AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Lawrence of Arabia 4K restored
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawrence of Arabia 4K restored - Page 2

post #31 of 62
12/21/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Finally got around to watching my BD of the 4K restore version of Lawrence earlier this week. All I can say is wow! Just wow! Despite the age of the source material, the BD of the film has the best PQ of any in my collection, no matter its age. The genius of David Lean and the meticulous work of the Sony restoration team have combined for the most stunning images I can have ever seen in my home theater. The experience rivaled that I had when I first saw Lawrence in 70MM in one of the downtown movie palaces in St. Louis in 1963. The restoration is so wonderful, it's damn near miraculous.

If you think a 1080p picture rivals a 70mm picture, something must have been really wrong with that theater in St. Louis. A 1080p picture, no matter how great, can't even rival a 35mm picture.

Of course the studios could have released it in 4K long ago, which would be much closer to 35mm and 70mm, but they (along with the electronics companies) are conspiring to milk you multiple times, so 1080p has to be first.

If you people would just STOP buying 1080p for a month, the studios would take notice, and you would have beautiful 4K images in your homes before you could blink.
Edited by WebEffect - 12/21/12 at 2:19pm
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 62
12/21/12 at 7:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

If you think a 1080p picture rivals a 70mm picture, something must have been really wrong with that theater in St. Louis. A 1080p picture, no matter how great, can't even rival a 35mm picture.
Of course the studios could have released it in 4K long ago, which would be much closer to 35mm and 70mm, but they (along with the electronics companies) are conspiring to milk you multiple times, so 1080p has to be first.
If you people would just STOP buying 1080p for a month, the studios would take notice, and you would have beautiful 4K images in your homes before you could blink.

I think you are obsessing. It's time to seek treatment.smile.gif More seriously, 1080p is what we have at the moment. Live with it. If you do you will be happier and your digestion will improve. .
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 62
12/22/12 at 8:45pm
They merely scanned the information captured and held within the film elements.

Nothing miraculous. Merely quality work, from beginning to end.

RAH
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 62
12/23/12 at 12:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

If you people would just STOP buying 1080p for a month, the studios would take notice, and you would have beautiful 4K images in your homes before you could blink.

Oh, come on... think about average screen size and viewing distance. Most people will see 4k as overkill. And maybe we should wait for blu-ray to outsell dvd before jumping into a new format, eh?
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 62
12/23/12 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

Oh, come on... think about average screen size and viewing distance. Most people will see 4k as overkill. And maybe we should wait for blu-ray to outsell dvd before jumping into a new format, eh?


Preaching to the wrong choir, we are the early adopters
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 62
12/23/12 at 9:03am
Got through about half the movie yesterday...it does kinda move at a snails pace. Picture quality was fantastic. Highly recommmended.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 62
12/27/12 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect View Post

If you think a 1080p picture rivals a 70mm picture, something must have been really wrong with that theater in St. Louis. A 1080p picture, no matter how great, can't even rival a 35mm picture.

Of course the studios could have released it in 4K long ago, which would be much closer to 35mm and 70mm...
That may be true for the camera negative but not by the time it's projected on a screen. The former might be important for post production and archiving but the latter is what's important for the audience, since they can't see the camera negative at their local cinema and have to view the entire system (theatrical prints that are several generations from camera negatives AND the projection lenses at typical theatres). Considering the actual width of the film image being projected (35 film = 21mm wide image, 70 film = 49mm wide image, IMAX film = 69mm wide image), which of those do you think comes closest to 4K when projected?

From the following article:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
Quote:
The 4K system that most people know is IMAX -- and it doesn't quite make 4K, which is a surprise to people. "How can that possibly be?," you say. "It's an enormous big frame." Well, because of what I was talking about earlier: the physics of optics. When you take the entire system into account - from the lens of the camera, to the the movement of the light through the projector, all slightly reducing resolution -- you wind up with less than the full resolution you started with.

A number of years ago some IMAX engineers - and I don't think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.

Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!

Let's just pretend for a moment that IMAX truly is 4K. You watch IMAX at between one and one and a half picture heights from the screen. But in order to get to appreciate 4K on a regular movie screen, you would have to sit much closer than normal. In other words, when you go to a movie theater, and most of the modern theaters with stadium seating are designed so that the middle of the theater is 2 ½ to 3 picture heights from the screen, for most of us who watch movies, that's pretty where we want to be sitting. Maybe just a little bit closer from some of us who do this for a living, because we're maybe looking for artifacts or issues. If you sit much closer than 2 ½ picture heights, that's what you're seeing, artifacts, not movies!

So if you had true 4K resolution in your local theater, everybody would have to sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't LET them see it. You know this intuitively from passing by these beautiful new monitors at trade shows. You find yourself getting absolutely as close as possible to see the detail, and to see if there are any visible artifacts. At normal viewing distances, you can't.

So the whole 2K 4K thing is a little bit of a red herring.
With that in mind, in order for a 1080x1920 image on Blu-ray to subjectively rival the original release of 'Lawrence' there was no need for anything to be "really wrong with that theater in St. Louis", just normal projection using release print and theatrical lens technology available in the early 1960s.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 62
12/27/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That may be true for the camera negative but not by the time it's projected on a screen. The former might be important for post production and archiving but the latter is what's important for the audience, since they can't see the camera negative at their local cinema and have to view the entire system (theatrical prints that are several generations from camera negatives AND the projection lenses at typical theatres). Considering the actual width of the film image being projected (35 film = 21mm wide image, 70 film = 49mm wide image, IMAX film = 69mm wide image), which of those do you think comes closest to 4K when projected?
From the following article:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
With that in mind, in order for a 1080x1920 image on Blu-ray to subjectively rival the original release of 'Lawrence' there was no need for anything to be "really wrong with that theater in St. Louis", just normal projection using release print and theatrical lens technology available in the early 1960s.

Awesome post. Thank you so much for bringing those nuggets to bear. I know you know this, but for the others...I thought I was the "film purist," having worked in the biz and being old enough to see a lot of the 35 to 70mm prints of the '80s on. But 35 and 70 only excelled when the projection factors were in superb maintenance/condition...which was often quite poor (especially 35mm). TAP and THX helped, but there are just too many variables. As surprised as I am to say so, 2K that I'm seeing in well-maintained modern cinemas is superb by comparison. John Galt does a predictably terrific job explaining why. Thanks for posting the link.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 62
12/27/12 at 2:27pm
That article is rubbish, it makes a number of leaps with analogue into digital conversions.
Just the same add people who argue vinyl and CD make no difference to MP 3. That they cannot hear compression.
Edited by dvdmike007 - 12/27/12 at 2:39pm
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 62
12/27/12 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That may be true for the camera negative but not by the time it's projected on a screen. The former might be important for post production and archiving but the latter is what's important for the audience, since they can't see the camera negative at their local cinema and have to view the entire system (theatrical prints that are several generations from camera negatives AND the projection lenses at typical theatres). Considering the actual width of the film image being projected (35 film = 21mm wide image, 70 film = 49mm wide image, IMAX film = 69mm wide image), which of those do you think comes closest to 4K when projected?
From the following article:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
With that in mind, in order for a 1080x1920 image on Blu-ray to subjectively rival the original release of 'Lawrence' there was no need for anything to be "really wrong with that theater in St. Louis", just normal projection using release print and theatrical lens technology available in the early 1960s.
For a run of the mill 4th generation print, I agree. But a top-quality perfectly projected 35mm print made from the camera negative tends to look better than 2K digital to my eye, and certainly far better than blu-ray with its heavy compression. With 70mm in similarly optimal conditions (and from what I hear, projection standards were a lot higher in the early 60s and printing 70mm films from the camera negative was the norm), there's no comparison.
Of course, this assumes a close enough viewing distance. If you're in the back of the theater it's all the same.
Edited by 42041 - 12/27/12 at 3:12pm
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 62
12/29/12 at 4:51pm
I dont care if some do not like me writing it but many scenes in LoA had thin EE in it.
For some reason I was under the impression that Grover Crisp was involved in the 2012 restoration, going by the credits this appears to be not the case, not in a major way anyhow.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 62
12/30/12 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

For a run of the mill 4th generation print, I agree. But a top-quality perfectly projected 35mm print made from the camera negative tends to look better than 2K digital to my eye,

Unless you are at a screening of an answer print, chances are that you will never see a 35mm print made from the camera negative. Usually the process is: negative - interpositive - internegative - theatrical print. So the best theatrical prints will be three generations away from the camera negative. With these photochemical generations plus projector weave and bounce, the resolution that was originally on the negative will be considerably reduced when that print is seen on the big screen.
In addition to the article quoted above, Cintel did resolution tests a few years back comparing the detail on a 35mm camera negative to subsequent print generations and found the best release prints barely made 2K resolution. As most digital files are made directly from the camera negative, and rarely have any weave or bounce, they should theoretically produce an image superior to the best release print (assuming the digital projectors are being correctly operated).
Of course we all have our own opinions about this. I am lucky to see most movies in a theater that gets excellent prints, but more often these days shows digital copies using a projector that is well calibrated. I'd love to see LoA projected from 4K files, but I don't think many of us will have that opportunity
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 62
12/30/12 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post

Unless you are at a screening of an answer print, chances are that you will never see a 35mm print made from the camera negative. Usually the process is: negative - interpositive - internegative - theatrical print. So the best theatrical prints will be three generations away from the camera negative. With these photochemical generations plus projector weave and bounce, the resolution that was originally on the negative will be considerably reduced when that print is seen on the big screen.
In addition to the article quoted above, Cintel did resolution tests a few years back comparing the detail on a 35mm camera negative to subsequent print generations and found the best release prints barely made 2K resolution. As most digital files are made directly from the camera negative, and rarely have any weave or bounce, they should theoretically produce an image superior to the best release print (assuming the digital projectors are being correctly operated).
Of course we all have our own opinions about this. I am lucky to see most movies in a theater that gets excellent prints, but more often these days shows digital copies using a projector that is well calibrated. I'd love to see LoA projected from 4K files, but I don't think many of us will have that opportunity
You won't see one in some random wide release screening, but they made special show prints off the negative for premieres/special engagements/big cities/etc in the analog days, and you can occasionally see em at revivial screenings. I've been fortunate enough to see them on occasion. In the 60s, all the 70mm prints were struck from negatives, since duping stocks were not very good... which is also the reason most of these films are so torn up.
Edited by 42041 - 12/30/12 at 8:21pm
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 62
12/31/12 at 2:54pm
the reason for inters is to keep the emulsion contact to contact.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 62
1/4/13 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post

Unless you are at a screening of an answer print, chances are that you will never see a 35mm print made from the camera negative. Usually the process is: negative - interpositive - internegative - theatrical print. So the best theatrical prints will be three generations away from the camera negative. With these photochemical generations plus projector weave and bounce, the resolution that was originally on the negative will be considerably reduced when that print is seen on the big screen.
In addition to the article quoted above, Cintel did resolution tests a few years back comparing the detail on a 35mm camera negative to subsequent print generations and found the best release prints barely made 2K resolution. As most digital files are made directly from the camera negative, and rarely have any weave or bounce, they should theoretically produce an image superior to the best release print (assuming the digital projectors are being correctly operated).
Of course we all have our own opinions about this. I am lucky to see most movies in a theater that gets excellent prints, but more often these days shows digital copies using a projector that is well calibrated. I'd love to see LoA projected from 4K files, but I don't think many of us will have that opportunity

Amongst feature cinematographers, 35mm is generally considered 2K due to the many variables mentioned.

I would love to have seen this movie like it released orginally, as 42041 did.

My system was due for a calibration update recently, and I put this back up upon completion. It is just stunning PQ. I also put up The Sound of Music for the first time to see how it compared, considering it was also shot 65mm. It can't compete with Lawrence on PQ, despite it probably being faithful to the original. Freddie Young can be credited with a major chunk of the glory of Lawrence's PQ. It's old school lighting, but highly "defined," minimal/no lens diffusion, and excellent work by the focus puller.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 62
1/4/13 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

and excellent work by the focus puller.

The what?

Edit: googled it. So it's the 1st asst. cameraman who's job it is to make sure everything in focus or as sharp as possible?
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 62
1/5/13 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dormie1360 View Post

The what?
Edit: googled it. So it's the 1st asst. cameraman who's job it is to make sure everything in focus or as sharp as possible?

Yes, although the U.S. and UK/Aussie systems are a bit different with the title of that position. In the U.S. that crewmember is called the 1st AC. In the UK and Austrailia that crewmember is often listed as the focus puller.

It is his/her job to have focus where it needs to be. That's usually on the featured actor, but can be elsewhere depending on the depth of field and the story/performance. Consider a "focus flip" which is when a foreground actor looks back to an upstage actor or object. The "flip" to the upstage target must occur at the right moment and rate to not distract. It takes watching the actor's performance carefully so that the flip conforms to the actor's visible cues (how fast, etc). There is an infamous, but true tale in Hollywood about this subject and Clint Eastwood. In a short rehersal for a shot with a focus flip like I described, Clint was the director and the foreground actor. He took the look upstage, the AC flipped appropriately. After a moment, Clint turned his gaze away from the upstage actor, but not strongly, then I think exited the shot. The AC asked Clint if he wants the focus flipped back to him or left on the upstage actor. Clint's infamous answer was "Do your ****ing job," as only he can say it. It takes some knowledge of filmmaking, experience and judgement. Clint and many others have high expectations of their crew, but are renowned for being extremely faithful.

Consider following focus on hand-heild and Steadicam. I have always been amazed at how some of the guys can do that so well with little technological help. They just have an incredibly developed skill to judge minute distance changes on the fly.

Focus is what we see of that crewmember's job, but they do far more as "foreman" of the camera department. In the new age of digital capture, the camera assistant structure is in a sometimes uncomfortable state of chaos due to the addition of the DIT (digital imaging tech), and his visible influence. The DP can even become a bit uncomfortable that there is a crewmember under him in his department who can have strong sway with the director. Rather awkward.
Edited by Cam Man - 1/5/13 at 11:00am
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 62
1/5/13 at 11:22am
Thanks Cam Man very interesting stuff.

Don't mean to derail this thread any more, but I have a really stupid question.

The focus flip, or I guess any focus for that matter. Is that done manually? Is there a toggle or something? Auto?
Edited by dormie1360 - 1/5/13 at 11:31am
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 62
1/5/13 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dormie1360 View Post

Thanks Cam Man very interesting stuff.
Don't mean to derail this thread any more, but I have a really stupid question.
The focus flip, or I guess any focus for that matter. Is that done manually? Is there a toggle or something? Auto?

Analog manual/mechanical. smile.gif The focus section of the lens barrel has small gear teeth. A small gear assembly is positioned to engage those. The gears are such to change the axis to permit a knob that faces outward. When the knob is turned, it turns the focus ring of the lens. The AC affixes small pieces of tape or grease pencil marks on the focus ring barrel as a visible reference to marks he has measured on the set (actor, camera position, etc). Very likely, marks are also made on the floor if there are significant camera moves. The exception to this is with Steadicam which doesn't permit the AC to touch the rig. In this case, there is an RF remote control device that let the AC move the focus ring. He/she still has to eyeball distances carefully.

Lawrence of Arabia, shot on 65mm and older/slower stock, has some potential shallow depth of field, but the predominantly bright exteriors helped keep the stop up high and increase depth of field. Interiors also apparently had quite high light levels because there is often rather good depth of field, considering it was 65mm. I would guess back then that the interiors had to be shot at T4 to T5.6 or so. That's a ton of light for those old film stocks. The interior tungsten balanced stock was probably no faster than 100 ASA. You're talking about 60 to 100 FC on the set. Another way to tell this is to look at Peter O'Toole's irises in closeups; they are quite small. I can't imagine how he endured the brightness of the desert and the Brute arc lights and shiny boards.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 62
1/5/13 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Lawrence of Arabia, shot on 65mm and older/slower stock, has some potential shallow depth of field, but the predominantly bright exteriors helped keep the stop up high and increase depth of field. Interiors also apparently had quite high light levels because there is often rather good depth of field, considering it was 65mm. I would guess back then that the interiors had to be shot at T4 to T5.6 or so. That's a ton of light for those old film stocks. The interior tungsten balanced stock was probably no faster than 100 ASA. You're talking about 60 to 100 FC on the set. Another way to tell this is to look at Peter O'Toole's irises in closeups; they are quite small. I can't imagine how he endured the brightness of the desert and the Brute arc lights and shiny boards.
Back in 1963 Eastman Kodak offered one color negative stock, which happened to be tungsten-balanced ASA 50. That went up to ASA 100 around 1969-1970. Being a DP back then must've been pretty hairy business, though not quite as hairy as the 5 ASA Technicolor cameras eek.gif
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 62
1/5/13 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Back in 1963 Eastman Kodak offered one color negative stock, which happened to be tungsten-balanced ASA 50. That went up to ASA 100 around 1969-1970. Being a DP back then must've been pretty hairy business, though not quite as hairy as the 5 ASA Technicolor cameras eek.gif

That's quite amazing, for sure. A current Kodak negative stock that's daylight tungsten is 5245. It is very fine-grained and popular for aerials; used it a lot...but for exteriors on sunny days

Today, it is common to be shooting at about a T2 wtih 800ASA stock. That's very few foot-candles. There is a significant difference that you wouldn't know about unless you studied this stuff or worked in it. Maintaining photographic/lighting consistency in a scene is pretty important. When your key light is 12 fc and your light in shadows (fill) is 3 fc, you have a contrast ratio of 4:1. If your fill on the next piece of coverage is only at 1.5fc, it will be hard to see by eye, but you will have significantly changed the contrast ratio to 8:1. That reveals the only advantage to working with big light levels back in the past. With your key is 80 fc and your fill 20 fc, if on the subsequent set-up your fill drops by a few foot-candles it won't be noticable by eye or on film. In other words, it was easier to maintain that kind of consistency back then. Today, DPs are aware of this, and sometimes use a bit more light than they might like to so that they don't live on the edge.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 62
1/5/13 at 4:30pm
Lawrence was shot on Eastman 5250, and to put things in perspective with modern optics, the lens used for the majority of the close ups and 2 shots was a 51mm t4.7

RAH
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 62
1/5/13 at 9:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Lawrence was shot on Eastman 5250, and to put things in perspective with modern optics, the lens used for the majority of the close ups and 2 shots was a 51mm t4.7
RAH

Fun! Thank you for that bit of insider detail. That would confirm my prediction on the working stop made in post #49. Pretty good guess. wink.gif The light needed for that stop with today's stocks and lenses would seem quite high even for an anamorphic shoot with Panavision C-series. Contemporary actors don't know what they missed regarding light levels and heat.

For anybody interested in lenses, the Panavision C-series that I mentioned like a fat minimum stop of T4, despite some having a max aperture of 2.8 or so. They just get wanky down that low. At near T4, they look very good. Here's a semi-modern example. We shot all the interiors of Star Trek: First Contact at T3.2 because that is the stop that all the displays and practical gizmo lights on the bridge and elsewhere looked best. The C-series lenses were living on the edge of good, but there was no margin for error on focus. It was a little harrowing on semi-wide shots with the 100mm because you were just wide enough to not be able to see fine focus through the camera. You prayed the AC had it, and as soon as the cut occured, it was not uncommon to see the AC jump out on the set with his tape to measure out to where the actors finally landed to double check if he had it. Better to decide there than in dailies the next day at lunch. eek.gif Michael Weldon did his typical tremendous work. smile.gif For closeups we had the popular E-series 180mm.

I can only imagine the quirks of behavior of lenses back in the time of Lawrence. I bet that 400m telephoto used for the mirage shot was an enigmatic piece. By the way, virtually all these classic lenses and some of the cameras used on this film and other classics are still kept at Panavision for their historical value.

You might enjoy visitng here to look at some history by the decade. http://www.panavision.com/history
Edited by Cam Man - 1/5/13 at 10:08pm
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 62
1/7/13 at 10:49pm
I ran across this today and thought there may be some here interested in it. http://cinefii.com/panavisions-new-alexa-killer-weve-got-the-early-details/

Notice the old Super Panavision camera with its mag blimp open.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 62
1/7/13 at 11:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

I ran across this today and thought there may be some here interested in it. http://cinefii.com/panavisions-new-alexa-killer-weve-got-the-early-details/
Notice the old Super Panavision camera with its mag blimp open.

Ohhh nicee
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 62
1/9/13 at 1:05pm
I have never seen laurance of arabia before and am going to just blind buy it. But I noticed there are several versions of it. Are all versions 4k?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 62
1/9/13 at 1:43pm
They are all the same ~2K version based on the same 8K scan.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 62
1/9/13 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

They are all the same ~2K version based on the same 8K scan.

Hmmm...
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 62
1/9/13 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suffolk112000 View Post

I have never seen laurance of arabia before and am going to just blind buy it. But I noticed there are several versions of it. Are all versions 4k?

I watched it for the first time since college (mid-70s) recently. My knowledge of history of the period and conflicts was forgotten, so before watching I did a little homework. It helped me appreciate the events more. FWIW for you. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 62
1/9/13 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1216 View Post

Got through about half the movie yesterday...it does kinda move at a snails pace. Picture quality was fantastic. Highly recommmended.

I think the pacing is brilliant. It all comes down to the quality of directing, editing, and cinematography... besides the quality of the acting and script, of course. All were top notch. Epics just don't get much better than this!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Lawrence of Arabia 4K restored