Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 38

Are there HD trailers on the set? Or is that too easy?

According to the review I read on another major site, all the trailers are 1080p.

Of course, who knows the provenance of those trailers. Without documentary sources, how could anyone know for certain if the trailers were created with the same color-grading as the original theatrical release?

Does anyone know where I can find a proper screenshot from the Temple of Doom titles? Preferably Key Huy Kwan's?

I take it that they colour-timed the deleted footage on the bonus disc, as well?

It has the same golden hue, as Raiders,(with brightness levels slightly higher).

Or did I just open a can of worms?

Incidentally, I've no issue with the colour palette.
Edited by raoul_duke - 9/27/12 at 4:57pm

Found the Indy BD set in like-new condition (minus shrinkwrap) for $35 at a used book and record store. I guess if I'm not impressed I can always give it as a Christmas present.

Also the Tim Burton 7-movie BD set likewise for $20. My lucky day, I guess.
Edited by eweiss - 9/28/12 at 10:50am

Was that the Indy BD set or the can of worms.? Just had to yank your chain.

"Worms...why does it always have to be worms...I hate worms, especially when they come in cans!"

I edited my post to clarify.

Sounds like the previous owner didn't like it if they sold it that soon after release.

Or, they duped it and sold it off - though they could probaby have done better through E-bay.

Watched Raiders Friday night and thought it looked solid. Yes, there were a few issues but nothing major and the color timing did not bother me. So far, so good.

I also watched RAIDERS over the weekend, and am extremely pleased. Yes, I noticed the colors were warmer -- but nothing that "took me out" of the movie. Didn't see any "orange Nazi flags" as has been reported by others, all of the flags in my viewing were red. The new doc "On the Set with Raiders" was really nice, some eye opening moments for certain!

I'm not really sure what you guys are so afraid of.... yes they pushed the colors quite obviously and yes the orangish red is there and no you cannot argue against it. I see people here are still in some sort of quasi denial? All you have to do is compare it to the other versions. I for one do see this as a better color timing but also think more subtlety could have been used. They should have been more subtle with the LotR too.

A warmer shade like this is obviously pushing less blue and more yellow. It looks that way to me anyway. I think it really fits Indy quite well for the most part but I can see people are attached to the old color and attack the flags as massacring the dream of being a perfect, realistic film nevermind the absurdity of all the other things that break immersion in this pretty dated film. I will take this version over the others and think it was the right move although I am not against releasing the older color timing but doubt it will ever happen.

Looked red to me too on my calibrated DLP projector. Certainly more red than orange. This is why I always tell folks to judge a movie on your own system in motion and not by scrutinizing a couple of frames posted on a website. Yes screenshots are useful put using it as a barometer for a whole movie is not recommended without actually watching it yourself. We all have different tolerance levels.

Did you really just use me as an example of someone "denying" something? I hadn't seen the pictures when I made that statement. That's not "denial", that's "lack of evidence". I'm not one to just take someone's word for it, and you'll notice in the post that you yourself quote, I specifically asked to see pictures. I have since seen the pictures. Things change. You should have kept reading.

Since my posts on the subject are apparently very vague, I will say the following, on record: The color temperature of the films has changed from its original theatrical presentation. I acknowledge this. I have not purchased the set, and I have not watched the films in person. Any statements I make about the set must be considered with those points in mind.

Will this effect my decision to not purchase the films in the long term? Probably not, for the same reason as LOTR, it's unlikely that the studio will ever correct the problem, if they even acknowledge that the problem exists in the first place. For the record, I haven't purchased LOTR yet, either, specifically because of the color issue (because that film is much more reliant on color than Raiders is).

Totally screwed that edit up...

I was just coming to this thread to report the same. Watched Raiders last night and was specifically looking out for orange flags since all the hoopla about them, but I saw them as red on my display which is calibrated.

It's because most of the people doing the orange bellyaching hadn't seen the disc. Presumably those that finally have have been mysteriously in abesntia.

Raiders colors are beautiful, but still a bit too on the yellow/blown out side. Colors are still way better than the DVD though, except for the opening sequence which I think is way too yellow (you can just look at the jungle and it's not green....). The rest looks fantastic, especially in the sands.

Deja Vu to FOTR.

I think what many are experiencing is the ability of the human vision system to recalibrate in the absence of a reference object in the field of view.

When a screencap is viewed in a browser, there is generally reference white somewhere nearby, so any colour bias will be obvious. If this screencap were viewed on its own with a completely black background within the field of vision, I expect most would see those orangish flags as being more red.

Consequently, people seeing more yellow, than others, with the same source is quite consistent, depending on how each person is viewing the material. There is no point in accusing others of being colour blind, apologists or in denial because individual experiences are all very subjective.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea for the colour timing of a movie to be altered, on the assumption that the public will be watching in a completely dark room and the perceived colours will adjust themselves, because some will be watching the movie in environments where reference white in the field of view may result in a very different effect. I consider it sloppy to not maintain reference white when adjusting those hues the director wants to accentuate, for effect, but it is probably easier to just push everything in one direction.

I've let the whole FotR issue slide, quite honestly. At least Jackson and Lesnie approved that finalized transfer, dim though it may be.

Doug Slocombe (the cinematographer of the three original Indy films), on the other hand, could not have had any involvement with these new blu-ray transfers since, from what I've heard, he lost the ability to see several years ago.* Looks like Steve couldn't have gotten him back for Indy 4 even if he'd wanted to.

Speaking of which, it's been mentioned several times in this thread that Raiders' new transfer looks like it's been Crystal Skullified. In one of the BTS featurettes for the fourth film, I remember Kaminski mentioning that he and Spielberg watched a print of Raiders in preparation for shooting, in order to get a good grasp on the look they were going for. Is it possible this print really did exhibit the colors we're seeing in this new transfer??? Something to think about.

*He's now a whopping 99 years of age. Last Crusade was, yes, his LAST movie before retiring.

So far I've only watched about half of Raiders (Indy is going into the Well of Souls with the snakes to get the Ark), but it's not as impressive a restoration as Jaws, and seems a bit too red/orange/yellow.
Edited by eweiss - 10/4/12 at 5:06am

Agreed.

What really baffles me is that the original prints where already tweaked in post production for that same reason..... movies are viewed in completely dark theaters!! When was the last time a movie was shown with the lights on ?? Never.

Dear studios, please restore and create high rez scans, do not apply DNR and leave the color timing alone, can't be any more simple.

Oh yes, everyone remember do dim the lights

Gman

I'm glad that you acknowledge this. I'm weird in that I favor with proof? Evidence? I spose you will say look at the screenshots, they changed? No duh. A new approved transfer will often have any previous misgivings corrected.

Just food for thought. Something the naysayers just ignore. Every single person who has the set, a properly calibrated TV, and a brain, has reported the flags don't appear orange, and the color timing is not "pushed". Certainly not to the extend viewing blu-ray screenshots on RGB computer screens distort the accuracy and certainly objectivity.

All that talk about lack of white reference is stupid. The flags look orange-ish on my computer screen, and there is no white to reference on that site. So, pointless excuse. The simple fact is the blu-ray disc on a calibrated TV represents the true color timing, not what we see in these threads.

When I watched Raiders, I did notice a bit warmer color temp than I remembered with the DVDs, but it was slight. Most memorable scene of this was at the beginning when he's face to face with the idol and its glowing right in his face, which is understandable. The rest of the film looks right to me though.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=3956&position=1

That's not even close to the truth. Many members who had watched the disc reported the problems with the color timimg

I, for one, have watched Raiders in my calibrated display, and perceived that the brighteness boost did change the feel and ruined some of the illusison on the openening sequence and that the flags do indeed appear 'orangeish'. The whole color palette looked to much shifted to warmer tones.
Edited by AlexBC - 10/5/12 at 1:20pm

I'll buy this.

One example: back when they filmed "Spaceballs", it was one of the earliest movies to use a large blue screen (the same type that was being used for compositing models pretty regularly, such as those on Star Wars) to create part of the set (the bridge on Dark Helmet's ship). Prior to that, most productions were still using black to extend sets or create composites for actors. Blue screens were still the domain of models (which used motion control cameras) at that point because crews and actors were afraid to work in front of them for too long.

At the time, there was a worry that looking at the blue screen could cause eye damage. The reason is, people staring at it for any length of time would see a yellow tint to everything when they looked away from the screen. As a result, the crew wore glasses with yellow lenses to "protect" their eyes.

Obviously, they later realized all they were experiencing was persistance of vision from their brains trying to "white balance" all that blue in their vision. The same thing can happen with any color. In the case of green screens productions use now, everything takes on a magenta tint when you look away from the screen after staring at it for a while. This isn't an issue for TV weather segments because the anchor frequently has his or her back to the screen and can see the rest of the studio to ensure his or her eyes don't adjust to the blue or green color.

The same sort of adaptation can happen with the hue on a TV show or a movie. After a while, our brains adjust the "white balance" of it without us realizing it.

I guess the real test would be to go directly to a scene where the flags are supposedly orange after making sure our eyes are back to normal, and view that scene fresh.
Edited by NetworkTV - 10/5/12 at 1:28pm

Slightly OT for a moment: Here's an article from BBC Online looking to explain some of Raiders' plot inconsistencies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19704700