Jurassic Park trilogy - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Black View Post

As much as the previous Spielberg Blu-rays mastered by LaserPacific look fantastic in terms of sharpness, grain structure, etc., I was disappointed by some of the color grading changes, the bumped up contrast, etc. From the caps so far, JP looks like a 1993 film should.

Minority Report is the only one that bothered me, as I really didn't like the color changes, despite the excuse they had to make them. The whole movie felt washed out and too bright to me, despite having fantastic detail.
Deviation is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Just like T2/Iron man Stan Winston sold the cgi

In the case of Iron Man they ended up with an entirely CG suit with Downey wearing markers by the end of the film....

...and no one could tell the difference.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #543 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenUK View Post

The first film has odd looking blocky grain in some screengrabs. Not much detail either.http://hcc.techradar.com/files/hcc_c...are/jp1_09.jpg I mean I would rather have more grain than any kind of DNR, but this grain just looks a bit nasty. Definately isn't a new scan, and certainly isn't anywhere near 4K, which is a shame considering Spielberg is usually very careful what happens with his films. I can believe this was a HDDVD master from 5 years ago.

Grain is a physical part of the film that is scanned, so it will be there whether it's an old 2K scan or a new 4K scan. The blocky parts of those images could simply be due to JPEG compression. Those shots are just grainy - typical of dark scenes and of that period. I'm not arguing that the old scans are preferred, but that it might not make as much of an impact as you expect. I'm just happy it isn't a mess.
nick_danger is offline  
post #544 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 12:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Grain is a physical part of the film that is scanned, so it will be there whether it's an old 2K scan or a new 4K scan. The blocky parts of those images could simply be due to JPEG compression. Those shots are just grainy - typical of dark scenes and of that period. I'm not arguing that the old scans are preferred, but that it might not make as much of an impact as you expect. I'm just happy it isn't a mess.

With old transfers there's also the issue of scanning the IP versus original negative, any sharpening that might be necessary to make an old transfer "pop", aliasing, etc. A modern negative scan would render grain more crisper and tighter. No doubt the scene has a good deal of natural grain but old transfers can exaggerate it considerably; look at the coarse grain in some of the daylit shots from JP ( http://hcc.techradar.com/files/hcc_c...are/jp1_04.jpg) , those were shot on slow fine-grain stock, certainly finer grained than Saving Private Ryan where the whole movie was push-processed, but it looks really blobby.

guess this means Jaws, ET, and Schindler's List are going to be half-assed too why can't Universal do things right?
42041 is offline  
post #545 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 12:30 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

With old transfers there's also the issue of scanning the IP versus original negative, any sharpening that might be necessary to make an old transfer "pop", aliasing, etc. A modern negative scan would render grain more crisper and tighter. No doubt the scene has a good deal of natural grain but old transfers can exaggerate it considerably; look at the coarse grain in some of the daylit shots from JP ( http://hcc.techradar.com/files/hcc_c...are/jp1_04.jpg) , those were shot on slow fine-grain stock, certainly finer grained than Saving Private Ryan where the whole movie was push-processed, but it looks really blobby.

guess this means Jaws, ET, and Schindler's List are going to be half-assed too why can't Universal do things right?

I am so glad that I am not burdened with all of that knowledge.
pepar is offline  
post #546 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 12:33 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post


I am so glad that I am not burdened with all of that knowledge.

I am but still don't think they look bad
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #547 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 288
So, when they come up with so-called 4k Blu-ray, Universal will be up sh-t creek since they don't seem to be doing 4k or even 6k scans from the original elements unless they are forced into it by certain powerful directors and/or producers who want some quality.

Maybe their newest films, but definitely not their catalog titles.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #548 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 01:20 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, when they come up with so-called 4k Blu-ray, Universal will be up sh-t creek since they don't seem to be doing 4k or even 6k scans from the original elements unless they are forced into it by certain powerful directors and/or producers who want some quality.

Maybe their newest films, but definitely not their catalog titles.

They barely have 2k scans and lack of quality never stopped them in the past
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #549 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 05:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hmm just as I feared - old HD-DVD masters..... and VC-1 no surprise there...

For what they are they look OK though.
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #550 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 07:47 PM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I don't know whether I love or hate that a low budget 1960s British sci-fi movie blows away one of the biggest, and most technically groundbreaking films in Hollywood history on Blu-ray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Quater...6/#Screenshots
LordAwesome is offline  
post #551 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Exactly what I expected: mediocrity. Unfortunate, but not surprising at all; too bad the first film seems to be the most processed.

Just like BTTF Part 2 and 3 looked better especially part 3 which actually looked pretty good.

Makes me think though that Universal still may have not 'got over' HD-DVD dying so therefore they are putting little to no effort for Blu-ray releases and slapping those good 'ol HD-DVD masters onto Blu-rays - just a thought.... they were the main supporters of HD-DVD back in the day even as its grave was being dug.

Maybe they are still in denial?
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #552 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 08:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So, when they come up with so-called 4k Blu-ray, Universal will be up sh-t creek since they don't seem to be doing 4k or even 6k scans from the original elements unless they are forced into it by certain powerful directors and/or producers who want some quality.

Maybe their newest films, but definitely not their catalog titles.

All they will do is upscale their 1080p transfers to 4K...marketing them as newly remastered. I believe they did this with a few HD DVDs....Traffic being one of them.

DavidHir is offline  
post #553 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Just like BTTF Part 2 and 3 looked better especially part 3 which actually looked pretty good.



I thought BTTF3 was by a good deal of a distance the worst looking of the three. The amount of DNR and EE and lack of detail was shocking. It looks even worse in motion than in screenshots. Completely lifeless, like bad video. The lack of colour in the film, with everything being brown and dusty doesn't help. I would honestly say it's the worst Blu-ray I have seen. Granted my Blu-ray watching experience is considerably less than a lot of people on here.
LordAwesome is offline  
post #554 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 08:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

With old transfers there's also the issue of scanning the IP versus original negative, any sharpening that might be necessary to make an old transfer "pop", aliasing, etc. A modern negative scan would render grain more crisper and tighter. No doubt the scene has a good deal of natural grain but old transfers can exaggerate it considerably; look at the coarse grain in some of the daylit shots from JP ( http://hcc.techradar.com/files/hcc_c...are/jp1_04.jpg) , those were shot on slow fine-grain stock, certainly finer grained than Saving Private Ryan where the whole movie was push-processed, but it looks really blobby.

guess this means Jaws, ET, and Schindler's List are going to be half-assed too why can't Universal do things right?

I think it's only the movies that Spielberg has actually directed that get good treatment. Perhaps, just perhaps, he will pony up the cash for new scans of the other Universal movies he directed.

DavidHir is offline  
post #555 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 08:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Makes me think though that Universal still may have not 'got over' HD-DVD dying so therefore they are putting little to no effort for Blu-ray releases and slapping those good 'ol HD-DVD masters onto Blu-rays - just a thought.... they were the main supporters of HD-DVD back in the day even as its grave was being dug.

Maybe they are still in denial?

I have said the same thing in the past.

They lost "The War," some folks lost their jobs because of it, others had to eat crow....
Nah, surely there wouldn't be any lingering resentment?

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #556 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 09:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordAwesome View Post



I thought BTTF3 was by a good deal of a distance the worst looking of the three. The amount of DNR and EE and lack of detail was shocking. It looks even worse in motion than in screenshots. Completely lifeless, like bad video. The lack of colour in the film, with everything being brown and dusty doesn't help. I would honestly say it's the worst Blu-ray I have seen. Granted my Blu-ray watching experience is considerably less than a lot of people on here.

Hm that's odd when i watched it I got the impression it looked like a newer master/better transfer than the other two - there seemed to be less artifacts and better detail... I remember saying to myself not long into it - 'Now that's more like it'!

Hm anyway all three could have been better though just like these JP. It's funny though how with this and Star Wars there seems to have been much more effort put into the audio than the video - that's something at least I guess.
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #557 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

Thanks for that, fixed

TLW BLURAY
http://hcc.techradar.com/files/hcc_c...are/jp2_04.jpg

TLW HDTV
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/604...0201145400.png

I realize those aren't the same frame but...

Is it just more or is the does the HDTV shot have better colours, better grain structure and more detail than the Blu-ray?
LordAwesome is offline  
post #558 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
SaxCatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dry Dry Desert, AZ
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Looks to me like Universal hasn't mucked it up too much. It might be an older scan, but it looks to be solid with minimal processing. I do see some blockiness in the grain as some have noted, but I also concur that it looks like .JPEG compression to me. If the grain on the film is really as heavy as it appears in the night shots, then a newer scan would have had nominal benefit. Its not everything that I hoped it could be, but I can breathe a sigh of relief and feel comfortable keeping my pre-order.
SaxCatz is offline  
post #559 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Hm that's odd when i watched it I got the impression it looked like a newer master/better transfer than the other two - there seemed to be less artifacts and better detail... I remember saying to myself not long into it - 'Now that's more like it'!

Film technology advanced a lot between BTTF1 and 3, it was shot on the first generation of "modern" films that incorporated T-grain and whatnot. Both that and JP could look like "new" films if Universal cared to put the appropriate effort into it, no reason for them to look so dated other than Universal's indifference...
42041 is offline  
post #560 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ah well that explains it.
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #561 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

You're kidding right? The Bluray looks vastly less processed, less ugly and more filmic. The ferns next to Sarah are layered and clearly delineated in the Bluray. In the HDTV they're just a blob of various green shades that lack depth. Also note the brown moss on the tree trunk at the bottom; It's just a murky mess of who-knows-what in the HDTV. The shadow detail is also much better on the BD. The mild grain on the HDTV master is indicative of a crappy old telecine. The BD looks much cleaner and, although soft, I think this is representative of Kaminski's cinematography for the first half of the film.

Just so I know we're on the same page, the Blu-ray is the one with the black bars, right?

Although I can see how one would prefer one to another I wouldn't describe the difference as vast. I'm really struggling to tell which is better. I would certainly expect the difference between a Blu-ray and a TV airing ot be much bigger.

You're right that the ferns in the foreground look (a bit) more detailed, but then I look at her face and to me that HDTV looks superior. But seeing as this isn't the same frame and the camera is closer in the Blu-ray this could be very deceptive.

The colours in the Blu-ray do appear to have more separation (a wider palette?) but on the flipside the greens on the HDTV look more lush and vivid to me. Which is the more accurate though is anyone's guess. The difference though is hardly worth getting worked up about (at least there's no teal ).
LordAwesome is offline  
post #562 of 1995 Old 10-05-2011, 10:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by paku View Post

I'm sure a lot of people are happy that they didn't pull another BTTF, but for a release of this caliber it doesn't excite me when they just dump an old master they've been sitting on for years. I'm not buying Star Wars either for (mostly) the same reason.

It is rather sad that the majority of blockbuster catalogue releases are underwhelming in some way: I'll be passing on JP, SW and LOTR(T&E) for this reason and unfortunately probably others as well, until they reach a price that reflects their quality.
IanD is offline  
post #563 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

BUT it still looks good (for a decade old master). I just don't understand why Spielberg would give a film like Minority Report an exorbitant 6K (or was it 8K?) remaster, but Jurassic (his highest grossing movie) gets left in the dust. It made nearly a billion dollars twenty years ago!

Double dip in 2013 for the 20th Anniversary. That's all I can think of. Again, I must state my opinion that I think this is a good deal: $16 per film, marked upgrade from DVD/HDTV in both PQ and AQ, and no mucking about with "enchancements". We've been given our cake, even if it doesn't come with 4K, 6K, or 8K remastered icing.
nick_danger is offline  
post #564 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 09:14 AM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

You tell me which looks better.

I guess that settles it.
LordAwesome is offline  
post #565 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 09:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 396
CD, as I said earlier, it's really Spielberg directed movies that usually get good treatment. He did not direct JP.

DavidHir is offline  
post #566 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 09:41 AM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

CD, as I said earlier, it's really Spielberg directed movies that usually get good treatment. He did not direct JP.


OK... what's your conspiracy theory?
LordAwesome is offline  
post #567 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 09:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

CD, as I said earlier, it's really Spielberg directed movies that usually get good treatment. He did not direct JP.

A dino-sized fail, that one.
javanpohl is offline  
post #568 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 10:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
raoul_duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Spielberg: So, I hear you guys are putting out the Jurassic Park movies on Blu-ray. I'd like to get involved with those in some way.

Universal Home Video Exec: Sure, we're planning on doing a retrospective documentary and would love to set up an interview, Mr. Spielberg.

Spielberg: Gosh, I was think more than that, you know, I mean I hoped to get involved in the video transfer side of things... I...

Universal: Oh, we've already done the transfers. We've had them sitting around from that time you allegedly had us pull the HD DVD releases, even though we own the rights and can pretty much do what we want with them.

Spielberg: Are you serious? Surely you're gonna pony up for some fresh scans?

Universal: Are you gonna pony up for some fresh scans?

*silence*

Spielberg: So, erm... let me know when you guys are looking to do that interview.

raoul_duke is offline  
post #569 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 10:22 AM
Senior Member
 
degas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

CD, as I said earlier, it's really Spielberg directed movies that usually get good treatment. He did not direct JP.

Hmm... Is this a mind trick?
degas is offline  
post #570 of 1995 Old 10-06-2011, 10:30 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

CD, as I said earlier, it's really Spielberg directed movies that usually get good treatment. He did not direct JP.

Is that why Poltergeist looks ok?
dvdmike007 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off