or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Jurassic Park trilogy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jurassic Park trilogy - Page 55

post #1621 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

There is nothing that suggests a new scan, simply a recycling of the only HD masters that were also used for the DVD releases. They are converting the first film to 3D, which likely means a scan of the original master print, and that's as close as we are going to get unless Steve decides to get over himself and sign off on a right and proper JP restoration that creates a new 4K master. It can and SHOULD be done, but they simply haven't so far as we know.
It's a pretty solid bet that scanning the camera negative at 4K is exactly what they did for the 3D master.
post #1622 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post

There is nothing that suggests a new scan, simply a recycling of the only HD masters that were also used for the DVD releases. They are converting the first film to 3D, which likely means a scan of the original master print, and that's as close as we are going to get unless Steve decides to get over himself and sign off on a right and proper JP restoration that creates a new 4K master. It can and SHOULD be done, but they simply haven't so far as we know.

Thats not the same master, its not even framed the same way.
post #1623 of 1995
A lot of funny posts I see. Yeah, let's call the new master a complete disaster, even if we have nothing but ugly compressed trailer and few pictures.

I like the new color timing. No, compared to that terrible Blu-ray I prefer the new color timing.
post #1624 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

A lot of funny posts I see. Yeah, let's call the new master a complete disaster, even if we have nothing but ugly compressed trailer and few pictures.
I like the new color timing. No, compared to that terrible Blu-ray I prefer the new color timing.

Says don't judge the new master on web shots (no one here was, just the shots themselves) and then judges the web shots himself.


tumblr_m1angsUlCA1qezhbfo1_500.jpg
post #1625 of 1995
Where I judged them? WHERE? Show me.

I don't know how accurate these photos are. I don't know how the new master looks. I just said that I like the colors. If you don't understand what you read, don't answer to that.

PS. I've read this forum a long, long time before I decided to register, and I've always found you and your know-it-all attitude annoying as hell, and I see it wasn't only my impression as a reader. I would be grateful if you could just ignore my posts. Cheers!
Edited by Johnny Vertigo - 11/9/12 at 5:21pm
post #1626 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Where I judged them? WHERE? Show me.
I don't know how accurate these photos are. I don't know how the new master looks. I just said that I like the colors. If you don't understand what you read, don't answer to that.
Quote:
I like the new color timing. No, compared to that terrible Blu-ray I prefer the new color timing.

I said no one was talking about the master they judged the shots, and then you did the same and judged the shots
post #1627 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Exactly my thoughts.
"Let's add more contrast! More color! No wait, dial that back a bit. Just add more piss yellow. Mkay. DNR it up baby! Annndd we're golden. Litterally!" *buh dum tish*
I'm not sure how that's worse than flat and brown.

(This reminds me of the From Dusk Till Dawn debacle a year back or so, where some nitwit reviewer gave the new transfer 1 star and people just couldn't stop trashing a transfer that's very close to the look of the film in 35mm projection, and swinging off the nuts of the oversharpened and washed out Alliance release)
post #1628 of 1995






The colors looks exactly the way they supposed to look, check the ILM site or any book of production still of the movie, or the Cinefex Magazine with original plates.

Or even this Trailer, that beside the resolution, you can still see the original color timing of the movie totally different from the old BD or DVD, and nearly identical of this new release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEwiZ7IlJdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gz6jkQKuylo

So please, don't start a not-necessary crusade against this perfect work.

And anyway this is a Trailer, the Trailer of TITANIC 3D was slightly different from the final release, probably same here.
Relax, the BD will look stunning.
Edited by VickPS - 11/10/12 at 6:42pm
post #1629 of 1995
Isn't it possible that the 3D has been adjusted to offset the filtering of the 3D glasses?

I think when anyone is looking at a 3D grab, it should also be presented as a filtered version as if one was viewing through 3D glasses, to determine how it would appear in practice: then any comments would be realistic.
post #1630 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by VickPS View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEwiZ7IlJdU
I don't usually pay much mind to how trailers look but it's curious that this one's missing a lot of the blue tints in the darker scenes on the blu-ray. Wonder which look is more accurate to the prints.
post #1631 of 1995
Exactly, anyone using the Bluray as a basis for "accurate" colour timing for Jurassic Park is just crazy. The colours are atrocious. Everything has a horrible tint in one direction or the other, jungles just look flat and entirely green, clothes aren't accurate, etc. The new colours are vastly more accurate, and they're probably contrast boosted for promotional purposes anyway.

Spielberg asked Jon Landau about how Titanic's 3D conversion was achieved, and demanded the exact same process be done to JP. 4K remaster, scrubbed clean (grain can't be converted into 3D folks, but it'll probably be added back in after the conversion is finished), and the same 3D production house. RELAX. Titanic's the most stunning catalog BD probably ever released; this will give it a run for its money.
post #1632 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

Exactly, anyone using the Bluray as a basis for "accurate" colour timing for Jurassic Park is just crazy. The colours are atrocious. Everything has a horrible tint in one direction or the other, jungles just look flat and entirely green, clothes aren't accurate, etc. The new colours are vastly more accurate, and they're probably contrast boosted for promotional purposes anyway.
Spielberg asked Jon Landau about how Titanic's 3D conversion was achieved, and demanded the exact same process be done to JP. 4K remaster, scrubbed clean (grain can't be converted into 3D folks, but it'll probably be added back in after the conversion is finished), and the same 3D production house. RELAX. Titanic's the most stunning catalog BD probably ever released; this will give it a run for its money.
This.

I have no idea of why people always have to complain on everything and without knows anything.
There's so many ridicolous comments on this Thread since the Trailer was released... prefer the old filtered telecine with that horrible lavender color and red skin tone to this 4K restoration of negative scan and faithful to the original Cundey's warm cinematography, same process of TITANIC...

"Screw Spielberg, Amblin and Universal"... what a stupid and ignorant thing to say.

There's no single still from all the books of the movie that i have that looks even similar to the old horrific transfer, check the Senitype of the Deluxe Editon of Jurassic Park and Lost Word, the 35mm frame shows exactly the same color.
Same on Making Of book of Duncan, or the Cinefex, the green of the movie shows in this trailer IS the exactly green tint that the original movie have.
And the same happened to the current BD of Jurassic Park III. I've always read that that was a good trasfer. I mean, WTF!
Jurassic Park III on BD looks horrendous, because have the same problem of the Jurassic Park one, old telecine with same wrong lavender looks totally different from original warm look.

Check this ILM image that show the original look (and details):


And now the crappy BD screen:


And this is supposed to be a professional Forum...
post #1633 of 1995
Great post and I hope the remastered picture looks the ILM image.
post #1634 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by VickPS View Post

This.
I have no idea of why people always have to complain on everything and without knows anything.
There's so many ridicolous comments on this Thread since the Trailer was released... prefer the old filtered telecine with that horrible lavender color and red skin tone to this 4K restoration of negative scan and faithful to the original Cundey's warm cinematography, same process of TITANIC...
"Screw Spielberg, Amblin and Universal"... what a stupid and ignorant thing to say.
There's no single still from all the books of the movie that i have that looks even similar to the old horrific transfer, check the Senitype of the Deluxe Editon of Jurassic Park and Lost Word, the 35mm frame shows exactly the same color.
Same on Making Of book of Duncan, or the Cinefex, the green of the movie shows in this trailer IS the exactly green tint that the original movie have.
And the same happened to the current BD of Jurassic Park III. I've always read that that was a good trasfer. I mean, WTF!
Jurassic Park III on BD looks horrendous, because have the same problem of the Jurassic Park one, old telecine with same wrong lavender looks totally different from original warm look.
Check this ILM image that show the original look (and details):

And now the crappy BD screen:

And this is supposed to be a professional Forum...

Where have they started 4k negative scan, also that image is from jurassic park 3
post #1635 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Where have they started 4k negative scan
Have you an idea on how Stereo-D works during their 3D conversions? Starting from the MAX source it's something necessary to create a satisfying 3D conversion, it's pretty obvious that they scanned the negative (in 4K) if Spielberg requested to they the same result of TITANIC.
And why not? Almost every Spielberg's film BD release have started from 4K negative scan, and this is not only a BD release, this thing is coming to threatre, IMAX theatre... so..
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

also that image is from jurassic park 3
Sorry? Never say otherwise.
post #1636 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by VickPS View Post

Have you an idea on how Stereo-D works during their 3D conversions? Starting from the MAX source it's something necessary to create a satisfying 3D conversion, it's pretty obvious that they scanned the negative (in 4K) if Spielberg requested to they the same result of TITANIC.
And why not? Almost every Spielberg's film BD release have started from 4K negative scan, and this is not only a BD release, this thing is coming to threatre, IMAX theatre... so..
Sorry? Never say otherwise.

So you are guessing? Also they dnr and regrain.
Everyone was taking about and comparing Jurassic Park, not 3.
post #1637 of 1995
So that's why Universal dusted off an old master for the current Blu-ray release...

I'll definitely get the re-release as long as the 2D version is superior to the one we have now. I have no interest in 3D conversions. Glad I waited.

Didn't Mr. S. also want the digital dinos re-rendered because the CGI software circa 1993 wasn't able to fully resolve 35mm detail? I wonder if he saw his chance by doing a 3D conversion?
post #1638 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

So that's why Universal dusted off an old master for the current Blu-ray release...
I'll definitely get the re-release as long as the 2D version is superior to the one we have now. I have no interest in 3D conversions. Glad I waited.
Didn't Mr. S. also want the digital dinos re-rendered because the CGI software circa 1993 wasn't able to fully resolve 35mm detail? I wonder if he saw his chance by doing a 3D conversion?

No he decided not to tinker like Lucas. Plus not resolving 35mm levels of detail is odd considering the 70mm blow ups.
This set sold poorly as most in the know knew it looked like crap and a double dip was incoming.
post #1639 of 1995
The digital work was done around 1k resolution I think. Would've been worth tinkering a bit at this point IMO.
post #1640 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

No he decided not to tinker like Lucas.

There's a massive difference in changing, adding or subtracting elements and re-rendering the same effects at a higher resolution. It's no different than Pixar re-rendering their early movies for HD releases.

It doesn't change the movie in any way that would be different than scanning the film itself at a higher quality. I would consider it "clean-up" as long as the final image is the same composite and framing as the original, just with more detail.

We're not talking changing guns in to walkie-talkies or puppet Yoda into CGI Yoda here. It certainly isn't changing when Han shoots. Heck, it's not even "should we remove wires" territory.

As long as they don't start tweaking the actual look of the dinosaurs, I don't see why there should be any objection to going back to the original files and re-rendering them the way other films have gone back to camera or technicolor negatives to rebuild and recomposite a scene at a higher quality.
post #1641 of 1995
Is the same as removing wires
post #1642 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

We're not talking changing guns in to walkie-talkies or puppet Yoda into CGI Yoda here. It certainly isn't changing when Han shoots. Heck, it's not even "should we remove wires" territory.
As long as they don't start tweaking the actual look of the dinosaurs, I don't see why there should be any objection to going back to the original files and re-rendering them the way other films have gone back to camera or technicolor negatives to rebuild and recomposite a scene at a higher quality.

Y'know... I always considered myself to be as much a "purist" as they come, and yet I agree with this argument. (And that's coming from a guy who only watches the non-anamorphic dvd's of the original STAR WARS trilogy, and listens to all "original mono" tracks when given the option!)
post #1643 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

So you are guessing? Also they dnr and regrain.
And then are me the guessing one? How do you know that they've DNR and regrain it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

The digital work was done around 1k resolution I think. Would've been worth tinkering a bit at this point IMO.
Are you sure? Beacause i have read in this Forum (or anyway this is what i remember) that the ILM Jurassic Park's VFX was rendered at something more close to the 2K...
post #1644 of 1995
That is how they specifically do 3d conversions, read their site and the many white papers on the matter.

Not a guess, but education.
Read the titanic thread on here if you didn't want to go looking, I quoted all the relevant information.
post #1645 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Is the same as removing wires
Not even close, in my book.

Removing wires that made it to the final film takes away something from the film itself. Buck Rogers wouldn't be the same without them. Simply increasing the resolution of the effects doesn't add or take away content. It cleans it up.

Not re-rendering the CGI to compare favorably with a higher resolution home video format would be like simply upconverting a DVD instead of creating an actual HD resolution master for Blu-ray.
post #1646 of 1995
Thanks for the info mike. wink.gif

Anyway, if this it's what they usually do, i can be nothing less than happy, because i'm totally fall in love with the TITANIC conversion.

And every single Spielberg movie's BD.
post #1647 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Not re-rendering the CGI to compare favorably with a higher resolution home video format would be like simply upconverting a DVD instead of creating an actual HD resolution master for Blu-ray.

Wow. This is first class horseshit of the highest order.

You do realize there is a 35mm final cut negative of this film, complete with special effects composited and printed into it? Just like every other pre-DI film ever made? And that 35mm final cut negative was printed to a 35mm interpositive, which was printed into a 35mm internegative, which was used as the basis for all the 35mm release prints which were shipped all over the world and projected on 100 foot screens?

That is the film Jurassic Park. Shortcomings in special effects and all. It doesn't matter that the special effects were digital or what resolution they were created at initially. The film is made. It's done. Re-rendering the special effects into anything other than what they are in that final cut negative is historical revisionism, plain and simple.

Do you want an authentic recreation of the film, as it was presented to audiences upon it's theatrical release, or are you just after something that "looks good on your HDTV"?
post #1648 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Not even close, in my book.
Removing wires that made it to the final film takes away something from the film itself. Buck Rogers wouldn't be the same without them. Simply increasing the resolution of the effects doesn't add or take away content. It cleans it up.
Not re-rendering the CGI to compare favorably with a higher resolution home video format would be like simply upconverting a DVD instead of creating an actual HD resolution master for Blu-ray.

tumblr_mc9kimVmA01qkab13o1_400.gif
post #1649 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Wow. This is first class horseshit of the highest order.
You do realize there is a 35mm final cut negative of this film, complete with special effects composited and printed into it? Just like every other pre-DI film ever made? And that 35mm final cut negative was printed to a 35mm interpositive, which was printed into a 35mm internegative, which was used as the basis for all the 35mm release prints which were shipped all over the world and projected on 100 foot screens?
That is the film Jurassic Park. Shortcomings in special effects and all. It doesn't matter that the special effects were digital or what resolution they were created at initially. The film is made. It's done. Re-rendering the special effects into anything other than what they are in that final cut negative is historical revisionism, plain and simple.
Do you want an authentic recreation of the film, as it was presented to audiences upon it's theatrical release, or are you just after something that "looks good on your HDTV"?
You do realize there have been plenty of lauded releases that have gone back to the original camera negatives (or animation cells) to reconstruct those films for home video release, don't you? In particular, several technicolor films whose 3 strip elements were then digitally combined, creating a more accurate registration than was ever accomplished for the original release.

Are you saying they shouldn't have done that? We're seeing a better product that was ever shown in the theater. Toy story, despite being a 3D movie, was shown on film in theaters at lower render resolution. Yet, we all gushed over how good it looked when they re-rendered it for the HD release. What we got on Blu-ray wasn't what people saw in theaters - and it wasn't what got the awards glory, either. By your logic, the technology at the time should have been the end of it for all time.

Further, when you consider how much loss there is from master to release print, perhaps we should stop this nonsense of mastering home video from masters and take them from release prints. After all, that's what people saw in the theater - blown up far larger than most anyone can see at home. Why should something look clearer and sharper at home than in the theater? Shouldn't we see all the shortcomings of the generation loss of those release prints?

Maybe the guys working on the Star trek releases shouldn't be doing what they're doing. TNG was never created in an HD format, yet the thread for it (disc issues aside) is full of praise for what their doing - and that includes recreating some of the effects that they couldn't find the original elements for (or for items created digitally back then, such as phaser fire).

Horseshit is right.

Everyone wants to be a purist until the screenshots hit the interwebs we all go "woo" when stuff looks pretty.
post #1650 of 1995
Personally I have no particular attachment to opticals or generation loss or whatever. To me, stuff like that has always been nothing more than an annoyance and a detriment to films. If Spielberg took the original vistavision plates and 3D effects and re-rendered everything at 4K resolution so it cuts seamlessly with the material from the camera negative, I'd be a happy camper. Obviously he hasn't done that, and that's okay too I guess... film history and all that crap.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Jurassic Park trilogy