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 60

post #1771 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

Lot of hate here for the new colour timing, which was done as par Spielberg's orders directly from the original negative, according to a new interview posted on fxguide's website!
I loved the new colour timed version. Never felt flat or dull to me, and way way better than the CRAPPY Colour of the trashy bluray! Very close to the original colour timing. Look at some stills of the 35mm film frames and you'll see it!
Could I get a link to those 35mm still frames? I want to see how close it is colour wise to the new 3D restoration of Jurassic Park....
post #1772 of 1995
Based on a theatrical screening, the color timing was an occasional bother. It turns most of the lush greens into orange. Flesh tones tended to blow out too, especially early on. But, in terms of color revisionism, it is on the lower side of offensive.

It was the DNR that made the experience a problem. All medium/long shots are muddied out. Whatever fidelity is gained in close is lost. Shots of the island, especially those as the helicopter comes in, are a mess. This movie will never look better until it is out of the hands of Universal, and that won't happen. What a shame.
post #1773 of 1995
I saw this in 2D. I didn't find the color grading too objectionable, it did seem rather flat in some of the darker scenes but looked pretty good in the contrasty scenes (this was with very high quality projection). An improvement over the ugly-ass color on the blu-ray, regardless. The DNR was a big disappointment, however. Plastic people everywhere and nary a granule in sight.
post #1774 of 1995
I guess DNR was applied because of the 3D.

Look at other Blu-rays supervised by Spielberg - they're beautiful, film-like presentations, so I hope when this one finally comes out, it's gonna look as it should look.
post #1775 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamereviewgod View Post

Based on a theatrical screening, the color timing was an occasional bother. It turns most of the lush greens into orange. Flesh tones tended to blow out too, especially early on. But, in terms of color revisionism, it is on the lower side of offensive.

Have you see this in the theater, or are you judging from the screenshots! The greens never looked orange in the theaters I went to. Flesh tones appeared warm, not blown out. The entire movie has a warm colour timing, just like the original look was. This is stated in the interview at fxguide's website, where they talk about how they meticulously restored the film from the original negative to 4K, and then colour graded it to match the original prints as close as they could. Have you noticed how different the colour is in the stills released in the Jurassic Park official website, from the 2011 Bluray version. It looks miles better, to most and to me as well. Don't base your assumption on any home-video version as they'll likely lead you nowhere, or create false ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamereviewgod View Post

It was the DNR that made the experience a problem. All medium/long shots are muddied out. Whatever fidelity is gained in close is lost. Shots of the island, especially those as the helicopter comes in, are a mess.
Yes a necessary amount of Digital noise Reduction had to be done, as grain cannot be converted to 3D, it creates all sorts of artifacts. But never did I ever notice muddied out shots in any scene, and I am a nitpicky person when it comes to restoration or remastering of a film. I went to watch the movie TWICE in theaters till now, and Never for a moment was there any evidence of muddy or waxy kind of shots.. It looked very clear and highly detailed. The colour looked warm, cinematic and soothing, in short WONDERFUL!
You are seeing too much negative in an overwhelmingly positive re-release. This is the best the movie has ever looked.
The annoying issues I found was that a lot of shots had been cropped both vertically and horizontally, making an already tight composition even tighter, and making those shots look bad!
Otherwise it was a STELLAR release in both PQ and AQ department!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamereviewgod View Post

This movie will never look better until it is out of the hands of Universal, and that won't happen. What a shame.
The movie DOES look better than the 2011 Bluray and all previous home video versions already, but I do agree with you that it needs to be out of the itching hands of Universal, and into the hads of Amblin, so that Spielberg can do whatever he wants with JP, he'll not create such poor versions like Universal often does!

At the end of the day it is to each his own, and I respect that! But try to enjoy the film that we all fell in love with when we were kids. Relive the nostalgia. That's what matters in the end!
Edited by Papai2011 - 4/7/13 at 4:54am
post #1776 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blu-21 View Post

Could I get a link to those 35mm still frames? I want to see how close it is colour wise to the new 3D restoration of Jurassic Park....
Here are some of them for you-





This one(when the raptors have cornered them) is a Vistavision vfx shot, which has a native aspect ratio of 16:10, as you can see here. From this it was cropped, or matted if you will, to 1.85:1, by cutting off the top and bottom!







Processed By eBay with ImageMagick, R1.1.1.M2a



Happy ? Or do you need more?
Do these shots resemble the colour of the 2011 Trilogy Bluray? I think not!
They are not the exact match for the 3D master either, but more or less close. The contrast is much more in these shots, which hurts the eyes almost. The 3D version as I said before is more soothing!
Edited by Papai2011 - 4/7/13 at 5:14am
post #1777 of 1995
Quote:
Have you see this in the theater, or are you judging from the screenshots! The greens never looked orange in the theaters I went to. Flesh tones appeared warm, not blown out. The entire movie has a warm colour timing, just like the original look was. This is stated in the interview at fxguide's website, where they talk about how they meticulously restored the film from the original negative to 4K, and then colour graded it to match the original prints as close as they could. Have you noticed how different the colour is in the stills released in the Jurassic Park official website, from the 2011 Bluray version. It looks miles better, to most and to me as well. Don't base your assumption on any home-video version as they'll likely lead you nowhere, or create false ideas.

I just came from the theater last night. It looked very similar to Indiana Jones in terms of color. No lushness. It simply looked like a modern film with modern color timing. Having seen this on every home video format, it looked nothing like those. They can say it's been timed to match the original, but I've heard those lines before when they turn older film into orange and teal. JP simply ended up with a coating of orange.
Quote:
Yes a necessary amount of Digital noise Reduction had to be done, as grain cannot be converted to 3D, it creates all sorts of artifacts. But never did I ever notice muddied out shots in any scene, and I am a nitpicky person when it comes to restoration or remastering of a film. I went to watch the movie TWICE in theaters till now, and Never for a moment was there any evidence of muddy or waxy kind of shots.. It looked very clear and highly detailed. The colour looked warm, cinematic and soothing, in short WONDERFUL!

It's not necessary to de-grain, and certainly not that excessively. Titanic looked fantastic. This did not. Any shot with lots of plants was a muddy mess with no visible definition, on par with the original Blu-ray. Any gained fidelity is in close, and even that is sporadic. Top Gun wasn't de-grained at all for its conversion. This is Universal being Universal.
Quote:
You are seeing too much negative in an overwhelmingly positive re-release. This is the best the movie has ever looked.

I don't take the "best it has ever looked" to mean much when it could look so much better sans DNR. It's the same as, "It looks better than the DVD!" which is also meaningless. It should be so far ahead of it that there is no comparison.
Quote:
The annoying issues I found was that a lot of shots had been cropped both vertically and horizontally, making an already tight composition even tighter, and making those shots look bad!

You know, I thought so myself. The whole triceratops sequence felt squished to me.
Quote:
The movie DOES look better than the 2011 Bluray and all previous home video versions already, but I do agree with you that it needs to be out of the itching hands of Universal, and into the hads of Amblin, so that Spielberg can do whatever he wants with JP, he'll not create such poor versions like Universal often does!

Or just did. I glad I could see this in theaters again. Saw it on a faux-IMAX screen which was great. But, the print wasn't up to par. At all. The 3D effect was a success and I look forward to it in the home, but we should be asking for better.
post #1778 of 1995
I'm not sure what people think 90s movies looked like theatrically (it sure wasn't like the blu-ray) but much of the movie does a pretty decent, though not perfect, emulation of the look of analog prints (the contrast was on the low side and the skin tones often seem a bit off, this was also a problem with Raiders), and while I don't remember what the color timing was like on JP's prints and doubt 98% of the people here do, there's certainly evidence the warm color timing isn't new. I know I'll never convince the folks who go on about digital grading while having seemingly no memory of how films actually looked before DIs on film, but the more restrained examples of "modern digital movies" tend to look a lot closer to how the average analog print (at least one shot on reasonably modern film stocks) looks than old-school home video transfers did. Even heard someone complaining about how The Master blu-ray had digital colors, even though it's dead on to the analog 70mm prints I saw. Sigh....
Edited by 42041 - 4/7/13 at 9:39am
post #1779 of 1995
Can anyone get side-by-side comparisons? There's a 3D trailer on YouTube, presumably taken from the new master. Let's put that up next to DVD and BD caps, and put it to the test. I can screencap that trailer, but I have no way of doing BDs or DVDs with my software. I imagine the color change is there, given what they did with ROTLA, but I'm still not going to just take everyone's word for it.

DNR is somewhat necessary in this case... film grain is acceptable in 3D, but it must match perfectly in both eyes. The shifting done via 3D reprojection would cause visual artifacts, differences that would manifest as a "confusing" 3D image, where what you see with one eye doesn't match the other, and it pulls the audience out. Any film grain present would have to be re-added after the fact.
post #1780 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

Here are some of them for you-





This one(when the raptors have cornered them) is a Vistavision vfx shot, which has a native aspect ratio of 16:10, as you can see here. From this it was cropped, or matted if you will, to 1.85:1, by cutting off the top and bottom!







Processed By eBay with ImageMagick, R1.1.1.M2a



Happy ? Or do you need more?
Do these shots resemble the colour of the 2011 Trilogy Bluray? I think not!
They are not the exact match for the 3D master either, but more or less close. The contrast is much more in these shots, which hurts the eyes almost. The 3D version as I said before is more soothing!
Thank you for those. I was a bit skeptical with the new warm colour timing and without having actuelly seen it I still am to a degree, but there is no doubt it matches the orignal looker closer then the blue tinted 2011 Blu-Ray.
post #1781 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Can anyone get side-by-side comparisons? There's a 3D trailer on YouTube, presumably taken from the new master. Let's put that up next to DVD and BD caps, and put it to the test. I can screencap that trailer, but I have no way of doing BDs or DVDs with my software. I imagine the color change is there, given what they did with ROTLA, but I'm still not going to just take everyone's word for it.

DNR is somewhat necessary in this case... film grain is acceptable in 3D, but it must match perfectly in both eyes. The shifting done via 3D reprojection would cause visual artifacts, differences that would manifest as a "confusing" 3D image, where what you see with one eye doesn't match the other, and it pulls the audience out. Any film grain present would have to be re-added after the fact.


Original 35mm still frame:




Newly Remastered 3D version:





2011 Blu-Ray version:



Both YouTube screenshots of the new remaster and the 2011 Blu-Ray are obviously compressed but you get the general idea in terms of colours.. The new remaster is certainly a lot more faithful to the orignal look..
post #1782 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blu-21 View Post

Original 35mm still frame:




Newly Remastered 3D version:





2011 Blu-Ray version:



Both YouTube screenshots of the new remaster and the 2011 Blu-Ray are obviously compressed but you get the general idea in terms of colours.. The new remaster is certainly a lot more faithful to the orignal look..

LOL, "haineshisway's" head just exploded.
post #1783 of 1995
I'm convinced.
post #1784 of 1995
Look at how the 2011 Bluray is cropped-

1. 2011 BD-


2. 2013 3D version-


Notice how the 2013 version is not only wider than the 2011 BD, but also has more image on the bottom of the frame.
This is exactly how the laserdisc looked as well-

3. Laserdisc-


4. This is the HDTV version (same source as the bluray)-


5. And this is from the Fullscreen DVD-


And sorry I don't have the VHS version! tongue.gif
Though I loved VHS cassettes. Loved how it played, how you could see the physical tape and was amazed(as a kid) that it contained the entire movie, how the tape was sucked by the player as you pressed the head of the tape to the VCP's mouth> the mechanical sounds of the tape beginning to run. It was extraordinary, Watching a VHS movie in a VCP itself was an event! Ah! the memories!
It was in a pirated VHS copy in 1994, that I saw the extended version of Jurasic Park( a year before JP was officially released with the theatrical cut on VHS)
If I knew back then that I'd never be able to see that extended cut anymore, I'd have saved a copy, but alas I was too young! tongue.gif
Edited by Papai2011 - 4/8/13 at 5:25am
post #1785 of 1995
I Have the new master Trailer in 1080p HD High Bitrate:

Comparisons:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/14318
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/14319

A Lot of DNR in my opinion ruins an otherwise perfect transfer...
post #1786 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterXDTV View Post

I Have the new master Trailer in 1080p HD High Bitrate:

Comparisons:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/14318
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/14319

A Lot of DNR in my opinion ruins an otherwise perfect transfer...

"Those are some nice clothes, where did you get them?"
"Oh, these old things? I bought them from the Wax Paper Clothing Store. I just love their clothing, it's so smooth and devoid of all that texture that irritates my skin!"

I was planning on buying the 3-D Blu-ray and just ripping one eye stream to get a 2-D version of the new master, but this is very discouraging. I'll hold out judgement until I see some PNG captures of the 3-D Blu-ray. I can change colors all day long, but I can't get detail back. frown.gif
post #1787 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterXDTV View Post

I Have the new master Trailer in 1080p HD High Bitrate:

Comparisons:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/14318
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/14319

A Lot of DNR in my opinion ruins an otherwise perfect transfer...

You should NOT judge from these screenshots, I repeat should NOT!
Go watch the cinema version, it had tons of detail that your Beloved 2011 Bluray doesn't have!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

"Those are some nice clothes, where did you get them?"
"Oh, these old things? I bought them from the Wax Paper Clothing Store. I just love their clothing, it's so smooth and devoid of all that texture that irritates my skin!"

I was planning on buying the 3-D Blu-ray and just ripping one eye stream to get a 2-D version of the new master, but this is very discouraging. I'll hold out judgement until I see some PNG captures of the 3-D Blu-ray. I can change colors all day long, but I can't get detail back. frown.gif

Again! Please GO WATCH the 3D version IN CINEMAS! PLEASE!
I have seen it twice till now. It looks FAR Better than those compressed screenshots(though you can get an idea about the colour timing)
The new 3D version is highly detailed, much more than the current Bluray, that some of you seem to almost worship here!
Edited by Papai2011 - 4/8/13 at 6:33am
post #1788 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

I was planning on buying the 3-D Blu-ray and just ripping one eye stream to get a 2-D version of the new master, but this is very discouraging.

Be this a relatively straightforward process?
post #1789 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

Again! Please GO WATCH the 3D version IN CINEMAS! PLEASE!
No. Aside from my objection to 3-D in general, the theatrical version will tell me nothing about the Blu-ray release. I can immediately think of many Blu-ray discs that have DNR or edge enhancement added as part of the encoding process that was not present theatrically. Detail found in a 2K/4K DCI theatrical showing is in no way a guarantee of a 1080p Blu-ray encoding. This is why I stated that I will wait for screenshots from the Blu-ray. Also, I am not an advocate of the initial 2-D Blu-ray either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffinmcfluffin View Post

Be this a relatively straightforward process?
If you know how to backup a Blu-ray, it is no more complex. You simply backup the right- or left-eye stream.
post #1790 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

No. Aside from my objection to 3-D in general, the theatrical version will tell me nothing about the Blu-ray release. I can immediately think of many Blu-ray discs that have DNR or edge enhancement added as part of the encoding process that was not present theatrically. Detail found in a 2K/4K DCI theatrical showing is in no way a guarantee of a 1080p Blu-ray encoding. This is why I stated that I will wait for screenshots from the Blu-ray. Also, I am not an advocate of the initial 2-D Blu-ray either.
But are you not a fan of the movie? If you are, what better way to celebrate that than watching it on the "Silver Screen" 2D or 3D does it matter that much to you more than the movie itself?
I can't even dream of passing up the opportunity of seeing JP in theaters, and emotions are welling inside me as I say this to you, trust me or not!
But at the end of the day we are all individuals, so I'll just have to accept I know. Please don't mind!
post #1791 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

No. Aside from my objection to 3-D in general, the theatrical version will tell me nothing about the Blu-ray release. I can immediately think of many Blu-ray discs that have DNR or edge enhancement added as part of the encoding process that was not present theatrically. Detail found in a 2K/4K DCI theatrical showing is in no way a guarantee of a 1080p Blu-ray encoding. This is why I stated that I will wait for screenshots from the Blu-ray. Also, I am not an advocate of the initial 2-D Blu-ray either.
If you know how to backup a Blu-ray, it is no more complex. You simply backup the right- or left-eye stream.
Well, in this case the company that remastered it spared Universal the trouble of DNRing even the 2D version frown.gif
Of course, it's possible what I saw was one eye of the 3D DCP, I have no real clue how theaters do that.

This is what happened according to one of the articles about this conversion: "A full 4K digital scan of the original negative, followed by a restoration to eliminate scratches, grain noise, and other natural artifacts incurred in the 20 years since its completion."
Unfortunately when the people doing the work think grain is an age-related artifact, it doesn't seem like an analog looking disc is in the cards.
Edited by 42041 - 4/8/13 at 8:59am
post #1792 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

But are you not a fan of the movie? If you are, what better way to celebrate that than watching it on the "Silver Screen" 2D or 3D does it matter that much to you more than the movie itself?
I can't even dream of passing up the opportunity of seeing JP in theaters, and emotions are welling inside me as I say this to you, trust me or not!
But at the end of the day we are all individuals, so I'll just have to accept I know. Please don't mind!

As some of you may recall, despite great effort to warm to 3D, I still hate it. I also see a lot of movies in the theater. Although, I considered seeing the 2D version of Jurassic Park in a nearby cineplex, which is well run and I like, I decided to stick with my BD instead. The main reason I decided to skip the theatrical rerelease was that I saw the Titanic rerelease on a huge 3D IMAX screen but was still unimpressed. I got a lot more out of my 2D Titanic BD than I did out of the 3D IMAX presentation.
post #1793 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

But are you not a fan of the movie? If you are, what better way to celebrate that than watching it on the "Silver Screen" 2D or 3D does it matter that much to you more than the movie itself?

I LOVE JP! However, I already saw it in the theater when it came out - many times, in fact. I've also had the DVD since it came out, despite its flaws. No, what I want now is a perfect, 2-D, film-like restoration on Blu-ray. It's what JP deserves. I'm sick of compromising every damn time and being charged for the inconvenience. I won't support poor quality with my dollar any longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

"A full 4K digital scan of the original negative, followed by a restoration to eliminate scratches, grain noise, and other natural artifacts incurred in the 20 years since its completion." Unfortunately when the people doing the work think grain is an age-related artifact, it doesn't seem like an analog looking disc is in the cards.

Yeah, I know. I'm trying to stay optimistic, but Universal doesn't seem to care.

If I get desperate, I'll just buy a used copy of the first Blu-ray. I'd rather have "wrong" color than no detail.
post #1794 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

I LOVE JP! However, I already saw it in the theater when it came out - many times, in fact. I've also had the DVD since it came out, despite its flaws. No, what I want now is a perfect, 2-D, film-like restoration on Blu-ray. It's what JP deserves. I'm sick of compromising every damn time and being charged for the inconvenience. I won't support poor quality with my dollar any longer.
Yeah, I know. I'm trying to stay optimistic, but Universal doesn't seem to care.

If I get desperate, I'll just buy a used copy of the first Blu-ray. I'd rather have "wrong" color than no detail.

Do you think that a 1080p scan done possibly from a internegative or possibly a release print 10 years or more ago, would have more detail than a 4K scan done from the original negative with modern state-of-the-art scanners, supervised by Spielberg?
Just because it has been de-grained doesn't mean that it has lost ALL-Detail! I don't know what theaters some people are opting for in the US, but here in India, the two theaters I saw the movie in had fantastic picture quality!
Even in the closups, skin details were as they should be, never waxy or super smooth, just without visible grain.
Heck most of you are mistaking Artificially applied Video Noise for Film-grain! Jurassic Park Bluray has More Noise than grain.
Its quite apparent. The master used for the Bluray is the same one as the HDTV version that was floating around a few years earlier before the Blu Ray came out. The HDTV one is much more fine-grained and cleaner, than the Noisy as heck and artificially sharpened Bluray!
Stereo-D removed the grain VERY Judiciously! And I am a nitpicky person, and as much hard I tried to find flaws with the image, I couldn't, because there weren't any. People are using screenshots which are always compressed to draw conclusions. This is seriously shortsighted!
Again my intention is not to offend anyone, just stating my observations!
post #1795 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

Do you think that a 1080p scan done possibly from a internegative or possibly a release print 10 years or more ago, would have more detail than a 4K scan done from the original negative with modern state-of-the-art scanners, supervised by Spielberg?
Just because it has been de-grained doesn't mean that it has lost ALL-Detail! I don't know what theaters some people are opting for in the US, but here in India, the two theaters I saw the movie in had fantastic picture quality!
Even in the closups, skin details were as they should be, never waxy or super smooth, just without visible grain.
Heck most of you are mistaking Artificially applied Video Noise for Film-grain! Jurassic Park Bluray has More Noise than grain.
Its quite apparent. The master used for the Bluray is the same one as the HDTV version that was floating around a few years earlier before the Blu Ray came out. The HDTV one is much more fine-grained and cleaner, than the Noisy as heck and artificially sharpened Bluray!
Stereo-D removed the grain VERY Judiciously! And I am a nitpicky person, and as much hard I tried to find flaws with the image, I couldn't, because there weren't any. People are using screenshots which are always compressed to draw conclusions. This is seriously shortsighted!
Again my intention is not to offend anyone, just stating my observations!
FYI, old transfers are almost invariably made from interpositives (ie, 2nd generation). Internegatives and release prints are more of a "last resort" source.
It hasn't lost "all detail" but it no longer looks analog. Skin textures are now quite unnatural looking. The blu-ray might be noisy, but the high-speed films of the early 90s weren't exactly velvety either.
post #1796 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai2011 View Post

Notice how the 2013 version is not only wider than the 2011 BD, but also has more image on the bottom of the frame.

Back in the day, the Laserdisc also received plenty of criticism for being overly cropped.

I'm not seeing anything in the screenshots you posted that's at all abnormal for minor framing variances between two different film-to-video transfers. Both are well within the tolerances for projection variances at commercial movie theaters.

I think Spielberg just framed this movie a little too tightly during production.
post #1797 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

FYI, old transfers are almost invariably made from interpositives. Internegatives and release prints are more of a "last resort" source.
It hasn't lost "all detail" but it no longer looks analog. Skin textures are now quite unnatural looking. The blu-ray might be noisy, but the high-speed films of the early 90s weren't exactly velvety either.

I give up! To each his own. I did not find it unnatural looking, but very filmic! And it doesn't look like a digital polished 2013 film. It doesn't need to feels like a dated film either. It has become a classic, and a classic is one that always looks new, and relevant and not OLD or Analog! It has been more or less properly restored and I love it!
Sure I would LOVE to see a fine-grained version of JP, but I ain't going to scratch my head over it!
If its made available, I'll surely get my hands on a copy!
No hard feelings though, Ok? We're all JP fans at the end of the day, whatever our differences may be!
post #1798 of 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Back in the day, the Laserdisc also received plenty of criticism for being overly cropped.
If there were such complaints they were stupid, as the Laserdisc is the only version yet, that has almost the full horizontal 35mm width.

I guess the complaints were all about vertical cropping of height.
The first Home-video release was in VHS cassette, and in 4:3 aspect ratio. Now the thing with 4:3 was that the standard scenes were open-matte, revealing more image vertically than the cinema version, and the CG scenes which were already framed at 1.85:1, they were pan & scanned!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I think Spielberg just framed this movie a little too tightly during production.
That's true!
Edited by Papai2011 - 4/8/13 at 12:43pm
post #1799 of 1995
All the HDTV promos airing here in the US exhibit DNR.

Your emotions for the film are overriding reason.
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cap1=3017&cap2=2991&art=full&image=10&cID=629&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

Anyhow just because a 4K scan has been done with a newly supervised color-grading does not guarantee that fine detail has not been lost. In fact it seems to be a common procedure to apply some filtering of 3D post conversions of movies shot on film. To what degree is highly dependent on the mastering house, the originating film stock, and whether the Director or DP were involved.

Titanic 3D is filtered but due to the finer grain structure inherent to the originating film stock used the detrimental effects on detail are not as pronounced, as well Cameron probably made sure the dial was not set to 11.

The current JP BR is sourced from an old HD transfer, and one of the issues from older scans is lost high visual fidelity. A transfer may not have had any filtering applied but due to the lack of sufficient resolution to properly resolve fine detail, grain structure often becomes less defined and blotchy. This issue is frequently misconstrued for 'video noise' or DNR.

I am debating on seeing it in the theater, if I do it will be the 2D version rather than the overpriced 3D, I'll be sure to take some notes on my impressions on whether it is visibly filtered or not.

In regards to the color grading, I like it and it may indeed be more reflective, or a restoration, of the original color timing.
"fxg: How was Jurassic Park prep’d for conversion?

Sherak: We took the original 1993 35mm O-neg, did a 4K scan of the picture. We did a full restoration on the image, and a full color-correction. Steven really wanted to match the original look – the color is very similar to the original. Which means you watch it and you have this brand new experience but you don’t feel like you’re watching a different movie. It’s the same cut you saw in 1993 but we just dimensionalized it."
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/welcome-back-to-jurassic-park/

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 4/8/13 at 12:34pm
post #1800 of 1995
I brought this up on Blu-Ray.com, decided to share my thinking here. Since Sony's coming up with their Blu-Ray Superbit "Mastered in 4K" line up, what if Universal jumps in the wagon with this movie? If it means including the new 4K transfer mastered on Blu-Ray, then I'm for it 100%. I know it's not the answer everyone's looking for. Unless they miraculously recall /delay the 3D combo pack last minute, I just don't see any other way for Universal to release this on 2D Blu-Ray.

These are unaltered shots from the new transfer (saved in png), caputred at lo-res from Ian Failes' Jurassic Park article. You can also view that clip or download it. I honestly can't stop going over how great they look.







Edit: was going to fix the last shot 'cause Grant looks like he needs to go LOL but o well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

No. Aside from my objection to 3-D in general, the theatrical version will tell me nothing about the Blu-ray release. I can immediately think of many Blu-ray discs that have DNR or edge enhancement added as part of the encoding process that was not present theatrically. Detail found in a 2K/4K DCI theatrical showing is in no way a guarantee of a 1080p Blu-ray encoding. This is why I stated that I will wait for screenshots from the Blu-ray. Also, I am not an advocate of the initial 2-D Blu-ray either.
If you know how to backup a Blu-ray, it is no more complex. You simply backup the right- or left-eye stream.

With all due respect (sincerely) I find your reasoning for not watching this in theaters INSANE.

Technical changes aside - when I went to watch Jurassic Park in IMAX 3D, I'm not there to compare or look for the missing grain, or revealing mistakes (which has been reportedly fixed to my surprise), or wondering if the theatrical presentation is a guarantee of what the Blu-Ray will offer. I'm there to enjoy a childhood favorite on a big screen with theatre-pounding surround sound that not even home theatre can provide. All that with friends and family, some who never seen it and left the theatre in awe. And you'll never know if you'll love or hate the 3D by not taking a chance. This is coming from someone who's not as enthusiastic about 3D and also a grain purist. And let me tell you, I have seen bad 3D movies before and this is not one of them. Don't let the post-conversion fool you either (telling that to anyone who still thinks that way). Above all that, it's JURASSIC PARK.

Anyway I'm done preaching lol. I don't know how else to convince you. Not saying this will but read my experience if you like. But in the end, it's rightfully up to you so I respect whichever decision you make before it goes. I still wouldn't miss out on this opportunity because of what you said though!
Edited by I-C-Blue - 4/8/13 at 12:04pm
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