litemakr

The widescreen LD remix is my favorite mix as well. It has the best overall balance and dynamics. If we could get a pristine version of the original Dolby mix that would be my first choice. I like the DVD/70mm mix as well, but it doesn’t quite have the same punch, even though it has discreet tracks. The blu-ray mix is quite a disappointment. Ben Burtt clearly went back to the original tapes to get the best quality, then did a bass heavy mix that is strangely flat in places. Plus the echoed music in the surround channels is really annoying.

I need to do more comparison on the 1989 LD mix, but it is not the same as the optical mix. It doesn’t seem to have any surround information encoded. Since that mix was done in 1983, I’m guessing it is a 2 channel stereo mix made specifically for home video and intentionally compressed to play well on mono TV speakers.

I suspect the Vistasonic mix sounds more like the alternate mix. That mix is more rough and the theatrical version is more polished. The foreign mixes probably use the alternate mix because the English mix was redone close to release and there wasn’t time to go back and change all of the foreign mixes.

Btw, alexp120, the blu-ray mix is not synched up correctly in your release. The audio is ahead most of the time. The LD mixes seem correct.

After listing to the 1989 LD soundtrack some more it’s clear it is a remix. The optical track seems to be the only option for original theatrical sound. Here is a perfect scene to compare all 4 soundtracks:

After the ark is opened and Toht is laughing, the generator starts whirring and the lights explode. Then the Ark starts humming ominously. Mist erupts and emerges. Watch with each soundtrack starting around 1:45:50 to 1:46:28 (adjusting to a comparable volume for each) and listen for the following:

35mm Optical Dolby Track
The sound of the lights exploding is loud, with good dynamics. The humming of the Ark is distinct. The sound effects of the mist erupting and emerging are distinct.

1989 Japanese LD
The sound is thin and compressed, with less dynamic volume when the lights explode. There is an added echo as the generator flames out which isn’t on the optical track. The humming is less distinct. The sound effects of the mist erupting and emerging are distinct.

1992 LD
There is an added wind sound that starts right before the generator whir which isn’t on the other tracks. The lights exploding are loud and distinct. No echo on the flame out. The sound of the mist emerging is muted.

2002 blu-ray
The wind sound is there with less volume. The lights exploding have more bass, but aren’t as dynamic. No echo on the flame out. The music has a distinct echo added, which is very pronounced in the surround channels. The humming is much lower in volume. The sound of the mist emerging is muted.

Comparing the optical and blu-ray directly you can really hear the differences. The dynamics of the optical mix are much more dramatic.

stretch009 said:

stretch009 said:

A little bit off topic but which LD track (what year) is used on the Spleen’s 38gb WOWOW?

Edit: Okay it’s probably more than a little off topic but I just couldn’t help but wonder if the WOWOW on the Spleen has the unlistenable 1989 mix or not.

Do you know litemakr? I don’t want to burn it to a BD50 until I know what LD mix it is.

I don’t know what mix was included in that version.

clutchins said:

The thing about using the Japanese LD over the American ones for the original mix is that it’s the only LD that uses a digital mix. All the American ones are analog.

Digital sound doesn’t matter if the sound is compressed. The Japanese disc doesn’t sound any better than the VHS HiFi track IMO.

Dek Rollins said:

litemakr said:

Listened to these last night. You did a great job of smoothing out the edits. The 1989 laserdisc mix is really compressed, to the point that it isn’t listenable IMO. I think the original Dolby optical track is much better. There doesn’t seem to be a good uncompressed source for the original 1981 mix.

Yeah, I thought it just sounded too quiet and lacking in the dynamic sound of the optical track. Does the original LD release have the same track as the '89 Japanese LD?

I forgot how much I liked the 1992 laserdisc mix. It’s a remix, but still pretty close to the original Dolby mix. It’s probably the best overall mix, with good dynamics.

Are there any notable differences between the '81 and '92 mixes that would make it too unoriginal for a purist?

All home video releases from 1983-1991 have the same mix. I’m not completely sure if it is exactly the same as the theatrical. It is pretty flat and compressed, as you would expect since most people back then would be hearing it on a small TV speaker.

All LD and VHS releases from 1992-2002 have the same remixed soundtrack. There are very slight differences in sound effects, the most notable being the sound of the staff being dropped into the map room and a wind sound before the lights explode on the altar. There might be more but I haven’t directly compared it to the theatrical. Plus very slight differences in levels. Overall still a very good mix with good dynamic range.

From 2003-2011 all releases use the DVD mix, which is a 5.1 version of the 70mm 6 track mix. The surrounds are a bit too loud IMO, but it is all original AFAIK.

All releases since 2012 use the blu-ray remix.

I have been trying to get a hold of the alternate mix, which was used on some 16mm prints and possibly a TBS broadcast. This is (probably) an early mix and is less polished. It has some different dialogue takes, very different music editing and differences in sound effects and levels. This mix is the base for most foreign language mixes. So if you listen to the French mix on the DVD or blu-ray for example, you are hearing the music and effects for this mix. Compare the opening of the ark scene, for example, to hear very different (and more rough) music editing, vocal effects and sound effects.

Listened to these last night. You did a great job of smoothing out the edits. The 1989 laserdisc mix is really compressed, to the point that it isn’t listenable IMO. I think the original Dolby optical track is much better. There doesn’t seem to be a good uncompressed source for the original 1981 mix.

I forgot how much I liked the 1992 laserdisc mix. It’s a remix, but still pretty close to the original Dolby mix. It’s probably the best overall mix, with good dynamics. The blu-ray remix has a lot more subwoofer bass, but levels are wrong, sound effects are subdued or missing and it actually lacks dynamic range in places. Plus the music has a rather obnoxious echo effect added to the surround channels.

alexp120 said:

To enhance this rare LLP theatre experience, I’ve uploaded on the ‘spleen a folder containing audio files of sound mixes of the film that have been edited to play in sync with this release.

Rather than duplicate the unintentional splicing of the release print’s optical soundtrack caused by damaged missing frames, these edits were made to polish the transition over the skip-frames so that you can better immerse yourself into the movie.

The audio options are as follows:
5.1 channel, DTS-HDMA mix from the official 2012 Blu Ray release. [dts file]
2.0 channel, Dolby Surround-encoded, 1981 theatrical mix sourced from the 1989 Japanese, Full-Screen, LaserDisc release (WAV file)*
2.0 channel, Dolby Surround-encoded, 1992 mix for the US, Wide-Screen LaserDisc release (WAV file)*

All you have to do is mux these files to the MKV video and you are good to go.

Bear in mind that each of these audio files includes the length of the introduction that proceeds the film, so, for best results, apply these files to the original video file that came with litemakr’s release

*audio files were made possible by schorman13 from his Indiana Jones LaserDisc Archive. My thanks to schorman13 for capturing the LD’s audio, for sharing, and for maintaining the archive.

Enjoy.

Awesome, thanks! If you have some extra time, the DVD mix should be included. That is a 5.1 version of the original 70mm 6 track mix. Pretty much the same as the wowow mix but less compressed. I prefer it to the blu-ray mix, which is a bit too remixed for me.

Ronster said:

I just want to say a couple of things, I am liking the adjustment but…

1. 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?

2. 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.

Dek Rollins said:

Shalashaska said:

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

Shalashaska said:

litemakr said:

Shalashaska said:

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.

Shalashaska said:

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.

DrDre said:

litemakr said:

Dek Rollins said:

I have a question: why do some scenes have this blue-violet flicker over the image?

Is that part of the print, or is that from the scan? Just curious.

That is part of the print. There is some kind of damage to the second half of reel 2 from the bar gunfight to the middle of the Cario sequence. It could have happened when the print was made at the lab, or the reel could have had something spilled on it. The plan is to replace that entire section if and when we are able to scan a second print.

It should actually be possible to correct the blue-violet flicker with the color matching algorithm using neighbouring frames:

It’s not always a flicker, it’s more of discolored stain which runs intermittently through around 10 minutes of the movie. I think it would be very difficult to correct, but I’m open to trying if we can’t get another print scanned for the section.

Dek Rollins said:

I have a question: why do some scenes have this blue-violet flicker over the image?

Is that part of the print, or is that from the scan? Just curious.

That is part of the print. There is some kind of damage to the second half of reel 2 from the bar gunfight to the middle of the Cario sequence. It could have happened when the print was made at the lab, or the reel could have had something spilled on it. The plan is to replace that entire section if and when we are able to scan a second print.

fmalover said:

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.

DrDre said:

smack said:

@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 said:

litemakr said:

DrDre said:

I’m really curious to know, which home video release first introduced the red cast in the bar? It really changes the atmosphere.

I recently bought the first laserdisc release from 1984. However, I don’t own a laserdisc player, so I should have it transfered to dvd. It’s pan and scan, but I guess it still has some historic significance.

That’s the first home video release. I have the VHS version, I’ll track it down and take a look. The next transfer was in 1991 for the widescreen LD and VHS, I’ll check that too.

The scenes in 1981 making of have the correct color.

Did you get a chance to take a look at those home video releases?

I did find my original Raiders VHS from 1983. Unfortunately the bar scene doesn’t play anymore, it is all static. Some parts do play, and wow it’s amazing how bad the quality is. But I remember getting it as a kid and watching it repeatedly and thinking it looked great.

Anyway, I couldn’t see enough to determine the color. I do have another later VHS copy of the same transfer (they used that transfer from 1983 to 1992). I’ll try to find that. I also have the 1992 LD somewhere (the second home video transfer), I’ll try to find it.

Looking good. You can really see how oversaturated the wowow is by comparing the red flags before and after. The blu-ray is even worse.

For the fire shot, I would personally retain some of the detail which is blown out in the 35mm if possible.

Wazzles said:

DrDre said:

Wazzles said:

DrDre said:

dvdmike said:

DrDre said:

litemakr said:

I can’t say I like the way that looks. Is is possible to go somewhere in between?

I don’t like it much either. I think I might recruit a few replacement shots from the bluray, where possible as an alternative.

So what is the point of regrading it in the first place?
We want it corrected don’t we?
Not just another version?

Well, you could argue, that an official release based on the original color timed interpositive would have lower contrast than an original release print. The latter example would be an approximation to such a release, and would have the correct color timing, but lower contrast. However, I’m not really happy with how it looks, so I will stick with the original plan of reproducing the colors of the print, and attempt to replace problematic shots with the regraded bluray shots.

Since you’re replacing some shots anyway, are you going to drop in the shots that are not altered for the Blu Ray?

That’s the plan…

Okay, I must have missed something then.

I believe the plane shot is the only one the blu had that the wowow doesn’t. Maybe the maps shots are different?

It’s kind of shocking that the 35mm, which is 4th generation, sometimes has more detail than a state of the art scan directly from the camera negative. That underlines how much DNR and color filtering was done after the scan. Imagine how sharp the raw scan of the negative must be.

I think the outside shot of Indy looks ok, it’s the indoor shots that look odd. Try reducing shadows a bit without pumping up the overall contrast, that shouldn’t cause artifacts and will get closer to the look of the 35mm. I think you should be able to find a happy medium.

I can’t say I like the way that looks. Is is possible to go somewhere in between?

DrDre said:

I’m really curious to know, which home video release first introduced the red cast in the bar? It really changes the atmosphere.

I recently bought the first laserdisc release from 1984. However, I don’t own a laserdisc player, so I should have it transfered to dvd. It’s pan and scan, but I guess it still has some historic significance.

That’s the first home video release. I have the VHS version, I’ll track it down and take a look. The next transfer was in 1991 for the widescreen LD and VHS, I’ll check that too.

The scenes in 1981 making of have the correct color.

This shot is a good example of why Dr. Dre is using the wowow instead of the blu. Look at details like Katanga’s sweater and the pole behind him. They are scrubbed out of the blu due to DNR, lowered contrast and the sloppy application of color filters. The color changes also turn the sky a dull beige color.

35mm

Wowow

Blu-ray

It’s this shot.

The 5 stars are clear in the 35mm, faint in the wowow and removed in the blu. A minor change, but a digital change nonetheless.

35mm

Wowow

Blu-ray

hairy_hen said:

Here is, finally, some proof that the bar scene in Nepal did not have a red tint as it has on every recent home video release.

Yes, it’s gray!