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 56

post #1651 of 1995
The total ignorance on display here at AVS Forum is just mindblowing sometimes. Just "re-render" the effects at 4K. Right. rolleyes.gif

First, you'd have to find the original camera negatives and plate photography, and re-scan at 4K.

Then you'd have to find ALL the digital files for every single effects shot in the film. Have you all heard how hard a time ILM had a few years back just finding the Star Wars Special Edition project files (I think it was for the 2004 DVD Jabba the Hutt model revision)?

Then, somehow, using project files built in outdated twenty year old software which can probably barely handle 1K video, re-composite on to a completely different scan of the film negative, of which there are any number of colour/sharpness/geometric/edge cropping differences resulting from two decades of difference in film scanning technology.

This means almost nothing would line up with the film scan used for the effects in 1993, making compositing a nightmare. Every single shot would have to be composited from scratch, a costly and timely exercise. New matte shapes, new keyframes for every movement, etc. You'd have an easier time just doing the whole thing from scratch.

This doesn't even take into account the software used in 1993 has been obsolete for years, probably doesn't exist anymore, and has zero chance at rendering out at 4K.

I mean, do you think Adobe Photoshop from 1993 can be installed on modern computers and just magically work with brand new 4K film scans?

rolleyes.gif
post #1652 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

film history and all that crap.
Ok, how about "cleaning up" and "refreshing" Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" with some modern style? Because why not? It's just art history and all that crap, right?
post #1653 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

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.

Did you let a crazy relative know your username and password and let them post or something? What gives 42041?
post #1654 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

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.

You're being a bit disengenuous here. Digitally recombining 3 strip technicolor or B&W seperations is sometimes necessary when differential shrinkage due to age is too great to fix photochemically. In that case, it is a necessary tool to get the film back in the ballpark to what it looked like on original release. So yes, in those cases, those tools should be used. But in general, no, I don't think they should do that. The new Singin' In The Rain disc didn't and it looks more like what it did to audiences of the time. And it looks great aside from some questionable color timing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

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.

You keep saying "we"

"We" does not include me. No I don't think what was done to Toy Story should have been done. No I don't think they should do what they are doing to Star Trek.

The difference between your attitude and my attitude is the difference between treating film as disposable entertainment products versus culturally important works of art.
post #1655 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

The total ignorance on display here at AVS Forum is just mindblowing sometimes. Just "re-render" the effects at 4K. Right. rolleyes.gif
First, you'd have to find the original camera negatives and plate photography, and re-scan at 4K.
Then you'd have to find ALL the digital files for every single effects shot in the film. Have you all heard how hard a time ILM had a few years back just finding the Star Wars Special Edition project files (I think it was for the 2004 DVD Jabba the Hutt model revision)?
Then, somehow, using project files built in outdated twenty year old software which can probably barely handle 1K video, re-composite on to a completely different scan of the film negative, of which there are any number of colour/sharpness/geometric/edge cropping differences resulting from two decades of difference in film scanning technology.
This means almost nothing would line up with the film scan used for the effects in 1993, making compositing a nightmare. Every single shot would have to be composited from scratch, a costly and timely exercise. New matte shapes, new keyframes for every movement, etc. You'd have an easier time just doing the whole thing from scratch.
This doesn't even take into account the software used in 1993 has been obsolete for years, probably doesn't exist anymore, and has zero chance at rendering out at 4K.
I mean, do you think Adobe Photoshop from 1993 can be installed on modern computers and just magically work with brand new 4K film scans?
rolleyes.gif
I never said it was trivial, easy, or even feasible... how should I know what ILM can and can't do? I figure they would take greater care to archive their work and ensure backwards compatibility than some random guy with a 20-year-old copy of Photoshop. Maybe they don't.
post #1656 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Vertigo View Post

Ok, how about "cleaning up" and "refreshing" Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" with some modern style? Because why not? It's just art history and all that crap, right?
Is 500 years worth of grime part of art history too, or something extraneous to the work of the artist? Personally, I'd want that to be (carefully) cleaned. Where is the line?

How about this hypothetical situation... DaVinci couldn't let anyone see the original Mona Lisa for whatever reason (say, it's extremely fragile and has to be locked in a vault in his studio) and the only way anyone could possibly view it is through a low-quality photocopy DaVinci made, because that's the only practical way to distribute it. And so they did for many years, growing used to the quality, the distorted colors, etc. Decades later, DaVinci figures out a treatment to allow his original painting to be viewed. Is there anything wrong with allowing that to supersede the photocopy version?

I realize that this might be an unpopular opinion among the more hard-line purists, but I don't think a film as a finalized work of art is created in the optical printer or laser recorder. I don't like when movies lose their original power and become increasingly quaint artifacts of decades past (or worse yet, camp). Something like JP or Titanic didn't elicit thoughts of "look at the 90s CGI, how far we've come!" when I saw them in original release. It made me go "holy s**t look at those dinosaurs!" or "holy s**t, that's the Titanic!". There's a big difference between a filmmaker transparently removing the seams in the original work (especially when these seams have been made increasingly visible by scanning the cut negative versus the 4th generation release prints most people saw), and adding singing 3D cartoons.
Edited by 42041 - 11/12/12 at 11:27am
post #1657 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I never said it was trivial, easy, or even feasible... how should I know what ILM can and can't do? I figure they would take greater care to archive their work and ensure backwards compatibility than some random guy with a 20-year-old copy of Photoshop. Maybe they don't.
John Knoll said that they couldn't re-render any of the effects for the 3D version of Phantom Menace because the software packages were completely out of date. It's nice to think of these folks being able to keep this stuff working in perpetuity, but it's the same story for the pros as it is for us mere mortals: **** gets old, bro. As it is, Lucasfilm were lucky that ILM still had the entirety of Phantom Menace stored in 2K digital, otherwise they'd have had to scan the filmed-out negative from scratch for the Blu-ray and 3D conversion.
post #1658 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Something like JP or Titanic didn't elicit thoughts of "look at the 90s CGI, how far we've come!" when I saw them in original release. It made me go "holy s**t look at those dinosaurs!" or "holy s**t, that's the Titanic!".

Huh. When I saw Titanic in the theater in 1997, I sure did remark, "Man, a lot of this CGI sucks."
post #1659 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

As it is, Lucasfilm were lucky that ILM still had the entirety of Phantom Menace stored in 2K digital, otherwise they'd have had to scan the filmed-out negative from scratch for the Blu-ray and 3D conversion.

Oh, I don't know... if all materials had been lost and they'd had to re-make Episode 1 from scratch, would that have been so bad?
post #1660 of 1995
Yeah, I was shocked when it was revealed that ILM still had all the final renders for TPM still sitting around somewhere. When word got out last year that there was a "new transfer" of the movie, I assumed it was just a new scan of some sort of film element, not the filmout tapes themselves.

Has it yet been revealed what source is being used for the effects shots in Jurassic Park 3D??? Does ILM still have the filmout tapes for Jurassic Park after all these years????
post #1661 of 1995
For me, it's quite simple: release home video with quality as close to a pristine release print that the public would have seen in a perfectly setup theater at that time, but if the studios want to tweak or alter it in any way, then release that too as a separate Studio release so the consumer has choice. Do not make it either/or. The precedent has already been set with Directors Cuts and Theatrical cuts, or with Blade Runner's 3 different cuts, so I don't see what is so hard about always releasing an unmolested Theatrical version as a minimum. It preserves original artistic historical integrity as well as allowing alternate versions.

It seems as though all these arguments boil down to an alarming trend in reducing choices available to the consumer in favour of a "you will take what we give you and like it" draconian economic rationalist approach.
post #1662 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

For me, it's quite simple: release home video with quality as close to a pristine release print that the public would have seen in a perfectly setup theater at that time

I agree with everything you said but I especially agree with this quoted part. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand.
post #1663 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

It seems as though all these arguments boil down to an alarming trend in reducing choices available to the consumer in favour of a "you will take what we give you and like it" draconian economic rationalist approach.

George Lucas: trailblazer
post #1664 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

You're being a bit disengenuous here. Digitally recombining 3 strip technicolor or B&W seperations is sometimes necessary when differential shrinkage due to age is too great to fix photochemically. In that case, it is a necessary tool to get the film back in the ballpark to what it looked like on original release. So yes, in those cases, those tools should be used. But in general, no, I don't think they should do that. The new Singin' In The Rain disc didn't and it looks more like what it did to audiences of the time. And it looks great aside from some questionable color timing.
You keep saying "we"
"We" does not include me. No I don't think what was done to Toy Story should have been done. No I don't think they should do what they are doing to Star Trek.
The difference between your attitude and my attitude is the difference between treating film as disposable entertainment products versus culturally important works of art.
Well, then how do you feel about multi-channel soundtracks for movies that were originally mono? Can you honestly say you've never preferred one of those mixes?

My point here, is not to say they should re-render the effects so much as to say that in a long line of tinkering that goes on with movies before they reach Blu-ray, this is a minor thing. It's still the same content, just with more visible detail.

I will say, my preference is to see it as it was in the theater - just like puppet Yoda. However, unlike CGI Yoda, this would still be the basic work of the folks who originally did the effects. They wouldn't be creating new dinosaurs here.

I'll take a CGI re-render over revisionist color we often get in these releases. That, too me, is far worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

I mean, do you think Adobe Photoshop from 1993 can be installed on modern computers and just magically work with brand new 4K film scans?
rolleyes.gif
Actually, yes. I installed Photoshop 2.0 last night just to try it. I had to do some tinkering to make it work since file systems have changed a lot, but it loads up fine. The hardest part was finding my USB floppy drive so I could actually install it, since it came on several floppy disks (2.5 was the first CD-ROM version).

However, you wouldn't have to do that - nor would you ever want to.

All versions of Photoshop will open any file created in any previous version. The PSD format has been standard since the first retail version. The only thing you would need to do is convert the file to the newer standards to ensure full color, resolution and history support. However, all your layers and elements would still be there - assuming no file corruption has taken place after all this time.
Edited by NetworkTV - 11/13/12 at 12:00pm
post #1665 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Well, then how do you feel about multi-channel soundtracks for movies that were originally mono? Can you honestly say you've never preferred one of those mixes?

I prefer whatever mix could be deemed "original." I.e. any mix an audience would have heard at the time the film was released. It's not about what I subjectively think sounds better. It's about experiencing something as it was made to be seen, at the time it was made, as closely as possible. Period.

Remix to your hearts content but include an original mix, ALWAYS.
post #1666 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I prefer whatever mix could be deemed "original." I.e. any mix an audience would have heard at the time the film was released. It's not about what I subjectively think sounds better. It's about experiencing something as it was made to be seen, at the time it was made, as closely as possible. Period.
Remix to your hearts content but include an original mix, ALWAYS.
I certainly appreciate your feelings - and I do agree. I was merely trying to play Devil's Advocate here and point out the many times people say they want the theatrical version, but really want the "theatrical" version.

However, there are plenty here who prefer the remixes. Many here are fine with removing wires that weren't originally seen in the theater, but now show up in the digital domain. There are plenty still that think Toy Story looks magnificent in it's higher resolution form. There are still others that prefer CGI Yoda over puppet Yoda. Finally, there are many here who are perfectly OK with mattes being opened up so the image fills their screens.

It's a tough call. Where is the line? Further, who should the studios aim to please: those of us who "want it exactly the way it was in the theaters" or those who welcome a few tweaks to remove "elements that pull them out of the moment" in the film?

The truth is, there are a lot more people who accept the revisions than there are of those that don't.

As a result, I'm more likely to pick and choose my fights - namely those that radically alter the content, such as those changes heaped on us by the likes of George Lucas.
post #1667 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I prefer whatever mix could be deemed "original." I.e. any mix an audience would have heard at the time the film was released. It's not about what I subjectively think sounds better. It's about experiencing something as it was made to be seen, at the time it was made, as closely as possible. Period.
Remix to your hearts content but include an original mix, ALWAYS.

The original jurassic park dts CD had been recombined with the film in certain circles
post #1668 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountDeleteo View Post

The total ignorance on display here at AVS Forum is just mindblowing sometimes. Just "re-render" the effects at 4K. Right. rolleyes.gif
First, you'd have to find the original camera negatives and plate photography, and re-scan at 4K.
Then you'd have to find ALL the digital files for every single effects shot in the film. Have you all heard how hard a time ILM had a few years back just finding the Star Wars Special Edition project files (I think it was for the 2004 DVD Jabba the Hutt model revision)?
Then, somehow, using project files built in outdated twenty year old software which can probably barely handle 1K video, re-composite on to a completely different scan of the film negative, of which there are any number of colour/sharpness/geometric/edge cropping differences resulting from two decades of difference in film scanning technology.
This means almost nothing would line up with the film scan used for the effects in 1993, making compositing a nightmare. Every single shot would have to be composited from scratch, a costly and timely exercise. New matte shapes, new keyframes for every movement, etc. You'd have an easier time just doing the whole thing from scratch.
This doesn't even take into account the software used in 1993 has been obsolete for years, probably doesn't exist anymore, and has zero chance at rendering out at 4K.
I mean, do you think Adobe Photoshop from 1993 can be installed on modern computers and just magically work with brand new 4K film scans?
rolleyes.gif

You are right on the button with this post.

This isn't a simple clean the negative and rescan job. There is so much obsolete technology that would have to be factored into a restoration/re-rendering job that the logistics would be a nightmare. I saw the new "remastered" trailer on the Apple Movie Trailers website, and while it didn't have that amazing "pop" to the picture, it looked heaps better than the junk that Universal released last year. With all of the compositing shots, it'll never look super sharp, but I wish there was more grain present; perhaps that it merely a symptom of encoding via QuickTime.

When the new Blu-ray is released, this one will be closely scrutinized and for all the right reasons.

For the record, I don't think re-rendering the dinosaur shots at higher resolution is necessarily a revisionist stance. As long as they don't change the appearance and/or texture of the dinosaurs I'll be happy. Yes, Toy Story was re-rendered for the Blu-ray release, but it still has that old '90s low-polygon look.
post #1669 of 1995
^^^^Wasn't Toy Story on BD renderd at a higher resolution than it was in the theater?
post #1670 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

^^^^Wasn't Toy Story on BD renderd at a higher resolution than it was in the theater?

Yeah, I've read that too. The original version was only 1536x922, so it would have to be either upscaled or re-rendered for Blu and contemporary DCP presentation. They re-rendered it for 3D anyway, so I'm sure they upped the resolution while they were at it. (On top of that, I believe some shots were recreated from the ground up for the old DVD release because they couldn't find the original files.) This piece says Finding Nemo 3D also got a resolution bump and other small tweaks.
post #1671 of 1995
Sunshine Cinema in NY is showing Jurassic Park tonight-

http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Films/films_frameset.asp?id=43768

I'm trying to find out if it's the new transfer. I doubt it though.
post #1672 of 1995
This 3D version is either a new master from 35mm source, or from the master created for the Muse High Def Laserdisc, which was also used, I believe, as a source for the Standard Laserdisc, and eventually the HDTV version.
It is in no way a 4K restoration. As the low resolution of the effects shots wouldn't allow that, it would create all sorts of artifacts like banding (which is already showing in the early close-up Lake shots of the Brachios)and lack of detail, etc.
Infact the lack of detail is already apparent from the trailer. Look at the close-up shots of Goldblum's face. You cannot see much detail there at all, it looks unnaturally smooth. While it has moderate detail (more than the previous blu ray), but the overall look of the film is smooth, as if it was shot with soft focus, which was the case with JP2 but not JP1. The colour is gorgeous this time, very close to what the original 35mm prints looked, with warm skin tones and lush greenery. The Bluish hue of the previous HD version or DVD version(Same master as the Blu) is gone, thankfully! The framing hasn't been altered for 3D, which I believe should have been done, 'cause a lot of the frames and the positioning of the characters will look distracting in 3D.
from the looks of it they mastered the film at 2K from an already matted 1.85:1 print, hence there is no way that there will be a open-matte 1.78:1 print for the 3D Blu Ray this time, which is sad . But thankfully the frames are both wider and taller than the Blu Ray framing which as I felt, was zoom-boxed.
I honestly feel that if they could've done it, they should have gone back and re-rendered the original digital effects back onto the original plate photography, and created a taller 1.66:1 aspect ratio version for the IMAX release( like Apollo 13), especially since Jurassic Park was shot in Full aperture 1.33:1(or slightly taller) The 16:10 version would've looked great in 15/70mm IMAX theaters, and I would've more than likely paid to travel to another state her in India to watch it!

Here are some examples( some I found, some I recreated by combining several sources ) of the taller effects plate, which I believe was shot in Vistavision 1.66:1 giving it a 16:10 aspect-

1.
Notice that the frame is taller than the final 1.85:1 cut(compare it with your dvd or bluray)

2.
This is a frame that I reconstituted from two different sources, on from an interview of Dennis Muren, and the other from a HDTV source(which is both tall and wide than the Bluray)

3. Another CG plate shot, taller than the previous two-

Here are some non CG 35mm film stills which could easily be cropped to a 1.66:1 aspect ratio-

1.

2.

3.
post #1673 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

It is in no way a 4K restoration. As the low resolution of the effects shots wouldn't allow that, it would create all sorts of artifacts like banding (which is already showing in the early close-up Lake shots of the Brachios)and lack of detail, etc
Uh, the digital effects are like 7 minutes of the movie. I guarantee you they're not putting an ancient HD master in IMAX re-release.
post #1674 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Uh, the digital effects are like 7 minutes of the movie. I guarantee you they're not putting an ancient HD master in IMAX re-release.

They already did so in the recent IMAX release of Jurassic Park in September 2011 for a limited time (Only UK). But If the 3D version is a recent 2K master, then it is a above average 2K master, mainly for the lush and exotic colours, and film-like image quality!

Guys please comment on my latest post about a 1.66:1 IMAX version of JP, tell me what you think, if that was possible to do? Wouldn't it be cool?
post #1675 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

But If the 3D version is a recent 2K master, then it is a above average 2K master, mainly for the lush and exotic colours, and film-like image quality!
And are you judging that from a youtube trailer?

Also, let's leave the AR alone.
post #1676 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

And are you judging that from a youtube trailer?
Yes because atleast it looks quite different from the previous Blu Ray version, the framing is different. Obviously it is not possible to induce the details but still, I don't think they are using an old master.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Also, let's leave the AR alone.
Why, this is bound to remain within the ambit of discussion only! Its not like Spielberg is going to release a 1.66:1 version for Imax ever! Discussion is fun. I find the framing aspect to be quite interesting, but I get it if others don't feel the same!
I honestly welcomed the decision made by Ang Lee to have multiple aspect ratios in Life of Pi 3D, I Imagine it looked much better in IMAX, especially the 1.37 scene with the bioluminescent planktons.
post #1677 of 1995
Individual releases in March:

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=98392
post #1678 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

Individual releases in March:

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=98392

I'll wait for the re-mastered version of JP after the 3D re-release. These versions will still be the same lousy transfers as in the boxed set, unless Universal learned its lessen. Doubtful.
post #1679 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'll wait for the re-mastered version of JP after the 3D re-release. These versions will still be the same lousy transfers as in the boxed set, unless Universal learned its lessen. Doubtful.

I have the boxed set BDs of the three films. I agree that the transfers of I and II were nothing extra but thought that Jurassic Park III looked great and sounded even better. I confess, I like JP III more than most did. In addition to how good it looks and sounds, both William H. Macy and Téa Leoni were terrific as the distraught parents of the missing kid. Nobody is funnier at playing hysterical women than Leoni and Macy is great in everything he does.
post #1680 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I confess, I like JP III more than most did.

Add me to the list. JP III is underrated imo as I've always thought it was a more than decent follow-up to the original Jurassic Park. To me The Lost World is one of the worst, if not the worst film from Spielberg. He managed to make Jeff Goldblum's daughter even more annoying than the kids of JP which is actually a pretty amazing feat. ...I missed Laura Dern in the 3rd film. As for the separate releases, I'm not really tempted as I like my franchises complete smile.gif I haven't bought it yet though.
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