AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Indiana Jones Trilogy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 40

post #1171 of 1224
10/12/12 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Good thing I bought the Italian version then.

How are menus on that release, especially the bonus disc? Are they in English, or Italian?

Since it costs only €41.68 (or $54) including shipping to the US on Amazon.it, it would be a pretty good alternative to the US and UK sets...
Edited by svenge - 10/13/12 at 8:27am
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #1172 of 1224
10/15/12 at 11:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenge View Post

UK nanny-state cuts on bonus features disc FTL.
The censuring is only on the bonus material and and movies are all intact right?
Reply
Reply
post #1173 of 1224
10/16/12 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck21 View Post

The censuring is only on the bonus material and and movies are all intact right?
Correct. That's why the British set's 4 movie discs have UK, Ireland, German, and Dutch ratings logos whereas the bonus disc only has UK and Irish ratings logos.
Reply
Reply
post #1174 of 1224
10/17/12 at 10:57am
Rented Raiders last night. What was amazing was the sound. What sucked was the video, and that yellow tinge throughout the entire film......still enjoyed the movie though...
Reply
Reply
post #1175 of 1224
12/17/12 at 11:00am
I just got the UK limited edition collectors set last night as a gift. The packaging is fantastic however I was slightly disappointed when I popped in Raiders and saw that the film had been washed in yellow tint and whites boosted. It was still very watcheable and I enjoyed the film but I'd want to own the best version. Do the UK and US disc share the same specs and transfer? Is the US version like this? Does anyone have picture comparisons between the 2? thanks
Edited by plastikpyro - 12/17/12 at 11:23am
Reply
Reply
post #1176 of 1224
12/17/12 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by plastikpyro View Post

I just got the UK limited edition collectors set last night as a gift. The packaging is fantastic however I was slightly disappointed when I popped in Raiders and saw that the film had been washed in yellow tint and whites boosted. It was still very watcheable and I enjoyed the film but I'd want to own the best version. Do the UK and US disc share the same specs and transfer? Is the US version like this? Does anyone have picture comparisons between the 2? thanks

Here you can compare screencaps of the U.S. Blu-Ray and the DE DVD: http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cID=1273#auswahl

I think you'll see that the U.S. set has the problem you're complaining about when compared to the DVD edition of Raiders. I noticed it, too. I got my Quadrilogy at a "used" bookstore for only $20 in new condition, so I can live with the poor coloring/brightening of Raiders, even though I don't care for it. I guess if you play with your contrast and hue and color you might be able to get it to look better. It's inexcusable for what was portrayed as being a meticulous restoration.
Reply
Reply
post #1177 of 1224
12/17/12 at 12:19pm
thanks for the link eweiss. This is such a bummer, I was hoping to finally retire my DVD box set and delete the HDTV versions off my PS3.
Reply
Reply
post #1178 of 1224
12/17/12 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by plastikpyro View Post

I just got the UK limited edition collectors set last night as a gift. The packaging is fantastic however I was slightly disappointed when I popped in Raiders and saw that the film had been washed in yellow tint and whites boosted. It was still very watcheable and I enjoyed the film but I'd want to own the best version. Do the UK and US disc share the same specs and transfer? Is the US version like this? Does anyone have picture comparisons between the 2? thanks

It's been long known and debated unfortunately
Reply
Reply
post #1179 of 1224
12/17/12 at 12:42pm
yea I noticed. I decided to man up and read this entire thread, I'm currently on page 30 btw. Totally dejavu......wait this isn't the LOTR thread?!
Reply
Reply
post #1180 of 1224
12/17/12 at 1:16pm
Wait till you get to the part where it was called that they Skull'd the colour timing at everyone said it was wrong
Reply
Reply
post #1181 of 1224
12/17/12 at 6:39pm
Now that the thread's been bumped....

For a while now, my thoughts have been that I actually prefer the look of the old Lowry transfer in terms of color and contrast. It just looks "right" to my eyes. That said, I don't think we'd be up in arms if they'd simply given us the inital LP transfer (AKA the WOWOW broadcast). If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what they did for Temple and Crusade, just with a slightly different telecine coloring. I'm kinda baffled as to why they started over from scratch for Raiders when they had a perfectly good 4K master all ready to go.

Anyway, there seems to be some genuine debate as to how Raiders is supposed to look. It ranges from "the laserdisc colors look more like the blu-ray" to "the jungle was green in the 35mm print I saw." In between, we have comments like "the dvd wasn't faithful either."
Reply
Reply
post #1182 of 1224
12/17/12 at 7:02pm
So Spielberg gave us a newer, better, less digitally sharpened/manipulated 4K scan... And some of you are still complaining?
Reply
Reply
post #1183 of 1224
12/17/12 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

So Spielberg gave us a newer, better, less digitally sharpened/manipulated 4K scan... And some of you are still complaining?
Well, there's more to a release than the resolution of the scan.
I'm quite happy with the texture and detail, barring some DNR here and there.
The color grading, I'm not terribly offended by it, nor am I terribly happy about it. With so much garbage on the format, you have to pick your battles, and for me the viewing experience is ultimately positive. It does not look very much like an early-80s theatrical print to me... but neither does the old transfer, so what am I gonna do...
Reply
Reply
post #1184 of 1224
12/18/12 at 3:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Now that the thread's been bumped....
For a while now, my thoughts have been that I actually prefer the look of the old Lowry transfer in terms of color and contrast. It just looks "right" to my eyes. That said, I don't think we'd be up in arms if they'd simply given us the inital LP transfer (AKA the WOWOW broadcast). If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what they did for Temple and Crusade, just with a slightly different telecine coloring. I'm kinda baffled as to why they started over from scratch for Raiders when they had a perfectly good 4K master all ready to go.
Anyway, there seems to be some genuine debate as to how Raiders is supposed to look. It ranges from "the laserdisc colors look more like the blu-ray" to "the jungle was green in the 35mm print I saw." In between, we have comments like "the dvd wasn't faithful either."

Lowry did not do the WOWOW transfer, that was Laser Pacific and considdering their 2k scan has the same amount of detail as a new 4k I would say it was stunning albeit sharpened, the Lowry one was horrendous!
Reply
Reply
post #1185 of 1224
12/26/12 at 1:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Lowry did not do the WOWOW transfer, that was Laser Pacific

I know, that's why I said "the initial LP aka Wowow."

Anyway, what brings me back to this thread tonight is that usa is showing the trilogy right now and I'm honestly not sure which transfer it is. I'd just assumed they were showing the lowry like their company syfy always did, but the car going over the cliff was back to its original version, so if it's the lowry it's the pre-2008 lowry. I can't really use visual cues since I'm watching this on my mom's new 720p lg on factory settings (all I've done is switch the aspect ratio to full pixel). Also, I suppose it's possible they're showing the lowry of one movie and the lp of another.

Just curious if anyone knew.
Reply
Reply
post #1186 of 1224
2/9/13 at 9:28pm
I just got done watching Raiders and I have to say I was surprised at how average the picture looked. Yeah it's been discussed on here for awhile, but I didn't expect it to look the way it did. There's hardly any detail for a so called 4K scan. The picture is way too dim also. The color timing I never liked ever since I saw the first screens.

Overall I think the wow transfer is much better than what we got. It has a more natural look to it. Did they even touch temple and last crusade? I watched temple but not LC yet. Temple looked ok too. Nothing special. Absolutely horrible movie by the way. It's worse than I remember. Crystal Skulls is more enjoyable. The girl and little kid are so annoying.
Edited by saprano - 2/9/13 at 9:55pm
Reply
Reply
post #1187 of 1224
2/9/13 at 9:33pm
Raiders has the full 1080p's worth of detail. Sharpness might be a different story, but that's why they put those knobs on TVs. A 4K scan can't harvest that which isn't there, such as the sharpness of modern spherical lenses.
Reply
Reply
post #1188 of 1224
2/9/13 at 9:39pm
It looks great, I guess I was expecting better. Is the print the best is can be? Can Raiders look any better? It seems like more detail can be captured. No?

Sharpness I didn't really have a problem with. The film definitely has a analog look to it though. Which is nice.
Edited by saprano - 2/9/13 at 9:51pm
Reply
Reply
post #1189 of 1224
2/9/13 at 10:11pm
From a transfer resolution perspective, I think it's more-or-less utilizing the format's abilites. For example, the fine lines/text in the drawing in this capture are pretty much as well-resolved as you get without aliasing, and the grain is very tight, like it is throughout the movie:
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/titles/indiana-jones-and-the-raiders-of-the-lost-ark/a15ab9fc-5519-45ff-9b5f-39293422a358/screenshot-0028524-I.png

Since grain is always the highest-frequency information in the image, if you're resolving the grain to single pixel dots, you're also resolving whatever else is on the negative. But the anamorphic lenses of those days (I think they made big improvements in the late 80s) did not have great optical performance, tending to be somewhat soft and hazy and blurry at the top and bottom of the frame if not stopped down a lot (which would be a problem with the slow film stock of the day), as well as being prone to those infamous streaky flares. This transfer, unlike stuff like Star Wars or Jaws or the other two Indy films, makes pretty much no effort to compensate for that. Also, the overall low contrast/flatness of the color grade serves to reduce apparent sharpness (local contrast boosting is how sharpening filters work, in fact).
Edited by 42041 - 2/9/13 at 10:16pm
Reply
Reply
post #1190 of 1224
2/11/13 at 8:42am
Viewing on an ISF'd 65" Panasonic ST30 plasma, Raiders looks outstanding. Very natural, film-like look and strong detail. While the color has been controversial for some, it was approved by the filmmaker and I think it's very fitting for the film. The color was identical to the IMAX viewing.

While Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade look very good, you can tell they aren't brand new scans and don't look quite as natural, but still very solid none the less and I am just being a little bit nit picky here. smile.gif I am completely happy with this boxset in terms of PQ and AQ. (If only the original Star Wars - even Special Editions - could have been treated this well for PQ).
Reply
Reply
post #1191 of 1224
2/11/13 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

But the anamorphic lenses of those days (I think they made big improvements in the late 80s) did not have great optical performance, tending to be somewhat soft and hazy and blurry at the top and bottom of the frame if not stopped down a lot (which would be a problem with the slow film stock of the day).

You don't even have to go back that far. Many wide shots in The Mummy (1999) look horrid around the edges of the frame. Add on some DNR and it's just sad. I think it's a credit to the DP of Raiders that it looks as good as it does.
Reply
Reply
post #1192 of 1224
2/12/13 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

From a transfer resolution perspective, I think it's more-or-less utilizing the format's abilites. For example, the fine lines/text in the drawing in this capture are pretty much as well-resolved as you get without aliasing, and the grain is very tight, like it is throughout the movie:
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/titles/indiana-jones-and-the-raiders-of-the-lost-ark/a15ab9fc-5519-45ff-9b5f-39293422a358/screenshot-0028524-I.png

Since grain is always the highest-frequency information in the image, if you're resolving the grain to single pixel dots, you're also resolving whatever else is on the negative. But the anamorphic lenses of those days (I think they made big improvements in the late 80s) did not have great optical performance, tending to be somewhat soft and hazy and blurry at the top and bottom of the frame if not stopped down a lot (which would be a problem with the slow film stock of the day), as well as being prone to those infamous streaky flares. This transfer, unlike stuff like Star Wars or Jaws or the other two Indy films, makes pretty much no effort to compensate for that. Also, the overall low contrast/flatness of the color grade serves to reduce apparent sharpness (local contrast boosting is how sharpening filters work, in fact).

Totally agree. Anamorphic films will always have certain foibles (some more so than others, natch) and I'd much rather see them 'as is' instead of having them be aggressively sharpened just to make them 'pop' a bit more.
Reply
Reply
post #1193 of 1224
2/12/13 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

From a transfer resolution perspective, I think it's more-or-less utilizing the format's abilites. For example, the fine lines/text in the drawing in this capture are pretty much as well-resolved as you get without aliasing, and the grain is very tight, like it is throughout the movie:
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/titles/indiana-jones-and-the-raiders-of-the-lost-ark/a15ab9fc-5519-45ff-9b5f-39293422a358/screenshot-0028524-I.png

Since grain is always the highest-frequency information in the image, if you're resolving the grain to single pixel dots, you're also resolving whatever else is on the negative. But the anamorphic lenses of those days (I think they made big improvements in the late 80s) did not have great optical performance, tending to be somewhat soft and hazy and blurry at the top and bottom of the frame if not stopped down a lot (which would be a problem with the slow film stock of the day), as well as being prone to those infamous streaky flares. This transfer, unlike stuff like Star Wars or Jaws or the other two Indy films, makes pretty much no effort to compensate for that. Also, the overall low contrast/flatness of the color grade serves to reduce apparent sharpness (local contrast boosting is how sharpening filters work, in fact).

Ah. Thanks for that explanation. Makes perfect sence.

Just to be clear, i'm not one of those people who expects old catalogue titles like Raiders to look like Transformers. No way. I just expected a little more detail is all. The dim look i didn't like either. Everything else was fine and looked great.

But if the movie looks the best it can and exactly as intended then that's wonderful.


EDIT- The audio was reference though. Strong bass.
Reply
Reply
post #1194 of 1224
2/12/13 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

EDIT- The audio was reference though. Strong bass.

Reference to what? Transformers? wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1195 of 1224
2/12/13 at 1:56pm
Ha....ha?
Reply
Reply
post #1196 of 1224
2/13/13 at 1:36pm
bought the last crusade from a blockbuster store that is going out of biz. near me. It was 10 bucks and I just took the cover art out of the crappy, sticky DVD case they put them in, and put in a freshy blu slim case. What a great and funny movie, imo. I've seen this movie COUNTLESS times, starting with movie theater to LD. What struck me as a refreshing acting job was from Connery; he really settled into Indy's DAD so befittingly. The video/audio though left me wanting more; the video looks to be an upscale of some sort, with the colors/exposure to be 'off' from the many mediums that I have seen before. I don't remember what it looked like in theaters though. Also, lot's of compression/video noise (that I can live with, compared to the lower rez DVD)

DO YOU REMEMBER the BASS in the PUNCHES? Just not there, and left me wanting more LFE. The surround scape, for the most part was good IMO, but I want those classic BASS PUNCHES!!!

Anyway, it was only 10 bucks, and I would have bought Raiders, but the only disc they had for sale did have a pretty serious scratch on it, and there are NO RETURNS ALL SALES FINAL BS mad.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1197 of 1224
2/14/13 at 5:04am
Raiders has the bass punches you want. A lot of it. It seems they didn't remix 2 and 3. Why I have no idea.

I use to always look forward to Steven Spielberg movies because I knew they would Be reference in video and audio. But that's not guaranteed anymore.
Reply
Reply
post #1198 of 1224
2/16/13 at 8:20pm
To me Raiders of the Lost Ark shows the best PQ of every single 35mm movie ever restored and released in BD. And thanks to the level of this restoration on an anamorphic material, even more beautiful and pleasurable to watch than the 70mm ones that i own.
And it looks totally natural, unlike the other two.
Really, best Pre-DI BD to me, a reference from the start to the end, even the scenes with optical effects were handled in an exemplary manner.

Icing on the cake, an incredible high bit-rate that allows you to watch and enjoy it even with a ZoomX2.

The definitive version of the movie, 10+/10
Reply
Reply
post #1199 of 1224
2/17/13 at 9:37am
My impression was that Raiders looked ok but not fantastic whereas Last Crusade looked incredible. (On my 110 inch screen with Rs20)
Reply
Reply
post #1200 of 1224
2/17/13 at 3:46pm
No way for me, Last Crusade looks stunning, but IMHO it's clearly processed in comparison, and it also have some kind of weird aliasing, boosted contrast and colors and the grain, because of the different level of scanning (older than the Raiders one and without restoration), and the less balanced contrast, looks bigger and less precise.

It's still awesome, like Temple, but not perfect and definitely not at the Raiders level. Anyway, a great BD Trilogy... (Kingdom of what?).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Indiana Jones Trilogy