Sign In

Original Jurassic Park Trilogy 35mm Preservation Project — Page 2

Author
Time

Charles Threepio said:

IIRC the CGI was rendered at a resolution of 1280x768, or 1K @ 5:3.

No they weren’t. The CGI was rendered and printed at 2K, after which it was optically composted onto live-action shots. It’s possible that for some shots they did an optical reduction for compositing which would increase the actual resolution of the CGI beyond 2K on the master negatives.

The effects would have looked horrible at 1280x768. There’s a sweet-spot for resolution and detail when it comes to CGI VFX being integrated to live-action. You want the detail on the final print to roughly match what you get from film. They also have to be photochemically colour-timed just like regular film so that the shots integrate more seamlessly.

Depending on the complexity of the shots they took up to 12 hours per frame to render in 1991/1992. There’s about 4 minutes of VFX and it took about a year to render all up.

[ Valeyard Film Archives | VFA Discord Server - for film enthusiasts, open to the public | SubscribeStar | Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

So basically, 2048x1230, then? (BTW before Jurassic Park wowed and amazed with its effects, T2’s CGI was, indeed, rendered at 1K, specifically 1280 pixels wide, with one shot during the T-1000’s death scene being fuzzier because it was finalized at half that resolution.)

Author
Time

Charles Threepio said:

So basically, 2048x1230, then? (BTW before Jurassic Park wowed and amazed with its effects, T2’s CGI was, indeed, rendered at 1K, specifically 1280 pixels wide, with one shot during the T-1000’s death scene being fuzzier because it was finalized at half that resolution.)

Well that’s a very different type of effect.

It was probably ~2048x1108 or it may have been anything down to ~1920x1038. The printed resolution is 2048x1556, but they don’t need to print any vertical overscan for CGI VFX. Shrek was rendered at 1828 pixels across, but that’s very different because like Toy Story it’s completely CGI so you’re printing directly to how you want it hence you don’t need to use the full horizontal area available for 2K printing (vertical and/or horizontal overscan).

[ Valeyard Film Archives | VFA Discord Server - for film enthusiasts, open to the public | SubscribeStar | Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

So apparently JP was one of the first films to do 2K VFX, huh? Interesting…

Of course, flesh-and-blood dinos and a humanoid bunch of mercury are two different things effects-wise; you don’t need a lot of detail to render a liquid metal version of Robert Patrick, but living dinosaurs are a whole new ballgame.

Author
Time

RU.08 said:

feauxtiger said:

Definitely excited to keep track of this project. Saw a 35mm scan of the original JP the other day and I can’t wait to try and watch it on a projector. I may be in the minority, but I also really love JP3, so knowing that someone is going to show it some love by preserving it warms my heart!

There will be a massive improvement over the old scan for JP1.

Now I’m even more excited! LOL.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Disregard, didn’t notice y’all got to explaining this stuff before I did. No need to repeat anything! lol

Author
Time

@RU.08 are you going to give both Jurassic park and Jurassic park 3 a hdr/Dolby vision grade so the awful uhd blu ray can be retired to the dust bin of garbage video transfers?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Fullmetaled said:

@RU.08 are you going to give both Jurassic park and Jurassic park 3 a hdr/Dolby vision grade so the awful uhd blu ray can be retired to the dust bin of garbage video transfers?

I don’t think there is any need for a Dolby Vision or HDR grade to create colour that closely matches the prints. There was no Dolby Vision or HDR in 2001 or a decade from then. While JP3 is colour timed photochemically, many films post 2001 were graded digitally and they looked fine. SDR colour with proper white balance is enough. 4K scan will ensure almost all details have been preserved. But removal of print damage is needed as the print has scratches at various sections. This will take time.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Papai2013 said:

Fullmetaled said:

@RU.08 are you going to give both Jurassic park and Jurassic park 3 a hdr/Dolby vision grade so the awful uhd blu ray can be retired to the dust bin of garbage video transfers?

I don’t think there is any need for a Dolby Vision or HDR grade to create colour that closely matches the prints. There was no Dolby Vision or HDR in 2001 or a decade from then. While JP3 is colour timed photochemically, many films post 2001 were graded digitally and they looked fine. SDR colour with proper white balance is enough. 4K scan will ensure almost all details have been preserved. But removal of print damage is needed as the print has scratches at various sections. This will take time.

Not 2 start a quarrel but I don’t think you know how HDR works. Film (negatives and prints alike) has higher dynamic range than SDR. Higher color gamut alone would benefit it and HDR would be icing on the cake. It’s only revisionist if you make it so.

4k is only half the picture; detail. You present that in a plain SDR color space you defeat the point if your goal is to release in 4k.

There was no way to see anything close to theatrical quality in the home back when these films came out. Now we have a tool that brings us closer to that experience; to call that tool “revisionist” is, well, a misnomer.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SpookyDollhouse said:

Papai2013 said:

Not 2 start a quarrel but I don’t think you know how HDR works. Film (negatives and prints alike) has higher dynamic range than SDR. Higher color gamut alone would benefit it and HDR would be icing on the cake. It’s only revisionist if you make it so.

There was no way to see anything close to theatrical quality in the home back when these films came out. Now we have a tool that brings us closer to that experience; to call that tool “revisionist” is, well, a misnomer.

I never called the HDR grading tool “revisionist” in my post, did I? I said I feel SDR colouring (especially using 10 bit Rec 709/Rec 2020 gamut) would be enough. Also, I have no way of seeing HDR anyway. My monitor is a 10 bit one that does not support HDR. When I see 4K films, I watch the SDR 10 bit versions only and they feel adequate to me. Sorry if you found my post to be quarrelsome or otherwise. I may be wrong, but I feel most people don’t have HDR displays across the world. There are many Asian countries where people still have SD TVs or 720p/1080p TVs, like in India. HDR TVs and good ones at that, are quite expensive. The cheap ones don’t last long and don’t do HDR justice anyway. Most cable broadcasts are in SD and HD still. You only get 4K in streaming and that still is not something that is the popular option worldwide. 4K HDR is costlier than SDR to purchase online.

Just compare Jurassic Park on 3D and on UHD disc. The former, despite being in SDR HD, is closer to the original warm colour timing and maintains the proper shades of the primary colours even if it pushes towards a bit too orange. The UHD with HDR looks as bland and cold as the DVDs and the Blu-rays with improper tone mapping and incorrect shades of colours.

HDR is a tool, just like SDR. It is not better or worse. Christopher Nolan does not use Dolby Vision on the UHD discs and yet his films look brilliantly shot, timed and composed. So, personally, I don’t think Dolby Vision/HDR is a necessity. And again, there’s no way for me to see it that way either.

Having said that, if you folks can edit it that way, that’s fine as well. I am not opposed to the idea and certainly won’t stop anyone from doing it. I personally feel that HDR/Dolby Vision are not absolutely necessary tools for preserving the 35mm colour tones and shades. Please don’t feel offended.

: )

Author
Time

SpookyDollhouse said:

Higher color gamut alone would benefit it and HDR would be icing on the cake.

Film doesn’t have a “colour gamut”, it’s basically got intensity of reds, greens, and blues which is represented by each corresponding resistive dye layer (magenta blocks green etc). Film has a bit_ more in the reds and oranges and a little bit more in cyan blue and yellow compared with Rec709, but that’s it:

[ Valeyard Film Archives | VFA Discord Server - for film enthusiasts, open to the public | SubscribeStar | Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RU.08 said:

SpookyDollhouse said:

Higher color gamut alone would benefit it and HDR would be icing on the cake.

Film doesn’t have a “colour gamut”, it’s basically got intensity of reds, greens, and blues which is represented by each corresponding resistive dye layer (magenta blocks green etc). Film has a bit_ more in the reds and oranges and a little bit more in cyan blue and yellow compared with Rec709, but that’s it:

Thanks for the above explanation, RU.08. I feel that photochemical colour timing is an organic process that has physical limitations based on the dyes and the chemical reactions that take place. With digital, you could do a lot more; which doesn’t make HDR or Dolby Vision better by default. It’s just a different look. If the final product looks good in the rec 709 or at most Rec 2020 SDR colour space and matches with the look of projected film, then it’s job done I think. I don’t consider HDR or Dolby Vision to be an absolute necessity when preserving 35mm film. But who knows, I may be wrong.

Author
Time

You know he has nothing to do with the JP film scanning project, right?

Author
Time

DoomBot said:

You know he has nothing to do with the JP film scanning project, right?

He better not…
Thanks for this project, TGR97! Will be nice additions to my ever growing official releases I own of this series.

Zero DNR needed regarding restorations, etc… Subtitles please for fan projects.

Author
Time

RU.08 said:

AdmiralWasabi10191 said:

The 4K disc release of Jurassic Park has quite a bit of DNR. Is it from a 3D conversion?

Most likely it would be.

Correction, it is not the same, the color timing is much better than the 3D blu-ray, it doesn’t have the digital alterations the 3D one has, and the 4K has much less DNR than the 3D version

Both are built from the same 4K OCN scan but two completely different masters

Raccoons

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Every single home video version, except the 1994 VHS, has the wrong colour grading. The colours were pushed towards blue and pink, plus desaturated. The greens and yellows, reds were too pale. The original photochemical timing had warm hues - the skin of the actors looked sun-tanned.

When you look at the 1997 VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD, 4K, the skin looks pale and pinkish. The yellow-brown-red tone of the film prints is completely gone in the home video versions. The 3D tried to recreate this effect in the Rec 709 colour space, but they went overboard with the reds and oranges, resulting in reddish skies. But, out of all the higher definition versions, my favourite is the 3D, though it’s not accurate.

The 4K looks no different than the pale and dull-looking Blu-ray. It’s like they scanned the negative/interpositive but decided not to work on the colour correction. The greens of the Ford Explorers should be deep green, not light green. The yellows should be stronger to act as a contrast, but it isn’t the case with the 4K. This is why many 4K buyers/reviewers wonder if they just upscaled the 2011 Blu-ray master.

Author
Time

Papai2013 said:

Every single home video version, except the 1994 VHS, has the wrong colour grading. The colours were pushed towards blue and pink, plus desaturated. The greens and yellows, reds were too pale. The original photochemical timing had warm hues - the skin of the actors looked sun-tanned.

When you look at the 1997 VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD, 4K, the skin looks pale and pinkish. The yellow-brown-red tone of the film prints is completely gone in the home video versions. The 3D tried to recreate this effect in the Rec 709 colour space, but they went overboard with the reds and oranges, resulting in reddish skies. But, out of all the higher definition versions, my favourite is the 3D, though it’s not accurate.

The 4K looks no different than the pale and dull-looking Blu-ray. It’s like they scanned the negative/interpositive but decided not to work on the colour correction. The greens of the Ford Explorers should be deep green, not light green. The yellows should be stronger to act as a contrast, but it isn’t the case with the 4K. This is why many 4K buyers/reviewers wonder if they just upscaled the 2011 Blu-ray master.

I wouldn’t say the 4K is 100% like the old blu-ray, because at least on the 4K the annoying green tinge is gone, but in other aspects it could be a lot better

Raccoons

Author
Time

SpacemanDoug said:

I wouldn’t say the 4K is 100% like the old blu-ray, because at least on the 4K the annoying green tinge is gone, but in other aspects it could be a lot better

It’s almost the same. There are some very subtle improvements, sure, owing to the 4K scan, but they are negligible. The colour grading is the biggest offender for me. It’s just cold and pale compared to the warmer and richer hues of the original photochemical timing. Also, the 4K is more cropped than the 35mm projection. In the projected print, you see more of the top and the right and slightly less of the left side and the bottom. The top and right portion in the of the frame is more cropped in the BD/4K which compromises the composition. The dinosaur snouts/heads get cropped out of frame in the home videos when they bellow/roar at the skies. In the 35mm projections, the heads can be clearly seen inside the frame. The BD/4K also adds extra image at the left, which affects the composition negatively in certain wide shots where the right side was needed more.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I came across an open matte copy of Jurassic Park which showed the boom mics in shot, and in the overhead shot where Ian Malcolm is heard saying “what have they got in there, King Kong?” you can clearly see the end of the track that the tour car is moving on, revealing it to be just a short section used for that particular shot (why they never used the longer track seen in the wide shot with the cars moving through the gates I don’t know).

The file was in 1920x1080 res at about 6gb (HEVC MKV), very good resolution and was nice to see the film with a more saturated look with the more orangery look of the reds and browns. During shots of the CGI effects the image is shown in a wide aspect, and I’ve heard this was the way the effects shots were filmed, but I did notice that the left hand side of the frame during those CGI shots that it’s cropped slightly but the right side shows more than the DVD and bluray version but the bluray and DVD versions show more than the open matte version. Does anyone know why the left side is cropped, shouldn’t it show the full image?.

Author
Time

Firecracker00 said:

I came across an open matte copy of Jurassic Park… During shots of the CGI effects the image is shown in a wide format and I’ve heard this was the way the effects shots were filmed, but I did notice that the left hand side of the frame during those CGI shots that it’s cropped slightly but the right side shows more than the DVD and bluray version but the bluray and DVD versions show more than the open matte version. Does anyone know why the left side is cropped, shouldn’t it show the full image?.

The very left side of the frame gets printed over by the sound strip that is placed at the left side of the print. The right side has nothing obscuring the edges, hence you see more picture. The effects shots were filmed on VistaVision cameras that have a tall 1.47:1 aspect ratio. They were then cropped to a 16:9 type of shape, for ease of rendering (less amount of effects rendered is less cost in post-production and more time saved). The film gate through which the entire print passes, not only hides the sprocket holes and splices, but also obscures more image at the edges for stabilisation purposes. The DVD, Blu-ray don’t show much more image than the theatre, but the Laserdisc and THX Widescreen VHS did. They showed the full width of the negative. The DVD and Blu-ray actually show less image and a slightly different framing than the projected theatrical prints. They cut off more headroom than the projected image did.

Author
Time

Papai2013 said:

Firecracker00 said:

I came across an open matte copy of Jurassic Park… During shots of the CGI effects the image is shown in a wide format and I’ve heard this was the way the effects shots were filmed, but I did notice that the left hand side of the frame during those CGI shots that it’s cropped slightly but the right side shows more than the DVD and bluray version but the bluray and DVD versions show more than the open matte version. Does anyone know why the left side is cropped, shouldn’t it show the full image?.

The very left side of the frame gets printed over by the sound strip that is placed at the left side of the print. The right side has nothing obscuring the edges, hence you see more picture. The effects shots were filmed on VistaVision cameras that have a tall 1.47:1 aspect ratio. They were then cropped to a 16:9 type of shape, for ease of rendering (less amount of effects rendered is less cost in post-production and more time saved). The film gate through which the entire print passes, not only hides the sprocket holes and splices, but also obscures more image at the edges for stabilisation purposes. The DVD, Blu-ray don’t show much more image than the theatre, but the Laserdisc and THX Widescreen VHS did. They showed the full width of the negative. The DVD and Blu-ray actually show less image and a slightly different framing than the projected theatrical prints. They cut off more headroom than the projected image did.

Thanks for that, I heard something similar to what you said there on a youtube video about the open matte version. But why does the bluray version I have show a small amount to the left side but the open matte version is cropped, only slightly but noticeable?. Do you know where the open matte version of JP came from and how they got hold of them?. Also, I noticed there was a 16:9 aspect during a non effects shot where the camera moves into Grant’s face as he is looking towards the herd of Brachiosaurs moving across the lake below, but the other non effects shots go back to the open matte look.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Firecracker00 said:

Thanks for that, I heard something similar to what you said there on a youtube video about the open matte version. But why does the bluray version I have show a small amount to the left side but the open matte version is cropped, only slightly but noticeable?. Do you know where the open matte version of JP came from and how they got hold of them?. Also, I noticed there was a 16:9 aspect during a non effects shot where the camera moves into Grant’s face as he is looking towards the herd of Brachiosaurs moving across the lake below, but the other non effects shots go back to the open matte look.

I don’t know why that close-up shot (and another one where he says “they move in herds”) was matted. Such shots probably had green screen. We know that they couldn’t film inside the ranch where the lake is. The wide shot of the Brachios wading on the lake is a still photo frame that was animated during post-production. the actors were shot with a green screen in the foreground and later composited in the photo, edited to look like a motion picture image; with heatwaves, reflections on the water surface and camera shakes, etc.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Papai2013 said:

Firecracker00 said:

Thanks for that, I heard something similar to what you said there on a youtube video about the open matte version. But why does the bluray version I have show a small amount to the left side but the open matte version is cropped, only slightly but noticeable?. Do you know where the open matte version of JP came from and how they got hold of them?. Also, I noticed there was a 16:9 aspect during a non effects shot where the camera moves into Grant’s face as he is looking towards the herd of Brachiosaurs moving across the lake below, but the other non effects shots go back to the open matte look.

I don’t know why that close-up shot (and another one where he says “they move in herds”) was matted. Such shots probably had green screen. We know that they couldn’t film inside the ranch where the lake is. The wide shot of the Brachios wading on the lake is a still photo frame that was animated during post-production. the actors were shot with a green screen in the foreground and later composited in the photo, edited to look like a motion picture image; with heatwaves, reflections on the water surface and camera shakes, etc.

I never knew that they couldn’t film at the place where the lake is, strange I don’t recall hearing this on any JP documentary of behind the scene. I have recording of an episode of a UK series called “Schofield in Hawaii” from 1995 where Philip Schofield visits the Kawai location used for the helicopter ride and landing pad to the island and he talks to the owner of the land, but he never mentions anything about that the crew couldn’t film at the lake only that they had to use dummies inside when the copter descending down the waterfall due it being a dangerous descent. The shot I was referring to is the shot of Grant turning to look at the lake below. After this and the Brachiosaur lake shot it cuts back to Hammond and it’s now back to an open matte, but than after that cuts back to Grant saying “they move in herds…” and it’s back to the wider “hard matte?” aspect, even though it’s only an head shot of the actor.

Do you know where these open matte versions have come from, how do people get hold of these which won’t be released on any home video copy? as I say, the one I found you can see the edges of the film in certain shots, the tape visible on the visitors jeeps plastic roof and boom mics visible like during the helicopter ride to the island). The file seems to be really huge despite only being about 6gb (I suspect it’s much bigger) and an MP4 1920x1080 file and my laptop can’t process the video without the image breaking up. Converting to an MP4 file using Handbrake does the trick but encoding the entire film takes about 10 hours to do for some reason.