Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 33

To me the biggest problems with Crystal Skull were with the script and not the Directing. The film jumped around and didn't do a very good job at exposition. The fridge nuking and the monkeys were painful. John Hurt's Oxley speaking in odd riddles was more annoying than intriguing after a few scenes. The idea of the Russians as antagonists and the UFO spin wasn't necessarily a bad way to go. It reflected the pulp of the time period. Karen Allen is a treat even if she's a bit rusty in a few scenes. It's my least favorite of the films. It doesn't bring the franchise down the way the Star Wars prequels did. Temple of Doom, which I know a lot of people really like, has a lot of the same problems for me. Willie Scott is simply annoying from the first frame and doesn't improve. The dinner table scene with bugs and monkey brains is a juvenile gross out fest and didn't wear well for me. And riding a raft out of a plane and skiing it down a mountain is up there with nuking a fridge. Still Temple of Doom has more good scenes and does a much better job of communicating the direction of the story. If they do make a 5th film I hope the script is up to the task. I'd love to see Indy go out on a high note.

I have to say that i strongly disagree with the praise the colors in the Cairo scenes are getting. I would even go as far to say they are the second most affected (the most affected being of course the horrendous opening). At first glance they may appear pretty and colorful but the yellow push overpowers other colors and makes the image wash out and lowers the contrast (although the severity changes as the colors are pretty inconsistent).

Take for example this shot: http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=full&cap1=14347&cap2=14331&cID=1273&lossless=&image=6#auswahl It looks well with nice colors, but if you compare it with the DVD the colors are not what they could have been, the contrast is lower and the image is washed out. Or take these images: Blu-ray http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3664/indy10zbd.png and HDTV http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6537/indy10wnew.png. Or these: Blu-ray http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/5168/indy12zbd.png and HDTV: http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9018/indy12wnew.png. I'm not saying now the DVD or HDTV have the correct colors, I only want to show that there could be significantly richer colors and higher contrast. You can also compare it to a similar scene in Crusade: http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=&cap1=14411&cap2=14395&cID=1275&lossless=&image=6#auswahl. Thats how it could have (and most likely should have) looked.

I mentioned inconsistent colors which is also a problem here. For example in the Cairo scenes sometimes Indy looks quite natural with brown hat and light beige shirt, but in some scenes his face, hat and shirt are just different shades of yellow brown. When Indy talks to Belloq in the bar after Marions apparent death, Belloqs suit and shirt change colors. Or the infamous flags. In the scene where Indy threatens Belloq with RPG they go from basically red to a nice orange. Look here: http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4513/indy22zbd.png and here: http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/1797/indy23zbd.png.

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.

If you knew the clothing in some of those shots was supposed to be white (in particular, the first link the in th post above yours), would you still think it's right?

The problem is, those white shirts now are cream colored.

While not a disaster, it's still not right.

As I've already said, though, I'll take this over copious amounts of DNR. At least a bit of yellow tone I can actually correct for. I actually already have one of my two custom presets on my system set to correct for "Orange and Teal" jobs. I guess I can use the other to "re-Indy" things by pulling out a bit of yellow and eeking back the whites a touch.

If this were a typical Universal DNR job, there would be no correcting for it. You can't add back detail.

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?
Edited by khronikos - 9/19/12 at 1:41pm

Even assuming the cream falls outside what can be naturally explained via lighting (both on-set and projector bulb) and photochemical variations (which I would not assume, personally), the BD image still looks more natural than the HDTV image, if for nothing else than getting rid of the unnatural blue tinge everywhere else. I make no claims about "right" in that shot, but it's certainly better, closer to right. Oh well, opinions vary.

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?

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.

You know...

...Yoots

Is it time for the My Cousin Vinnie thread hijack ALREADY?

Okay, fine by me, just asking.

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.

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.

Natural changes over the years

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Up to no damn good.


This is so true. For example, look at Judith Light.

OKAAAAAY, this is a thread that has degenerated beyond all expectations....

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?

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.

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.

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.

Sony?

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.