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

Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 29

post #841 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post

"color balances and hues that look authentic to their 80's made origin."
Also, I would have to very strongly disagree that color timing in this age is all bad. I cannot even watch Blade Runner's old color timing without thinking it's just awful. The new one sets the film in stone for me as a futuristic film that is hardly dated at all where as that 80s red push is beyond hideous IMO. I am glad they left it alone for the old ones but would have been shattered if they hadn't changed it for The Final Cut. Not everyone wants to live in the 80s forever. Many of these directors had no choice in these matters during that time.

It's not about "living in the 80's". It's about the difference in a color palate that is nuanced and natural and complex vs a color palate that dumbs everything down in the direction of a cartoon simplicity of two complimentary colors.
post #842 of 1202
Nearby Fry's and Best Buy didn't have this, not even a spot or kiosk for it, as if it didn't exist. Is there a supply problem or something?
post #843 of 1202
I just watched Raiders. IMHO, it looks great with a warm color pallete and excellent detail. While I saw this film a few times during its original release I do not recall the color. I will say that I saw a little more blue he in a couple so scenes. At the beginning of the film in the cave, the lit beam looks blue. The scene with the comercial airliner in the water looks a little bluer than I recall. Other than things like that, I am more than happy with this release. I will have to compare those scenes with the DVD to see how they compare. If they are different, I have no idea which one would be more accurate, although the bluish tint didn't seem to be in vogue back in the day. BTW, the sound is a huge upgrade over the DVD.
post #844 of 1202
on second viewing i noticed that the smudge in the dig scenes is still there! dont know how i or the people that cleaned it up missed it the first time especially as its been one of my raiders niggles since 2004 eek.gif
post #845 of 1202
I wonder just how involved most directors are in the 'restoration' process. Do they sit in for several hours each day or at least weekly, discussing and directing each step of the process... or do they have an initial meeting and then sign off on the restoration after it's basically finalized? (obviously this changes based on director and project)

There's a bit of subtext to my question... most (or at least 'many') directors are not necessarily tech experts. As in, not all of them could light a set or tell you the difference between an HMI and a tungsten lamp. Many may not know the difference between CTO and CTB, or to what that even refers without using google. They guide the ship, not necessarily know how to physically keep it afloat.

Point being, I wonder if Speilberg even fully understands/was shown just how much color change was done to Raiders. He may have seen a before/after image/scene and just picked up on how much clearer and better defined it was... and the crazy color shift may have gone unnoticed by him if not pointed out directly. He's gone on record as saying he wants his films to be presented as faithfully as possible now, flaws and all (learning a lesson after the guns-to-walkies fiasco in ET) as a way to preserve the original 'art'.... so it seems odd that he'd knowingly sign off on such a radical color temp shift.
post #846 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP32 View Post

I wonder just how involved most directors are in the 'restoration' process. Do they sit in for several hours each day or at least weekly, discussing and directing each step of the process... or do they have an initial meeting and then sign off on the restoration after it's basically finalized? (obviously this changes based on director and project)
There's a bit of subtext to my question... most (or at least 'many') directors are not necessarily tech experts. As in, not all of them could light a set or tell you the difference between an HMI and a tungsten lamp. Many may not know the difference between CTO and CTB, or to what that even refers without using google. They guide the ship, not necessarily know how to physically keep it afloat.
Point being, I wonder if Speilberg even fully understands/was shown just how much color change was done to Raiders. He may have seen a before/after image/scene and just picked up on how much clearer and better defined it was... and the crazy color shift may have gone unnoticed by him if not pointed out directly. He's gone on record as saying he wants his films to be presented as faithfully as possible now, flaws and all (learning a lesson after the guns-to-walkies fiasco in ET) as a way to preserve the original 'art'.... so it seems odd that he'd knowingly sign off on such a radical color temp shift.
I doubt Spielberg compared it to the DVD transfer.
Watching a movie projected in a dark room is much different than flipping between screenshots in your web browser, I imagine the difference is less striking in that situation.
post #847 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

I see no radical color temp shift. Radical from what? The DVD/HDTV? Maybe. But who cares? Are you telling me that the magenta HDTV picture is representative of what the movies looked like during the 80s? Not even close! If anything, this new color grading is closer to what was put out in the 80s.

Nobody noticed orange flags until this release came out. Not in the theatre, not on any home video format. They were red before because, well, they were red. Of all of the home video releases, this is the big outlier. Your are correct that maybe this means all previous home video releases were wrong and this one is right. But then there's the orange flags nobody saw in the theatre, and, well, that settles it. What props department has these orange flags? Didn't they have a historian on staff?

This has been CLEARLY manipulated from the theatrical version. Color timing aside, there's also the brightening in the opening sequence and the reflection removal, but of which were admitted going into the thing. If what you want is to see it as it was in the theatre, you have every right to be disappointed with this release.

Nevertheless, I side with the group that says the digital manipulations performed on this release, while wrong, unjustified, and thoroughly unnecessary, aren't really that awful. It still ends up looking pretty good, even if it doesn't look like it did theatrically (and seriously, is there really even any arguing this point anymore?).

I'll probably buy once the individual releases are out, especially if there's an AviSynth script out there by then to bring the colors under control.
post #848 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

I see no radical color temp shift. Radical from what? The DVD/HDTV? Maybe. But who cares? Are you telling me that the magenta HDTV picture is representative of what the movies looked like during the 80s? Not even close! If anything, this new color grading is closer to what was put out in the 80s.

You do not get teal tones sprouting up (especially in the shadows) by 'warming up' an image. So- No. This is not closer to what was seen in the 80's. Simply being warmer than the DVD isn't what the image was about in the 80's. There was a tonal balance there with the warmer timing that is not there with this new digital grading, because this new digital grading is accomplishing complex color gymnastics that are unnatural and impossible to replicate in nature.
post #849 of 1202
...and the yellow sunset? Didn't they have a meteorologist on staff?

But apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what did they alter in this film? Nothing!
post #850 of 1202
Finally saw the discs for myself. Raiders is undoubtedly too warm. I've seen this film a zillion times, even saw it projected in 70mm several years back and this is a different look. I can live with it as the image is great otherwise, and I was able to correct it somewhat by pushing my projector cooler. I was even starting to think some were being too hard on it until I popped in Temple of Doom, which looks perfect to my eyes and exactly as I remember it. The sound is a MASSIVE improvement on Raiders though. Raiders always had shrill and canned sound and the remix made it sound brand new...I think the box set is worth it just for the new hour long, fly on the wall making of Raiders doc, which has a ton of outtakes I hadn't seen, all in HD.
post #851 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

Dooode, don't buy the Blu-ray!

Why, I've already said I will. Is there a problem?
post #852 of 1202
how on Earth are people still remembering the exact color details from a movie they saw in the theater over 30 years ago and comparing it to the Blu-ray??...no way can anyone remember such details
Edited by TitusTroy - 9/18/12 at 3:17pm
post #853 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

how on Earth are people still remembering the exact color details from a movie they saw in the theater over 30 years ago??...no way can anyone remember such details

I'm not. I'm remembering what things like Nazi flags and the sky on planet earth look like, and the fact that I never noticed before how this film's version looked nothing like the real world's version until the Blu-ray came out. Which may very well just mean the film was digitally manipulated back in 1981 too look artificial, hey, what do I know?

The fact that it looks pretty good, even good enough to buy, is NOT the same as saying it looks like it did in the theatre. I can like this home video release, like it better than any other home video release on resolution alone, and wish it were better at the same time, can't I? I'll buy it. I'll recommend it. But I won't say it looks like it did in the theatre.
post #854 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

CatBus, yeah there's a major problem! The color temp is all jacked up!

That's not a major problem in my opinion. If you read my posts you'd already know that.
post #855 of 1202
I just picked up my set from Wal-Mart. All five discs are scratched to $%^&! Thank you, Paramount, your quality control is outstanding!
post #856 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

how on Earth are people still remembering the exact color details from a movie they saw in the theater over 30 years ago??...no way can anyone remember such details

I can, as it's my favorite film, and when I lived in Los Angeles, anytime it screened somewhere I made an effort to see it in the theater. It's only been a few years since I last saw it projected on film and it didn't look like this. It has definitely been altered. That being said I don't find it THAT objectionable. I personally am more bothered by things like DNR and edge enhancement, which have not been abused here.
post #857 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

There was no digital manipulation in 1981.

Ah, then it's the Blu-ray that was manipulated then. Thanks for pointing that out.
post #858 of 1202
Disappointing.

I just shake my head to so called reviewers that don't even realize how egregious the Orange and Teal bias on this transfer. Then again Orange and Teal has been a popular look on movies recently that they expect catalog releases to look the same. After all these years those online reviewers still has no clue. And . . . and . . . whatever.
post #859 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Disappointing.
I just shake my head to so called reviewers that don't even realize how egregious the Orange and Teal bias on this transfer.

And in keeping with my tradition of arguing out of both sides of my mouth, I don't think I'd call it egregious... unless, of course, you'd call any orange-teal shift egregious, in which case it's just redundant. Yes, they did it, yes, they didn't need to, yes, it does on occasion screw up the look of the film in a noticeable way. But compared to past orange-and-teal-fests, this is tame. It doesn't ever look like Harrison Ford fell into a vat of self-tanner. It never looks like there's a nearby tornado making the sky turn green. All in all, it's watchable. Good, even. But lord, not perfect.
post #860 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

Batutta, would you say the DVD/HDTV is representative of what you saw in all of those theater experiences?

Yes...Maybe a touch on the cool side but much closer than the blu-ray. Really, all you need to do is pop in Temple of Doom and Last Crusade to see that they look more faithful to their original versions. They just look right. Raiders looks...different. There's no getting around it. How much that bothers you in the end is up to you...Ultimately, it doesn't rob my enjoyment of the film in the least...I mean, to make a crude analogy, when I make love to my wife, I'm not sitting there pointing out how her skin tone is off, and what is that small bump on her shoulder, and why isn't her hair quite as soft as it was the other day. That kind of misses the point of the whole endeavor. This is still Raiders, and it's still an awesome film.
post #861 of 1202
Can someone tell me where people are seeing these vast quantities of teal in this transfer?
Yes, it's rather orange... but teal?
post #862 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbotron View Post

So does Raiders have the original matte painting or the CGI seen in some cable broadcasts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_sFW8grQtU

That shot will never be in the movie again. It was a mistake that it ever got out in the first place. Spielberg did not approve it.
post #863 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Can someone tell me where people are seeing these vast quantities of teal in this transfer?
Yes, it's rather orange... but teal?

every swatch in this image is some form of teal. The only differences between them are saturation (vividness) and shading (the addition of white or black).



People look at the images from this Bd and think they are seeing a full spectrum of colors- but they aren't. Most of the 'blues' you think you are seeing are some variation of the tones above. They all represent the same specific point on the color wheel, midway between blue and green.

In the 80's (as you can see with TOD and TLC) we had movies that offered a full range of hues( separate distinct colors), along with a multitude of variations within each. You also didn't see orange Nazi flags.

It also amazes me that people think that every past release of these films on previous formats just sort of snuck out there into the marketplace without Spielberg's awareness or approval and that the Blu-ray is the first time they've made a big deal about remastering and presenting the films with attention to detail and loving care.
Edited by Paulidan - 9/18/12 at 3:56pm
post #864 of 1202
But as far as where it's really noticeable, I thought I noticed too much teal in the Paramount logo and never felt I saw it again. I think it's fair to say that the orange-teal push in this disc is weighted heavily toward the orange (I'd even say more gold or yellow in some places). In my opinion, of course.
post #865 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulidan View Post

It also amazes me that people think that every past release of these films on previous formats just sort of snuck out there into the marketplace with Spielberg's awareness or approval and that the Blu-ray is the first time they've made a big deal about remastering and presenting the films with attention to detail and loving care.
There's the matter of technological limitations when the master was created.
The DI process has been in wide use for what, 10 years? Many of these old transfers predate modern film mastering.
I see a lot of old (read: pre-digital) films projected in 35mm and occasionally 70mm. They often don't look like any home video release out there.
Which is not to say that the new transfer is accurate. I just don't trust old transfers.
post #866 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil S. Bulk View Post

That shot will never be in the movie again. It was a mistake that it ever got out in the first place. Spielberg did not approve it.

Did he Veto it's inclusion before it was suggested, not know at all it was being replaced, or simply say "go ahead try it" and then come to the conclusion he didn't like the modification after all?
I can't see someone monkeying around with the film (even Lucas) without at least giving SS a head's up. I'm also betting this is similar to the scenario that played out with the new (and not improved) color grading. He's game to try it- after all, the technology now exists to do it, just like a CGI replacement shot, so why not? But if enough people were to object to it and voice their objection, he'd be inclined to get it right (i.e authentic and correct to the theatrical look) the next time around.

Of course, with visual taste having been so degraded over the last decade, a lot of people won't mind something as wildly incorrect as this, or even understand why what I'm saying is not hyperbole.
post #867 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

It's impossible for these discs to get scratch in this style of packaging. Especially all five of them. Picture, or it didn't happen.

lol OK. Here's pictures of The Last Crusade, tough guy. I'm not taking pictures of all five.

BD 001.jpg 2068k .jpg file

BD 002.jpg 1800k .jpg file

BTW, it's possible if the media was scratched before the coating was applied and before the discs were put into their cases, which is what I suspect happened. No where did I say they were scratched by the packaging. Incidentally, the same thing happened with the HD DVD Battlestar Galactica: Season One, which had tons of radial scratches that could not have been there unless the media was scratched beforehand.

I'm willing to bet people don't really check their discs for scratches carefully. I'm sure it's a bit anal, but I always hold my discs up to a fluorescent light to look for scratches. Sometimes they're minor, and I live with them. These however are not. And, for the record,]this isn't about trying to convince people not to buy this set because of the color timing controversy. All I want it is quality product when I pay my hard earned money for it.
post #868 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette View Post

And, for the record,]this isn't about trying to convince people not to buy this set because of the color timing controversy. All I want it is quality product when I pay my hard earned money for it.

I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy it. I'm trying to convince people to stop making the case this is somehow more authentic to the original look of the film than any previous home video format release because Paramount and Spielberg say so in a press release.
I get it, people like the new look. People also like their HD movies to look smooth and shiny- why not just give that to them to?

The same answer that applies to the latter applies to the former.
post #869 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulidan View Post

I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy it.

I wasn't directing that at you. I was directing it at NagysAudio, who seems to be taking all the criticism of this set almost personally.
post #870 of 1202
My first set was visibly scratched, I exchanged it.
But even on the "clean" set, if one scrutinizes it enough you will find tiny marks on each disc.

The book style packaging does not scratch it. It's the people at the factory who put them in unique (non-amaray) packaging. The people in the factories are essentially slaves and half to process thousands of sets per hour and cannot afford to treat them as we would.
This is why box sets in book / digipack forum always make me nervous.

I really don't know why studios choose to use anything other than standard cases.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Indiana Jones Trilogy