Looking forward for the next v2.0 release.

 The 3d is not exactly what I would call close 

Author
Time

It as I have always said, is somewhere between the two 

Author
Time

Here's a crude screen grab from my Mac, with the 3D Blu-ray on top, the 4K scan mkv on the bottom.  I wouldn't call the colors muted...just different.  The DNR is horribly apparent now.

http://i.imgur.com/G6lJycG.jpg

There does seem to be some loss in the shadows on the scan, but again, this could have been artistic.  It's hard to really know because it's possible the release prints weren't right either in this regard.  Really brings up that old debate of how was a film suppose to look: like the OCN or the release print?  

Either way, love this scan.  I don't even mind the minor damage throughout, but I'd be ok seeing it cleaned up.  Just don't scrub that beautiful grain!!!

Thanks guys for this...it made my weekend!

“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”

Author
Time

Since the source is open matte, will you make a 1.33:1 release or is the open matte revealing crew stuff, like microphones, set limits, CGI not entirely covering the frame, etc. ?

Author
Time

IIRC from past 35mm stills I've seen, some of the CGI shots aren't 1:33:1 so the aspect ratio would be inconsistent. Still, I'd love to see a fully open-matte version just for curiosity value. :)

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time

Turisu said:

Still, I'd love to see a fully open-matte version just for curiosity value. :)

So do I :)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

borisanddoris said:

There does seem to be some loss in the shadows on the scan, but again, this could have been artistic.  It's hard to really know because it's possible the release prints weren't right either in this regard.  Really brings up that old debate of how was a film suppose to look: like the OCN or the release print?  

"Supposed to" is a very fluid thing. Maybe the director or DP might have wished it to come out different, and we've seen several prints which look different from later, director-approved video transfers. But on films where the director had creative control all the way through, surely the director (and possibly also the DP) signed off on a fully-timed answer print, upon which the release print processing and timing would be based.

How a film was "supposed" to look, was "meant" to look, how the filmmakers "wanted" it to look are all valid, but how the theatrical release prints actually came out is a concrete historical record that is often forgotten or ignored. The prints may have varied, because of the imperfect nature of photochemical development, but they all have common characteristics. It's like a first edition of a book, or an original pressing of a vinyl record. It is a primary source, even if future releases don't follow it, it is an important historical document.

OK, that was long. I guess my point is, this project is meant to look like the release print, it is from a release print. I've seen 35mm prints, they do have photochemical contrast crush, but it never seems to be distracting when the film is being projected onto a cinema screen. Maybe it's just so much light that the "glow" makes it less evident?

Author
Time

It puts pay to the forum rubbish that film prints do not have any black crush 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, the difference is that digital black crush looks a whole lot worse than photochemical black crush. I could actually see more highlight/shadow detail on an original 70mm blowup release print of Ghostbusters than I could on the pre-4K transfer.

Like teal/orange, the real problem is the way it's applied in the digital realm.

Author
Time

I'm curious to see how the MKV looks projected too.  My stuff is in storage as I am in the middle of a move so my only reference is an iMac.  I have a feeling it's going to look even more marvelous projected, as it should.

“Alright twinkle-toes, what’s your exit strategy?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TServo2049 said:

Yeah, the difference is that digital black crush looks a whole lot worse than photochemical black crush. I could actually see more highlight/shadow detail on an original 70mm blowup release print of Ghostbusters than I could on the pre-4K transfer.

Like teal/orange, the real problem is the way it's applied in the digital realm.

 Oh indeed, but its just the ill informed people who know nothing saying its a digital only issue.

The DI process has ruined the way modern films look 

Author
Time

Asaki said:

Those shots do look very de-saturated, but still pretty awesome.

I've changed my mind. I watched this on Sunday, and it was like I was back in 1993 (man, was it really that long ago??) Everything looked just like I remember.

I mean, except that this time, the film didn't eat itself at the very first dino sighting scene, so we didn't get any "whoops" tickets for free a free pop and popcorn for our next visit.

All it needs is the appropriate trailers at the beginning =)

Beber said:

So, is this the thread where the Jurassic Park 35mm release is discussed?

 I was wondering the same thing...

Beber said:

- night scenes are really dark. Is that supposed to be so dark?

 Looked fine to my eyes, it's supposed to be dark on the island at night ;)

borisanddoris said:

...how was a film suppose to look: like the OCN or the release print? 

 The release print.

TServo2049 said:

Yeah, the difference is that digital black crush looks a whole lot worse than photochemical black crush.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that with digital picture, it's incredibly easy to just have your TV's brightness setting too high, revealing much more than you're supposed to see.

Whereas, with a projection, provided that the room is dark enough, you're only going to see the light energy that was strong enough to filter through the film and bounce off of the screen into your eyeball(s).

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Is it just me or is the left channel on the stereo mix on the 35 mm release louder than the right?

Currently enjoying Disney Infinity 3.0