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 32

post #931 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

A lot of your perspectives remind me of some of the teenagers who write on these forums - who also sometimes pretend to be older. If I am wrong, then you're just trolling.

Teenagers?
post #932 of 1202
On any rate, I watched Raiders last night and thought it looked outstanding - better than I expected. I saw it at IMAX, but the image was actually more pleasing at home on my 65" display (better contrast, crisper, detail seemed more apparent and color more natural). There are a lot of complaints about the color, but I personally don't see an issue with anything. Fleshtones do look "warm" in some scenes, but these seemed to simply blend in with the overall color timing and tone of the movie. The audio was also really pleasing and a big upgrade over the DVD as well - it really packs a punch. Looking forward to watching Temple of Doom tonight. smile.gif
post #933 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Teenagers?
You know...

...Yoots

wink.gif
post #934 of 1202
Is it time for the My Cousin Vinnie thread hijack ALREADY?

Okay, fine by me, just asking.
post #935 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

I'm just not seeing it. The BD looks better and more natural in all of those screencaps, flags notwithstanding. More gold than HDTV, yes, but not in a way that looks unnatural. To the contrary, really.

Since I think there is nothing natural about gold I will have to disagree.

But my point was not to say the DVD or HDTV versions have correct colors as I also stated. I tried to say that thanks to the yellow push: contrast is low (the bright colors are not as bright as they should be on a sunny day in Cairo or Morocco or where it was filmed). Whites became yellow. Reds became orange. Greens became yellow-green. Light blue became gray or yellow. Blue was truly shifted towards teal.
post #936 of 1202
Natural is very subjective, what was shot is what we should be seeing full stop
post #937 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Natural is very subjective, what was shot is what we should be seeing full stop

Lacking an objective reference, natural can be a pretty decent yardstick. It's just a yardstick with a lot of wiggle room. And sometimes things fall well outside even that lax standard.
post #938 of 1202
Natural changes over the years
post #939 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Natural changes over the years

Which is why you need to allow for a lot of wiggle room...
post #940 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post

Hi, How are you today? Goodbye!
Wait, let's see if you are any good at math. Indiana Jones in my early childhood, specifically this film? Hmmmmmmmm....
Also, those bluray caps look just fine. Some of you guys just cannot handle that you do not own these films. I mean, if this guy wants to put CGI backgrounds and humans to fill out a scene in this what are we to do? I hope Lucas is not reading this.
The color timing looks good to me. I think it adds to the film imo. People need to chill out. The HDTV version looks like crap filmed on video. These directors never had a chance to color time their films properly. Since it is their art I will go ahead and say okay. Indy really works with that color timing anyway. I really do want to rewatch the first one on Bluray. I think I saw a TV version but with that new timing and possibly much better audio I may have to see what is up.
I honestly don't know what you are trying to correct for? Are you that beholden to 80s cinema that you cannot move forward?

So with those thoughts in mind, how would you feel if the city of Rome knocked down all the ancient Roman structures which are there and replaced them all with modern building materials and built them with modern technology? Or how about we take down the pyramids in Egypt and re-build them using modern materials since the technology is available to us now. Or should we re-paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel using more modern painting techniques and with different, more modern colors?

Basically, what you are saying about movies is the same thing as doing the "updates" to the cases that I listed above. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you should. Movies are a form of art just as paintings and music and sculptures from thousands of years ago. Having the films look today like they did when they were released is preservation of the art. It's a similar thing when you talk about videogame emulation. Emulation of old software and videogames is a way to preserve that "art", otherwise the software/videogames would cease to exist. An accurate videogame emulation software reproduces everything that was in the original game right down to the dated look of pixels from the 8-bit era. Application of filters and anit-aliasing and all that other garbage that some emulation software does is in poor taste in my eyes. Thankfully, those are all options.

With film, when you do what George Lucas did and basically destroy the original prints in order to update them, you are simply destroying history and not preserving it. Yes, the "art" was the creation of the artists who made it, but once that art is moved out into the public domain it ceases to be the property of the artists and becomes the property of society. Legally, yes, the art and any proceeds from it still belongs to the artists, but in the grand scheme of things society as a whole really "owns" the work and is obligated to preserve it. Hence the severe hatred when a movie is altered by the director/producer and the original is lost.

Now as a human being you are entitled to your own opinion. That is fine. But you are also open to have your opinion "bashed" and debated over when it differs from the majority view. If you want to see updated artwork changed to fit "modern times" then you are welcome to want to see that. But if in order to get your wishes granted the wishes and desires of the majority of the viewing public are destroyed, then in no way should you ever get that.

I love the Indiana Jones movies just as I love every other movie I own in my collection. I am happy to have the ability to for a few hours out of my lifetime to momentarily time travel back to when I first watched them. Hence why I am a proponent of preservation of film so that even if things are updated I can still go back and view/listen to the original that I remember. I'm also happy that I am not anywhere close to being a critic or harsh reviewer of anything I listen to, watch, or play. It allows me to enjoy the movies for what they are and not spend the entire time picking out every little detail or deviation from "reality." I live "reality" 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I have enough of that. A movie should allow me to leave "reality" for a moment and enjoy what I'm seeing. I used to be super critical over movies and tried to think that I had a better understanding of what a "good" movie should be and wouldn't watch the "campy" films or any film that was considered "popular." I soon realized that I was missing out on a lot of fun flicks and began to enjoy everything I watched once I quit trying to be overly critical. For that, I am most grateful.
post #941 of 1202
For all you guys who think the scratch are just cosmetic, this is what happen after playing the disc for the first time

I found 3 scratch on this disc. Two 1CM scratch and a 3CM scratch.
post #942 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Which is why you need to allow for a lot of wiggle room...

No, that is why you look at how it was shot on the day.
What was natural in 1980 is not natural now.
post #943 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

No, that is why you look at how it was shot on the day.
What was natural in 1980 is not natural now.

I think my definition of natural is broad enough to include 1980, YMMV.
post #944 of 1202
I care not about how broad you are, if there is only a way to capture forever how things looked when the acted the film out........
post #945 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

I care not about how broad you are, if there is only a way to capture forever how things looked when the acted the film out........

Without access to the actual film, huh? That's a tricky one. I may not be able to help you.
post #946 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The Internet generation can also follow links and see that the blue is pushed pretty close to pure teal:
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/4881/indy1zbd.png
http://cdn.avsforum.com/5/50/50f9ad21_2yw7ibo.jpeg
Listen, I don't care to argue this anymore. I believe color memory, while certainly flawed, exists to some degree, and people in particular have a good memory for when something looks realistic or not. It's how people knew The King's Speech Blu-ray was supposed to be teal & orange, because they remembered the unrealistic theatrical look. It's how people knew the realistic look of the Do The Right Think Blu-ray wasn't theatrical, because they remembered the theatrical look was unrealistically golden.
Objective color references exist. It's how you knew the Paramount logo was 100% correct color-wise, because you're an expert in the field. And now we know too, that if we see an 80's film with a Paramount logo with a bluer, more natural sky, we can safely say that's wrong, because our resident expert pointed out it's supposed to be almost pure teal (link above).

When I view your link for the Paramount logo the sky is blue, not teal. It doesn't remotely resemble any of the teals in your sample image, nor does it appear to be a different shade of teal (not shown in your sample). It looks BLUE on my spectrophotometer-calibrated Apple Cinema Display. Just as it looked BLUE when I watched the Blu-ray on my HDTV.

Mark
post #947 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

A lot of your perspectives remind me of some of the teenagers who write on these forums - who also sometimes pretend to be older. If I am wrong, then you're just trolling.

It's those damn kids again. Always out there, those teenage videophiles - scrutinizing the color of my lawn.

Up to no damn good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

What was natural in 1980 is not natural now.
This is so true. For example, look at Judith Light.
post #948 of 1202
OKAAAAAY, this is a thread that has degenerated beyond all expectations....eek.gifeek.gif
post #949 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

OKAAAAAY, this is a thread that has degenerated beyond all expectations....eek.gifeek.gif
I'm actually surprised that in a thread about movie about a guy fighting Nazis, there has yet to be one Hitler reference. Heck, George Lucas was even involved. Where did the internets go wrong?
post #950 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdurg View Post

So with those thoughts in mind, how would you feel if the city of Rome knocked down all the ancient Roman structures which are there and replaced them all with modern building materials and built them with modern technology?...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

We need a dedicated group to preserve and release film art for the enthusiasts (like a Criterion): leave the studios to release their own altered version, if they like, for the masses who don't care.
post #951 of 1202
IMO, the aliasing in Crusade is really bad and should warrant a recall.

Check the stripes on the shirt on the comparison bellow. They now have a very digital low res look. eek.gif

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=691&y=329&action=1&image=6&cID=1275&cap1=14411&cap2=14395&lossless=#vergleich


Too bad this is my favorite Indy flick.
post #952 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

Couldn't have put it better myself.
We need a dedicated group to preserve and release film art for the enthusiasts (like a Criterion): leave the studios to release their own altered version, if they like, for the masses who don't care.

Sony?
post #953 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

IMO, the aliasing in Crusade is really bad and should warrant a recall.
Check the stripes on the shirt on the comparison bellow. They now have a very digital low res look. eek.gif
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=691&y=329&action=1&image=6&cID=1275&cap1=14411&cap2=14395&lossless=#vergleich
Too bad this is my favorite Indy flick.
Mine too, but considering I'm not watching it zoomed in,(and even then I can hardly see it), I can live with it.

It's not Megamind bad. That one did p*ss me off.
post #954 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

When I view your link for the Paramount logo the sky is blue, not teal. It doesn't remotely resemble any of the teals in your sample image, nor does it appear to be a different shade of teal (not shown in your sample). It looks BLUE on my spectrophotometer-calibrated Apple Cinema Display. Just as it looked BLUE when I watched the Blu-ray on my HDTV.
Mark

Thanks for looking. I agree that there can be a little disagreement about where blue ends and teal begins, and maybe to you a blue with that much green in it is still blue. It's certainly not going to exactly match pure teal (as the other example provides), just pushed strongly in that direction.

Here's the numbers from Photoshop:
Logo: R:15,G:121,B:173
Pure Teal: R:61,G:179,B:191

The ratio of green to blue in pure teal is very high: 94%. The ratio of green to blue in the Paramount logo sky is 70%. Definitely not pure teal, but a LOT more green than I'd consider to be blue, especially sky blue. As I said before, though, where you draw the lines between the colors can be subjective. Thanks again for bothering to look.
post #955 of 1202
if Spielberg did in fact approve this transfer and was supervised by guys like Ben Burtt then I don't undertand how anyone can claim that this is not the way the movie(s) was intended to look...new color timing changes might be the way Spielberg prefers it...change doesn't always signify a negative...technology back in 1981 was not the same as 2012 so if color etc can be tweaked to allow more of the director's vision to come through then so be it

as long as fundamental changes to the story were not tinkered with then it's fine...Lucas constantly adding or subtracting visual effects and dialogue is a bad thing but tweaking the PQ/audio to deliver a better cinematic experience is another
Edited by TitusTroy - 9/20/12 at 10:06am
post #956 of 1202
It doesn't matter how they were intended to look. It only matters how they looked. Director's intent doesn't mean squat after the film's already showing in theatres. If the Director wants to make changes, they are perfectly free to make a separate Director's Cut. People may then choose to watch the original or Director's Cut as they prefer.

We already know from the reflection and brightening that theatrical fidelity was already out the window with this one, even before people started looking for other alterations. So even with 100% perfect color fidelity, this never was going to be the historic movie people loved. Sure, it hasn't been altered to the point where it's not even recognizable as the same film, but altered nonetheless. Does something have to be a complete hatchet job like Star Wars before it's seen as a problem?

This Blu-ray is, in my opinion, close enough to theatrical, that I can buy, own, watch, and enjoy it. But it could undoubtedly be more faithful to the original film.
Edited by CatBus - 9/20/12 at 10:16am
post #957 of 1202
It is nothing like the original 35mm
post #958 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

if Spielberg did in fact approve this transfer and was supervised by guys like Ben Burtt then I don't undertand how anyone can claim that this is not the way the movie(s) was intended to look...new color timing changes might be the way Spielberg prefers it...change doesn't always signify a negative...technology back in 1981 was not the same as 2012 so if color etc can be tweaked to allow more of the director's vision to come through then so be it
as long as fundamental changes to the story were not tinkered with then it's fine...Lucas constantly adding or subtracting visual effects and dialogue is a bad thing but tweaking the PQ/audio to deliver a better cinematic experience is another
Just one problem:

We're merely assuming those guys really supervised this transfer based on something the studio promotions department told us. Both could easily have simply signed off on the work after poking their heads in the room a couple of times during the process. We don't know how much involvement they had in it.

What's more plausible? A) Spielberg takes time out of his very busy schedule to babysit the transfer of a 30 year old movie or B) he stops in a couple of times while the work is going on, then signs off on it possibly not seeing the sections where the color changes are most pronouced?

I'd expect a guy like Cameron to micromanage his stuff and even his releases have issues. Spielberg isn't nearly that picky over letting people do their own jobs, so why should we expect perfection just because the studio claims he oversaw the process?

Do you really think Universal is going to say "a new transfer that Steven Spielberg kind of checked up on when he wasn't busy with all the other things he has to do each day"?
post #959 of 1202
Just buy the set and ENJOY it.....If you are unsatisfied with it, sell it! sorry, had to be real here for a sec wink.gifsmile.gif
post #960 of 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Just one problem:
We're merely assuming those guys really supervised this transfer based on something the studio promotions department told us. Both could easily have simply signed off on the work after poking their heads in the room a couple of times during the process. We don't know how much involvement they had in it.
What's more plausible? A) Spielberg takes time out of his very busy schedule to babysit the transfer of a 30 year old movie or B) he stops in a couple of times while the work is going on, then signs off on it possibly not seeing the sections where the color changes are most pronouced?
I'd expect a guy like Cameron to micromanage his stuff and even his releases have issues. Spielberg isn't nearly that picky over letting people do their own jobs, so why should we expect perfection just because the studio claims he oversaw the process?
Do you really think Universal is going to say "a new transfer that Steven Spielberg kind of checked up on when he wasn't busy with all the other things he has to do each day"?

I don't believe Spielberg was there every day supervising the transfer but I also don't think he would blindly sign off on it...plus I'm sure he saw the final transfer and approved it and gave his input before the process started...there's also teleconferencing and other methods to get his input where he doesn't have to be there every day...for years he did not allow his movies to be released on Blu-ray so he definitely has control over his property...I remember in the Jaws Blu-ray restoration documentay he mentioned how the movie (Jaws) looked better now then it did in theaters back in 1975...in the end I think he gave the OK once he saw the final transfer of the Indy movies and that should be enough for most people
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