Once and for all..which Lawrence of Arabia has best picture and sound? (1 Viewer)

[MarcoBiscotti]

Thanks a lot for clearing up the confusion Robert.

It's a shame we can't have the best of both worlds, a/v quality and supplementals, but for now it looks like I'll be sticking with my Superbit release and I'll make a point to check out the making-of later this week to decide if it's even worth keeping.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Colin, thanks for this info. I'd missed these completely - they haven't arrived in the UK nor do they seem to be stocked by my usual suppliers. However, I'll keep a look out for them.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I think Lawrence should be re-transferred using the best 4k processes available with NO edge enhancement or filtering and then that be the basis for a 1920x1080p Blu-Ray down-conversion.

Also, a 24/96 PCM re-master/re-mix of the soundtrack to go along with the video. Couldn't more digital manipulation of the newer over-dubs that had to take place be done to more closely match the younger versions of Peter O'Toole, Anthony Quinn, etc.? While they're at it... finish the over dubs so that the last remaining piece of the director's cut can be placed back into the film.

Look at the potential specs. for Blu-Ray and it includes provisions for 8 channels of uncompressed 24/96 PCM along with 1080p video.

Mr. Harris, would you be willing to supervise a new state-of-the-art super-HD transfer and audiophile re-master/re-mix using the best possible 65mm source material (obviously, not the master archival print) to complete the film to as close a version as possible to Mr. Lean's original cut?

 

[Robert Harris]

To Dan Hitchman...

A 65mm master archival element would be used for a new transfer.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Wouldn't that risk the restored elements, or are the archival negatives you're talking about dupes for use as video transfer sources?

 

[RobertR]

There were. They don't warrant having you get all excited. They were older transfers, had problems of their own, needed a separate MUSE converter (the analog MUSE system didn't look as good as the digital system now in use), are no longer made, and were ultra-expensive (you could expect to pay $150-$300).

But I did enjoy Brian Wiklem's demo of the Showgirls hidef LD

 

[Robert Harris]

To Dan Hitchman...

We created two 65mm interpositves from the restoration negative of Lawrence as it was self-destructing. These two elements should serve as the preservation core for all dupe negatives and video transfers to be produced.

It was Dawn Steel, who was president of Columbia Pictures a the time, that approved the creation of a second 65mm IP as the Onegs were becoming problematic. This is something virtually unheard of, and Lawrence will exist for many generations to come because of her forward thinking.

 

[Jim Robbins]

There's a good comparison of the various DVD versions of this film at the following site:

It would appear the superbit PAL version is tops.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...eofarabia2.htm

 

[Phil L]

Terrific to hear that.

 

[Dick]

Okay, I guess I've lost track. Is the transfer used for the Superbits edition closer to the Robert Harris restoration? And did I hear it preserves the directional dialog of the original? Too many editions of this film - I'm confused!

 

[greg_t]

Yes, the superbit is from Robert Harris' restoration transfer. At this time, it is the most accurate version of LOA on video. It really is a great release and puts the LE version to shame.

 

[JustinCleveland]

I don't know about that, I have the LoA Superbit, and it says a Robert Harns took care of that transfer, and the back of boxes have never lied!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Just to get a technical nit out of the way. The Superbit DVD and the previous DVDs of LoA released in R1 are all from the same basic transfer of an element derived from the Harris/Painten restoration. The primary advantage of the Superbit is that, similar to the Criterion DVD of Spartacus, color timing has been altered in consultation with Robert Harris to better reflect the director's expressed intent. The secondary advantage is that certain editorial mistakes in the audio remix have been fixed. A third advantage is that a layer or two of video processing artifacts seems to have been lifted (e.g. edge ringing, while still present, is noticeably less egregious).

The only drawback in some people's opinion is that the Superbit sidebreak does not correspond with the intermission, but my personal opinion is that it's a small price to pay for uniformly good video quality and the advantages listed above.

Regards,

 

[TedD]

Except it is NOT good video quality! It is better video quality than its predecessor, but there is no way I would describe the video quality of a DVD with the level of EE that this DVD contains as "good".

And, the DVD side break certainly does ruin the presentation for me.

Just my $.02

Ted

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

So semantically, you are saying that, all things being equal, if the SB had little or no EE, it would be "good". What would then have to be improved for it to be "very good" or "great"?

Regards,

 

[Chris PC]

Ok, so if I buy the Superbit for the picture/video quality and hopefully the sound is good too, which other one should I look for (used or on sale) to grab for the extra's?

thanx

 

[Patrick McCart]

The first image is a random shot that lacks the edge enhancement. The last two have the "worst" examples. It's there, but it's not that bad. (Note: all 3 of these screenshots are at 60% quality)

As for the side break, I cannot comprehend why having the intermission neatly dividing the disc is important. DVD is now in its seventh year and it's still not clear to many that the more space you give to a film on DVD, the better it can look. The old DVD split at the intermission, but you can see pixelation in every single shot.

 

[TedD]

Patrick:

With all due respect, your screen shots are the like sitting 2 1/2 to 3 times the width of the screen which can hide a multitude of sins.

Here are a couple of shots from LOA Superbit:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/LOA01.png
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/LOA02.png

Notice the multiple distinct lines at the letterbox borders and the heavy EE everywhere else.

And, lest anyone say that my captures are adding to the issue, here is a screen shot from FE which has very minimal EE:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/FE01.png

Notice the lack of distinct lines at the letterbox borders and the light EE everywhere else. Since I have never seen a Columbia Scope release without at least some EE, I would consider this to be as good as it gets from Columbia.

I have other captures from 2.40:1 films that have no EE whatsoever, but I didn't have the energy to come up with a screen shot that has the same contrast range as the above three shots.

And that is why I don't consider this release to be "good".
Ted

 

[TedD]

And to illustrate an almost totally EE free transfer, here is a shot from Star Wars Ep 4:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/SW01.png

However, you can see some mosquito noise and other sundry MPEG artifacts...

Ted

 

[greg_t]

The issue is that the EE is a part of the HD transfer from the 65mm interpostive and thus could not be removed for the superbit. I doubt you'll see much better for some time as a new transfer from the interpositives would have to take place, and I doubt that Columbia could justify a re-transfer for another DVD release. Hopefully when HIDEF DVD comes out, this will be taken care of. But for right now, there is no better version of Lawerence. If it's good enough for Roberts Harns, it's good enough for me!