or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Lawrence of Arabia (UK)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawrence of Arabia (UK) - Page 10

post #271 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Heat damage to the original negative, exacerbated by slight cupping during printing.
While it wet-gated out in 1962-3, it became more noticeable as the negative went through more printing. It was visible in 1988. The 8k scan brought it out, front and center, after which, light digital fixes were applied to tone it down.
RAH

This puts the "S" back in AVS. Thanks for the FYI. :-)
post #272 of 435
Yeah, that's always been an issue with some shots from Lawrence... the visible heat damage done to some of the negatives. It was literally "baked-in" at the time of filming.

What I'd like to know from Mr. Harris is what happened with the scenes (the balcony scene in particular, if memory serves) that were in the original road-show release that still haven't made it into the current edition of this classic? Is there some sort of hold up? Weren't there re-looping sessions of this scene done at the time of the restoration in the 80's besides the other areas where the original dialog tracks were missing? Is there some way to get it completed, restored, and reintegrated back in?

Thank you! smile.gif
post #273 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Yeah, that's always been an issue with some shots from Lawrence... the visible heat damage done to some of the negatives. It was literally "baked-in" at the time of filming.
What I'd like to know from Mr. Harris is what happened with the scenes (the balcony scene in particular, if memory serves) that were in the original road-show release that still haven't made it into the current edition of this classic? Is there some sort of hold up? Weren't there re-looping sessions of this scene done at the time of the restoration in the 80's besides the other areas where the original dialog tracks were missing? Is there some way to get it completed, restored, and reintegrated back in?
Thank you! smile.gif
I was under the impression this is the deleted scene on Disc 3 exclusive to the collector's set.
post #274 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

What I'd like to know from Mr. Harris is what happened with the scenes (the balcony scene in particular, if memory serves) that were in the original road-show release that still haven't made it into the current edition of this classic? Is there some sort of hold up? Weren't there re-looping sessions of this scene done at the time of the restoration in the 80's besides the other areas where the original dialog tracks were missing? Is there some way to get it completed, restored, and reintegrated back in?
Thank you! smile.gif

There has been extensive discussion of this in Harris' thread at Home Theater Forum. What it boils down to is that David Lean had final cut for the movie in his contract. The 1988 restoration represents his final authorized version of the film. No further changes are allowed. Given that it was the director's final say on the matter, nor should there be.
post #275 of 435
I always was under the impression that they couldn't immediately find a sound-alike voice over actor or impersonator during the re-loops for one of the original actors who had passed away. The studio didn't want to pony up the moola to wrap it up for reintegration, so it was left out. Not that Lean wanted the scene deleted. It supposedly had some good stuff in it.
post #276 of 435
I have the 2000-2002 dvd single disc release with the blue cover. I bought it at barnes and noble in livingston, nj cause it was on sale. The one disc has no trailers, just the entire movie on one disc, 5.1 Dolby audio, mutliple subtitles, and the option to watch the movie with or without the overture, intermission, and exit music. On the VHS version of the movie which was released in 1989, after the credits roll the music gets abruptly cut off!!! Thankfully Sony did justice by reissuing the movie in future editions. The DVD version is blurry and the audio a bit muffled. Hopefully the bluray will make the movie look like it was shown in 1962. I remember seeing Lawrence on VHS in an early 1980's tape that had the 1971 version and the moving columbia statue. That was a horrible print. The same could be said for close encounters special editon on vhs in 1981, which was fixed in 1983.
post #277 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Yeah, that's always been an issue with some shots from Lawrence... the visible heat damage done to some of the negatives. It was literally "baked-in" at the time of filming.
What I'd like to know from Mr. Harris is what happened with the scenes (the balcony scene in particular, if memory serves) that were in the original road-show release that still haven't made it into the current edition of this classic? Is there some sort of hold up? Weren't there re-looping sessions of this scene done at the time of the restoration in the 80's besides the other areas where the original dialog tracks were missing? Is there some way to get it completed, restored, and reintegrated back in?
Thank you! smile.gif

It can't be reintegrated, as DL signed off on what we have as the "director's cut," regardless of the fact that he requested that I re-dub the lines, and get it back in.

People no longer with us, studio politics back in the day, etc. It is what it is, but you'll find it as an extra with the dialogue as recorded on disc three.

RAH
post #278 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I always was under the impression that they couldn't immediately find a sound-alike voice over actor or impersonator during the re-loops for one of the original actors who had passed away. The studio didn't want to pony up the moola to wrap it up for reintegration, so it was left out. Not that Lean wanted the scene deleted. It supposedly had some good stuff in it.

What occurred was that I supplied a list of a few people to do the dialogue in London. One stood out, as potentially the best, but the list went out in alpha order, and the first person was hired. It didn't work.

I believe Robert Rietty, who had dubbed a number of Mr. Hawkin's films, could have pulled it off. He supplied Orson Welles' voice in Treasure Island, and I can't tell that it isn't Welles. I had the pleasure of chatting with him a couple of times, and he's a terrific talent, and a great gentleman. He is, from his credits, the voice of Majid in Lawrence. His vocal talents can be heard in more films than you might imagine.

RAH
post #279 of 435
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Harris! biggrin.gif

We film buffs ought to all chip in and get a fund together to have this part finished and put in anyway. Give it the ol' college try. I know that Mr. Lean signed off on this current cut, but that doesn't mean that an "alternative" cut couldn't be looked into. Call it "Lawrence of Arabia: Redux." biggrin.gif If Mr. Lean actually had wanted the scene but the studio bungled something, that seems like you wouldn't be really going against his wishes. If he had thought it should have been left on the cutting room floor and not included in the original version, then I could see that it would be in poor taste to include it now.
post #280 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Harris! biggrin.gif
We film buffs ought to all chip in and get a fund together to have this part finished and put in anyway. Give it the ol' college try. I know that Mr. Lean signed off on this current cut, but that doesn't mean that an "alternative" cut couldn't be looked into. Call it "Lawrence of Arabia: Redux." biggrin.gif If Mr. Lean actually had wanted the scene but the studio bungled something, that seems like you wouldn't be really going against his wishes. If he had thought it should have been left on the cutting room floor and not included in the original version, then I could see that it would be in poor taste to include it now.

Don't go there.

RAH
post #281 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Don't go there.
RAH

Ah, well. Just an idea. Always wanted to see the most complete road-show version possible.
post #282 of 435
eek.gifO-M-Gee --> Just a week til' the U.K. release !!! (Sept 10th -- as per Amz.uk ... preordered, naturally)
Edited by ambientcafe - 8/31/12 at 2:42am
post #283 of 435
There will be a NYC Digital showing of the restoration in September.

http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff2012/films/lawrence-of-arabia

Question is, how will it compare to seeing an actual 70mm print? I once had the pleasure of experiencing this film in 70mm and it was breathtaking.
post #284 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Harris! biggrin.gif
We film buffs ought to all chip in and get a fund together to have this part finished and put in anyway. Give it the ol' college try. I know that Mr. Lean signed off on this current cut, but that doesn't mean that an "alternative" cut couldn't be looked into. Call it "Lawrence of Arabia: Redux." biggrin.gif If Mr. Lean actually had wanted the scene but the studio bungled something, that seems like you wouldn't be really going against his wishes. If he had thought it should have been left on the cutting room floor and not included in the original version, then I could see that it would be in poor taste to include it now.

Here's the thing: All movies involve compromises. Directors shoot scenes that don't wind up working out for various reasons (technical issues, bad performance, etc.) all the time. That's why we have "deleted scenes" sections on DVD and Blu-ray. Of course, the director must have originally wanted the scene to be in the movie. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have shot it. Nonetheless, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and out it goes. The director makes the movie work without that scene.

That's what happened here. Lean tried to restore the scene with redubbed dialogue, but still couldn't get it to his liking, so he signed off on a final cut without the scene. The fact that the scene can feasilby be restored now with new technology (and in fact has been) is of no consequence. The filmmaker is dead, and it's not our place to second guess what he might have wanted. He already gave us the best version of the movie he could assemble at the time, and that's what we have.

I'm very interested to see this scene as a supplement to the movie, but it should not be reintegrated into the body of the film, any more than we should start adding deleted scenes back into every old movie just because we can. The filmmaker already made the decision of what footage should be in the movie and what shouldn't. Retroactively changing the movie is not our decision to make, no matter how much we may want to.
post #285 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Here's the thing: All movies involve compromises. Directors shoot scenes that don't wind up working out for various reasons (technical issues, bad performance, etc.) all the time. That's why we have "deleted scenes" sections on DVD and Blu-ray. Of course, the director must have originally wanted the scene to be in the movie. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have shot it. Nonetheless, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and out it goes. The director makes the movie work without that scene.
That's what happened here. Lean tried to restore the scene with redubbed dialogue, but still couldn't get it to his liking, so he signed off on a final cut without the scene. The fact that the scene can feasilby be restored now with new technology (and in fact has been) is of no consequence. The filmmaker is dead, and it's not our place to second guess what he might have wanted. He already gave us the best version of the movie he could assemble at the time, and that's what we have.
I'm very interested to see this scene as a supplement to the movie, but it should not be reintegrated into the body of the film, any more than we should start adding deleted scenes back into every old movie just because we can. The filmmaker already made the decision of what footage should be in the movie and what shouldn't. Retroactively changing the movie is not our decision to make, no matter how much we may want to.

I don't often agree with Josh but this post is spot on.
post #286 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

There will be a NYC Digital showing of the restoration in September.
http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff2012/films/lawrence-of-arabia
Question is, how will it compare to seeing an actual 70mm print? I once had the pleasure of experiencing this film in 70mm and it was breathtaking.


A well presented 4k screening may well be superior to a 70mm screening, for the simple reason that you're viewing a high quality digital scan of the original camera negative (with some digital processing), while a 70mm print is at best an analog copy of a copy of a copy (OCN -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print). That 4th generation analog copy has significantly lower resolution than the OCN.
post #287 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cham313 View Post

A well presented 4k screening may well be superior to a 70mm screening, for the simple reason that you're viewing a high quality digital scan of the original camera negative (with some digital processing), while a 70mm print is at best an analog copy of a copy of a copy (OCN -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print). That 4th generation analog copy has significantly lower resolution than the OCN.
As I understand it, 70mm prints were generally made from the negative, which is one of the reasons why the OCN is in such crummy condition. The best 70mm I've seen is superior to the best 4K DLP I've seen; not sure that any extant 70mm prints of Lawrence would measure up though.
post #288 of 435
Totally disagree. Remember that the scene in question was originally presented in theaters in December 1962 and was part of the first wave of cuts made in early 1963. From all indications there just wasn't enough time to get the scene placed back into the picture prior to the premiere of the 'restored' version in 1989. Lean wanted in the picture as did his screen writer Robert Bolt. I see no reason why the viewing public should not have been given the opportunity via seamless branching to see the scene intact the way Lean had originally presented it...Being the cynic I see 'down' the road Sony releasing a 4k Blu ray Lawrence Redux with the scene restored in its rightful place!
post #289 of 435
I'll see LOA in 4K tomorrow, and for comparison some 70mm LOA too. Stay tuned...
post #290 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

I'll see LOA in 4K tomorrow, and for comparison some 70mm LOA too. Stay tuned...

Have fun in Karlsruhe and looking forward to your impressions smile.gif
I wonder if the comparison will be with an old pinkish print or a reel of an unfaded newer one.
post #291 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

I'll see LOA in 4K tomorrow, and for comparison some 70mm LOA too. Stay tuned...
Have fun in Karlsruhe and looking forward to your impressions smile.gif
I wonder if the comparison will be with an old pinkish print or a reel of an unfaded newer one.
Thanks. (Why don't you come too? smile.gif ). Print is from original Harris restoration, I think.
post #292 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Thanks. (Why don't you come too? smile.gif ). Print is from original Harris restoration, I think.

No time at the moment, it takes me about 10 hours driving in total which is just a tad too much especially now that I have looked at plenty of 70mm prints of Lawrence in the last 5 years - I will attend the 70mm festival in October though, maybe we can meet there smile.gif
post #293 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

I'll see LOA in 4K tomorrow, and for comparison some 70mm LOA too. Stay tuned...
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
post #294 of 435
I have seen now "LOA" in 4K DLP and also "Samsara".
Before the Lawrence screening there was a 20 minutes or so comparison of the 4K versus a reel of a 70mm print of the Harris restoration (e.g. >= 4th generation material), courtesy of a collector, I think. The comparison was for "insiders" (e.g. word of mouth among 70mm buffs and projectionists plus tech forum, no announcement in the cinema or newspapers).
There were several differences.
- the 4K is very clean, hardly any speckle etc. The print had many scratches, random and stationary.
- the print had tints the 4K had not. Colour on the 4K looked more correct to me.
- Real world detail was sharper on the 4K, but not very much so. The grain of the negative on the other hand was considerably sharper.
- The sound on the print had better highs. The digital version sounded denoised to some extent, losing some highs and the presence they provide. I wish that had not been the case.

Overall the 4K was clearly better in the image department, but not for the sound (to my ears; an opinion shared by others). I was watching half the film maybe 1.25 screen heights away
and the other half maybe 0.75 screen heights away for an immersive regular perspective and a pixel peeping perspective. Based on that I would say that the 4K is at least as good or better than any 70mm prints from a normal viewing distance. From very close minor aliasing is visible on the sharpest image parts. A price to pay for not losing top sharpness while staying 4K.
The detail of this 50 years old film seems well covered with a 4K master. To get the ultimate in edge detail and analogue look the 8K would be preferable.
Some shots were simply stunning (for example the reception in Auda's tent) and look as good as today's top stuff shot in 4K. And even the most removed parts from the negative looked good and clearly beyond 35mm detail. These parts had usually elevated grain levels.
The Blu Ray should satisfy even the most picky fans of the film unless you are spoilt with the 4K and its 4:4:4 colour which at times is glorious and as much beyond Blu Ray as Blu Ray is beyond DVD.

And now to "Samsara". This film is modern 65mm. And this is another beast than Lawrence. Here clearly the 4K is a compromise and not giving us enough of what is on the negative.
Don't get me wrong. The 4K looks superb, and from a normal viewing distance this must have looked damn close to perfect, but from a pixel peeping distance the image falls somewhat apart.
The problem is that there is considerable fine detail beyond 4K and during downsampling from 8K apparently the decision was made to not sacrifice sharpness with strong antialiasing filtering. As a result the 4K is tack sharp but also fine detail is more or less all the time aliased. Even moiré is visible at times. If in time we have 8K projectors this is a candidate for remastering. Till then the 4K is very impressive nonetheless, just keep a bit of a distance so the 4K pixels start blurring into each other. smile.gif The BD of this should be top demo material.
post #295 of 435
Thanks for your impressions. I am surprised you are sitting that close - even at your more distant seating position you are only sitting 0.57 screen widths away from the picture which I think most consider to be rather extreme - are you really talking about screen heights, not width?

Your impressions with regard to color are very interesting as some feel that this is where 4k cannot hold up that well with film.

From what I have heard so far with regard to sound it invariably seems that this is an area where all the DTS prints I have heard seem to fall short of the 6 channel magnetic soundtrack that used to be on 70mm prints, probably another area where less noise reduction would be more.

Samsara must be stunning, looking forward to see it some day.
post #296 of 435
No one is second guessing a dead director.
The scene in question was in the film.
The scene was restored under the direction of the director.
Only not too the directors satisfaction.

If he could have made it work in his lifetime it would have been in what's now considered the final cut.
By no means does that mean it shouldn't ever be a part of the film.
[it was indeed B4 & would have been again]
post #297 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

No one is second guessing a dead director.
The scene in question was in the film.
The scene was restored under the direction of the director.
Only not too the directors satisfaction.

David Lean delivered a final cut of the movie in 1988. That final cut did not have the balcony scene. This settles the matter of what he wanted in the movie or did not want in the movie.
Quote:
If he could have made it work in his lifetime it would have been in what's now considered the final cut.

And you say you're not second guessing the director?

If he weren't dead, he might want the scene back in the movie? Did your ouija board tell you that?
Edited by Josh Z - 9/4/12 at 1:58pm
post #298 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

And you say you're not second guessing the director?

He's not second-guessing the director's statement (per Robert Harris) that he wanted the scene corrected (re-completed, as it were) and re-inserted into the film. The director signed off without it because it couldn't be achieved at the time.
post #299 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

David Lean delivered a final cut of the movie in 1988. That final cut did not have the balcony scene. This settles the matter of what he wanted in the movie or did not want in the movie.

Lean wanted the balcony scerne reinserted but with a properly matched voice for Jack Hawkins and that couldn't be accomplished due to time constraints and the studio messing up the list of actors that would fit..
post #300 of 435
My UK copy is in mail so hope to have it Thursday, all I gotta worry about now is how to watch a 2.20:1 aspect ratio film on my Philips 21:9 superwide tv rolleyes.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Lawrence of Arabia (UK)