litemakr

AntcuFaalb said:

I've now done lots of still comparisons with WOWOW vs. grade-matched BD and I can honestly say that the WOWOW, surprisingly, has more detail.

The software I use for the MatchGrade also has a basic image registration algorithm, so the stills used for my comparison were spatially aligned rather well.

The difference is striking.

I'd like to despecialize the WOWOW, but I can't without access to that 10 year old 1080i MPEG-2 ABC TV broadcast version capture. I'm still digging, but I haven't had any luck yet.

For now we may have to settle on the 2003 "enhanced" version.

I still have to remove the burned-in JP subs from those shots. I may seek outside help to get it done well.

 I'm pretty convinced that the wowow was the original restoration of the film and was used as the basis for the blu-ray color re-grade. Mostly likely they had planned to release it, but someone decided it needed a more "modern" color scheme or just something to make it look different and newer. Whatever the rationale, they inconsistently applied DNR and the orange/gold haze which actually reduced detail. They messed with the gamma and ended up crushing blacks a bit and blowing out whites, especially in the extreme contrasts of the ark opening sequence. Then they attempted to compensate for that by dialing down the highs, resulting in blown out whites being reduced to a dull grayish white. On top of that is a rather odd remix with re-balanced sound effects and music in the surrounds which sounds like it's in a cavern. There are places where the blu looks nice, but overall it's a messy, botched job which certainly doesn't reflect the look of the film. I'm just glad we have the wowow.

captainsolo said:

I noticed the color in TOD comes across differently, especially the deep reds inside the temple itself. Think I'll find a used BD set eventually.

It has been said the WS LD was remixed, but nothing I have found points to this. Some claimed a few sound effects were different, but I haven't found any. This track has music panning not in the DVD 5.1 which was created from the 70mm mix. Perhaps it could be either the Dolby original or abandoned VistaSonic original mix which was supposed to have mixed in stereo surrounds. Either way it would be helpful to compare against the old pan n' scan disc for differences.

I'm pretty sure the reflection is fully there. There might be a way of incorporating that single element with upscaling along with the rods but I agree the resolution loss would be very great. Of course we nitpick here, as it is part of the OT membership card. ;)

Glad to see this thread is alive again. The LD audio is the 35mm dolby mix to my ear. If anyone knows of suspected differences let me know, I have 2 different recordings of the audio made in theaters during the original 1981 release I can check. The only remix I am aware of on any release is the Blu-ray. I believe the wowow and DVD are the 70mm mix.

There is also the considerably different alternate mix used on Super 8mm and certain 16mm prints, which would be great to include on any planned release. I have the 15 minute Super 8mm version, but it's not the full film. I am working on a release of the Super 8 version.

The widescreen laserdisc has a bit more red but definitely doesn't have the orange/gold/teal shift of the blu-ray. It also has correct brightness and gamma, pretty much identical to the DVD, and no overexposed shots like the blu-ray.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

AntcuFaalb said:

litemakr said:

I suspect the blu is the wowow version tweaked to try and fit the orange/teal "modern" look.

Wasn't the BD made from an entirely new 4K scan of the negative?

Also, it doesn't look orange/teal to me. It looks gold tinted.

That's what they claim but it doesn't make sense that they would scan and fully restore twice within a couple of years. And they didn't specify when the scan was made, just that it was the camera neg. All other home video releases used IPs or prints. The same company did both (Laser Pacific did the wowow and then Technicolor bought them and did the blu-ray color). Most likely the wowow was the original Laser Pacific restoration and then the color was tweaked for the blu ray. It is very telling that the original trailer for the blu-ray restoration uses the wowow color, not the blu-ray color.

Looking at the comparison I did for the ark opening it certainly appears to me that the blu-ray is a tweaked version of the wowow: 

http://imgur.com/a/BnYld

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

jero32 said:

Weird. Is it the same scan? Just with more color work done on one?

Mine was the one included on the ESB grindhouse release extras.

I don't have that release. It appears the one you used has the saturation increased but hard to say.

jero32 said:

I noticed your trailer shot seems different from the one I'm using? (the one I'm using is from the grindhouse release "extras")

yours:
http://i.imgur.com/2Mw2Bhl.png

Mine:
http://i.imgur.com/iRSlB6n.jpg

The weird thing is that mine is closer to the bluray, and yours is closer to the dvd?

 Mine is from here (1080p version):

 http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2014/12/02/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-35mm-Trailer-in-HD

That is the one we were discussing earlier in the thread. 

rockin said:

I didn't realise the DVD was different from the wowow. Interesting.

It is a completely different timing but closer to wowow. It has the most accurate contrast/gamma. No overexposed highlights or crushed blacks. Nothing else looks like the blu-ray timing. I suspect the blu is the wowow version tweaked to try and fit the orange/teal "modern" look.

I uploaded a number of shots

http://imgur.com/a/PiiBH

Order:

Trailer, Wowow, Blu

(Altar shot is Trailer, Wowow, DVD, Blu)

Interesting that wowow and blu are pretty close in some shots and very different in others. Just shows how inconsistent the blu is IMO. Viewing full size makes the differences more apparent. The wowow always wins in terms of gamma and sharpness. The blu is hazy and less crisp.

One thing to notice is how overexposed the ark opening scene is on the blu. Look at the lack of details in the sand, curtains, smoke, sparks and other light details. It appears they overexposed it, then tried to correct it by dulling the highlights. The whole scene is messed up, pretty severely in some shots. The DVD presents that scene the best in terms of gamma/contrast. I'll post more screenshots later.

jero32 said:

dvdmike said:

The trailer will not be fully timed

 Normally I'd agree, but isn't this for the rerelease? Wouldn't it make sense if that was made from some sort of timed print? (interpositive or whatever step along the way that would make sense)

From memory the jungle scenes look pretty close to the bluray, but I'd like to see a side by side comparison.

I would say these are timed because this a re-release trailer and they would have pulled the scenes from a release print, not the original neg or alternate takes. 

Jungle scenes are closer to Wowow with a touch more brown. The blu-ray is over saturated and has crushed blacks and too much orange. Raven bar interior doesn't match blu or wowow, the walls are a lighter gray, but skin tones are close to wowow. DVD is actually a better match. DVD is also a better match to truck chase, followed by wowow and then blu. Indy on the sub is wowow or DVD, that scene looks awful on the blu. The canyon looks closest to the DVD, then wowow. Only one shot from the Ark opening (which is the biggest mess of the blu-ray) but wowow and DVD by far, the color/gamma on the blu is a disaster.

PDB said:

 

Does anyone know where I can view the scan of the Raiders trailer?

 http://thestarwarstrilogy.com/starwars/post/2014/12/02/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-35mm-Trailer-in-HD

You can download a 1080p version there. Def doesn't look like the blu ray. More brown/red than wowow but not orange ;)

Looks a lot like my super 8 version

kk650 said:

litemakr said:

kk650 said:

PDB said:

Hey kk650 I'd love to look at your regrade. You have any comparison pics?

I do. With the V2 release I really adjusted fleshtones more than anything, I felt they were far too red on the blu-ray, making everybody look sunburned. The overall warm feel remains similar to the blu-ray though. Here are four screencap comparisons:

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85227

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85228

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85229

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85230

Very much looking forward to your Alien, Aliens and Blade Runner projects BTW, they're what i'm looking forward to most on this site :)

The problem with regrading the blu ray is that some shots are so washed out or over exposed that is it impossible to recover the detail. In some spots the skin is so orange that details such as cuts and wounds are muted beyond recovery. You would be better off regrading the wowow because it doesn't have that problem for the most part. 

The wowow release has numerous problems of its own. Both releases have their issues. It really comes down to preferences, balancing the pros and cons of each and accepting the compromises that come with that choice. I tried regrading both releases and found that I prefered the blu-ray as the base from which to start from. In all honesty I can't remember exactly why I decided against using the wowow release, I think it had something to do with it looking too digital compared to the blu-ray and the fleshtones that felt really off, too purpleish if I remember correctly.

The blu-ray just felt more accurate somehow, like there was a specific intention on the filmmakers part that the film look this way, while the wowow release almost felt ungraded and too like what what the scenes actually looked like on set when they were originally shot on film in many places, rather than being part of a consistant colour scheme that was added later. This was of course before i'd seen any 35mm frames which seem to lean towards the blu-ray's colour scheme rather than the more natural ungraded look of the wowow release.

So yeah, of course the blu-ray's far from perfect, I wish they'd been a lot more subtle adding that reddish yellow blanket tint so a lot more of the original colours were intact, but in this case with a bit of help fixing the fleshtones so they're more healthy looking, its the lesser of two evils, at least for me. I respect everybody that prefers the wowow release though, it has enough positives compared to the blu-ray that I can see why many would prefer it.

Well like I said, you can't retrieve detail from blown out highlights so the wowow will always win for me on that alone. Plus it has the original sound mix.  I'm pretty convinced both are created from the same scan. The wowow was probably the initial restoration, and then the color was tweaked for the blu-ray. Wowow is closer to all of the screenings I have seen and the super 8 print I own. And the previous home video versions which were created from low contrast prints containing the original timing. In fact there is nothing, no home video version, behind the scenes feature, trailer, tv commercial, frame blowups in making of books or anywhere else, which match the blu ray color. To me it seems very obvious it is revisionist (and a bit sloppy). 

In fact, the official trailer released to tout the blu-ray release which demonstrates the restoration, does NOT use the blu-ray colors. That's the wowow color. Whites are white, flesh tones are reddish, not orange, there's no orange haze or blown out skies. Check out the blue sky behind the swordsman. 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=raiders+lost+ark+blu+ray

Curiously the behind the scenes footage DOES have the orange haze applied, as it does on the blu-ray. And of course this makes no sense at all because the behind the scenes footage has never looked like that (nor should it). They didn't apply it to the 1981 making of, however. Speaking of which, the film clips in the 1981 special don't have the blu-ray color either...

kk650 said:

PDB said:

Hey kk650 I'd love to look at your regrade. You have any comparison pics?

I do. With the V2 release I really adjusted fleshtones more than anything, I felt they were far too red on the blu-ray, making everybody look sunburned. The overall warm feel remains similar to the blu-ray though. Here are four screencap comparisons:

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85227

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85228

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85229

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85230

Very much looking forward to your Alien, Aliens and Blade Runner projects BTW, they're what i'm looking forward to most on this site :)

The problem with regrading the blu ray is that some shots are so washed out or over exposed that is it impossible to recover the detail. In some spots the skin is so orange that details such as cuts and wounds are muted beyond recovery. You would be better off regrading the wowow because it doesn't have that problem for the most part. 

This is a great thread! Glad to see so much love for original soundtracks. I couldn't find it listed, but has anyone synched the Rankin/Bass hobbit DVD with the original soundtrack? All DVD and VHS versions since 2001 have an incorrect mix that is missing dozens of sound effects, bits of dialogue and is full of mixing errors. I suspect it was an early temp mix which was mistakenly used for the DVD master. Despite fans complaining for years, WB has never fixed the error. I have the original soundtrack on a HiFi VHS copy, but was curious if anyone has it in digital form?

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

Indiana Jones trilogy restoration is into my "project drawer" since a long time (and, frankly, I'm afraid it will stay there for some months more...)

wowow video, laserdisc audio - actually english and italian; it will be a great thing to add german, spanish and french laserdisc audio as well!

What do you think?

I'd love to see this! I would suggest Wowow video with

Wowow audio (Dolby 6 track mix(?))

Laserdisc audio (Dolby 4 track mix)

Blu-Ray remix

Alternate/early mix (which I believe only exists in mono on certain 16mm and Super 8mm prints)  

Foreign language mixes (most of which use the alternate mix as a base)

P

My comments are based on the video you posted, you are actually seeing the print which is a different experience. So if I'm off let me know. Overall its is similar to the 16mm pics I posted. I can see why you originally said the 8mm looked half way between the WOWOW and the BD. It looks to me like the print starts closest to the WOWOW but with a little of the 16mm yellow in it but over all very pale with cold-ish color timing. But the pics toward the end come off as similar in orange to the BD, unless that's the red/brown you a referencing and it show up more as orange here. Brown, red and orange can mush together sometimes. I can't 100% determine from you video but are the skies blue-ish or yellow-ish in the desert scenes? I notice that the credits are more yellow-ish then white.

The skies are pretty washed out towards white in the desert scenes, but there is a bit of blue in there.   What I don't see of the Blu-ray color is the orangish "haze", especially in skin tones. There is a bit more more yellow and especially red in some scenes. 

I just received a new super 8 projector which has a brighter picture, I will try to capture a better image. If anyone has suggestions for scanning super 8 frames let me know.

What are people's thoughts about the super 8? It doesn't match wowow or blu-ray really, but it is closer to wowow. It has more red and brown than wowow (some due to slight red shift), but not the orange/gold haze of the blu.