A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Lawrence of Arabia -- in 4k/UHD Blu-ray (5 Viewers)

[ShellOilJunior]

I never got a chance to see Lawrence on the big screen until about 3 years ago at the Cleveland Cinematheque (God bless them. Their programs are outstanding). It was a 35mm print but I was wonderstruck for nearly 4 hours. The "Nothing is written" scene practically moved me to tears by how brilliant it looks on the big screen.
I had only seen the film on DVD prior to the screening.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/60#post_3898340
I never got a chance to see Lawrence on the big screen until about 3 years ago at the Cleveland Cinematheque (God bless them. Their programs are outstanding). It was a 35mm print but I was wonderstruck for nearly 4 hours. The "Nothing is written" scene practically moved me to tears by how brilliant it looks on the big screen.
I had only seen the film on DVD prior to the screening.

You need to see this either in 70mm projection, or eventually in 4k.

A 35mm anamorphic print holds approximately 25% of the resolution of 70.

RAH

 

[Richard--W]

Interesting.
How does 4k stack up to the resolution of 70mm?
What's the percentage?
For that matter, what's the percentage of 4K compared to the resolution of 35mm?

 

[Charles Smith]

A giant screen's curtain parting on the Columbia logo, accompanied by that incredible sustained chord of Jarre's (which I don't think is ever repeated anywhere in the score), is worth the price of a 70mm ticket alone.

Of course there's also that little moment involving a match and a desert...

 

[ShellOilJunior]

You need to see this either in 70mm projection, or eventually in 4k.
A 35mm anamorphic print holds approximately 25% of the resolution of 70.
RAH

It's on my to-do list. I'm hoping there will be a screening near Cleveland some day (wishful thinking!). I'll have to get out to California one of these days...

 

[NY2LA]

Admittedly coming in late here, but I have read the previous posts... I grew up on 60s roadshow musicals, and didn't pay much attention to drama/epics (with the exception of 2001 at Loew's Capitol) until much later.
When Lawrence was about to be unveiled in its restored version, I thought I read in Premiere that Lean had put back pretty much all there was, then trimmed about a minute or two before giving his blessing. IIRC, there was some mention of a controversial scene in which Lawrence was sexually assaulted. Recent posts here surprise me, as I thought the picture was already very well restored and nothing was missing from it.
My first time seeing LoA was at the Ziegfeld in NY where the restoration premiered. From previous visits, I noticed the Ziegfeld had a second curtain, a white one, that always trailed the main gold one when opening and closing. Never quite understood what it was for. I've since come to learn it was called a title curtain. This curtain, a bit on the gauzy side, could almost disappear the minute the picture hit it, then could open unobtrusively, so that the main curtain could open completely and still not reveal the screen before the picture came on. Having said that, I had NEVER seen the Ziegfeld use this curtain that way.
I went to the Ziegfeld, shortly after the LoA restoration opened. I remember thinking the reissue poster seemed kind of classy compared to the original, though in most cases for other films I prefer the original (roadshow) artwork. The picture was given a good roadshow presentation, with overture, and desperately awaited intermission (the theatre got so warm I thought I WAS in the desert and was craving a cold soda!). I remember being very impressed with how the picture looked, brand new to me, and when the "assault" scene came it was fairly subtle. It was impressive and encouraging to see that someone had gone to the great effort of reconstructing and cleaning up an old roadshow and reissuing it like new.
I went back to the Ziegfeld to see Sparticus, again because it was a restored roadshow. Again it looked new and was well presented. Except...
Sometime before Lawrence opened, the Ziegfeld had its own restoration, which included replacing the main and title curtains. However, the new title curtain was much too sheer, to the point of being nearly transparent, so you could clearly see the black masking and blank screen behind it. It was clear (no pun intended) that someone had instructed the projectionist to open the main curtain so the overture and entracte music would not be muffled, but I felt the presentation suffered, because the title curtain was so transparent we might as well have been staring at a blank screen. My memory is not clear if this happened with both Lawrence and Sparticus or just the latter.
RAH: you have been very clear in defining what actually constitutes a restoration. We know that word is used way too liberally when pictures have had new prints struck, or new video masters... So why is the new BluRay being referred to as a restoration and why would it have any more in it than you put back with DL's approval? With the much higher capacity of BluRay, is it still necessary to break the film into two discs? Let's hope they remember to put the Entracte in the right place...

 

[Paul Rossen]

You were probably witness to the rather confusing 187 minute cut, which was prepared for network broadcast, and cut for that purpose alone.  If you can find a copy, Stephen Farber discusses the cut in The NY Times, May 2, 1971 -- "Look what they've done to Lawrence of Arabia now.
RAH

The 187 minute version was indeed shown in theaters as I saw it at The Rivoli in NYC at the time of the Farber article(which I kept). The film was confusing to say the least. Especially for someone who had seen the original 222 minute version as well as the 200 minute version. It was a travesty. We are all thankful for your efforts to bring Lawrence back from the brink of extinction.
I'm really hoping that you were able to complete the Lawrence-Allenby terrace scene for the Blu-ray and that it will be incorporated into the film.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/60#post_3898346
Interesting.
How does 4k stack up to the resolution of 70mm?
What's the percentage?
For that matter, what's the percentage of 4K compared to the resolution of 35mm?

It's not quite as simple as one might expect.

Parts of the equation come down to the venue, projection equipment (projector, lamp house, reflector, lens).

It is extremely difficult to get a quality 70mm image on screen at this time.

A 2k image projected on a huge screen can look superb. 4k in some situations better, dependent upon the data being transmitted.

With the elimination of normal projection artifacts, such as wear and tear on the print, heat, bob and weave within the gate as well as other attributes, a properly presented 4k image of Lawrence should look very nice indeed.

One of the bits of chatter on the web that I've noticed is the concept of 4k for home theater.

The truth is that even for a very large home theater screen 2k is overkill. The top 1% of home theater enthusiasts might be able to appreciate the difference between a quality Blu-ray presentation and 2k -- both set up properly. Most people viewing Blu-ray are achieving no where near what they might with proper setup.

BTW, here's that third variant of the Lawrence Premiere Program in white leather.

RAH

 

[Charles Smith]

Oh man. And not that it matters, but a known name like Mondale, too. Beautiful.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH: you have been very clear in defining what actually constitutes a restoration. We know that word is used way too liberally when pictures have had new prints struck, or new video masters... So why is the new BluRay being referred to as a restoration and why would it have any more in it than you put back with DL's approval? With the much higher capacity of BluRay, is it still necessary to break the film into two discs? Let's hope they remember to put the Entracte in the right place...

The presentation of LoA at the Ziegfeld was something to behold, as the theatre still had the desire to put on a quality show.

I know that Mr. Crisp has made some comments regarding what is occurring with Lawrence, so I presume I can give you a bit of information.

The original 65mm negative was in very tired condition back in 1986, when I first wound through it. It had been re-cut not once, but twice. Splices were opening as we were working. The good news was that much of the apparent damage was masked by a gorgeous job that Metrocolor Labs did via wet-gate printing, both for color timing, as well as for our 65mm interpositives and dupes. While one could still see the heat damage on some shots, the majority of other problems became very transparent.

FotoKem has scanned the 65mm negative of the reconstructed restoration that I performed, as produced by Jim Painten. These are not only huge files, but at 8k reveal every defect on every frame.

And this is one of the major reasons why the release has been forthcoming for so long on Blu-ray. Every frame must go through an extremely intensive process of digital cleaning, and there are almost 320,000 of them. Much of the work until now has been mechanical, scanning, cleaning. As the project comes closer to completion everything is fine-tuned. One of the things that I admire about Mr. Crisp is the fact that he's one of those "take no prisoners" perfectionists, especially when it comes to important projects.

Which is a long way 'round explaining that the cut 65mm A & B rolls that I created back in 1988, which is a full analogue reconstruction and restoration, serves as the basis of the new version, which is being digitally cleaned, that digital restoration taking the place of the original wet-gate printing technology. And that job is huge.

I believe viewers will be more than pleased with the final results, which will be stunning.

When discussing this restoration, one cannot mention enough the fact that it would never have occurred had it not been for the efforts of Mr. Scorsese and Mr.Spielberg, brought the newly anointed head of Columbia Pictures, Dawn Steel into the loop. It is because of Ms. Steel's efforts and approvals that the film survives as it does today.

As far as putting the entr'acte in the correct place, I can assure you that it will be correct.

One final point, there were rumors (and possibly some truth) to the fact that some theatre-owners in 1962-3 were allowing the venues to get a bit warmer as the Intermission neared..

and then adding a bit more salt to the popcorn.

Also, for those who may be wondering, the Blu-ray release is on track to arrive this millennium.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

And speaking of digital presentations, here are a couple of instructive pieces from Disney that will give you an idea of what you have to look forward to in the future.

Won't it be fun to download your 2k or 4k programming via Amazon or Apple and then set it up for your system...

http://digitalcinema.disney.com/dcIngestMov.aspx

http://digitalcinema.disney.com/dcKDMsMov.aspx

 

[Stephen PI]

Stephen Pi, how come your scan appears bigger than mine?
I try to make them fill the browser, but they always shrink.
Can you open that pressbook and show us the admats?

I'll do it over the weekend.

 

[NY2LA]

The presentation of LoA at the Ziegfeld was something to behold, as the theatre still had the desire to put on a quality show.
I know that Mr. Crisp has made some comments regarding what is occurring with Lawrence, so I presume I can give you a bit of information.
The original 65mm negative was in very tired condition back in 1986, when I first wound through it.  It had been re-cut not once, but twice.  Splices were opening as we were working.  The good news was that much of the apparent damage was masked by a gorgeous job that Metrocolor Labs did via wet-gate printing, both for color timing, as well as for our 65mm interpositives and dupes.  While one could still see the heat damage on some shots, the majority of other problems became very transparent.
FotoKem has scanned the 65mm negative of the reconstructed restoration that I performed, as produced by Jim Painten.  These are not only huge files, but at 8k reveal every defect on every frame.
And this is one of the major reasons why the release has been forthcoming for so long on Blu-ray.  Every frame must go through an extremely intensive process of digital cleaning, and there are almost 320,000 of them.  Much of the work until now has been mechanical, scanning, cleaning.  As the project comes closer to completion everything is fine-tuned.  One of the things that I admire about Mr. Crisp is the fact that he's one of those "take no prisoners" perfectionists, especially when it comes to important projects.
Which is a long way 'round explaining that the cut 65mm A & B rolls that I created back in 1988, which is a full analogue reconstruction and restoration, serves as the basis of the new version, which is being digitally cleaned, that digital restoration taking the place of the original wet-gate printing technology.  And that job is huge.
I believe viewers will be more than pleased with the final results, which will be stunning.
When discussing this restoration, one cannot mention enough the fact that it would never have occurred had it not been for the efforts of Mr. Scorsese and Mr.Spielberg, brought the newly anointed head of Columbia Pictures, Dawn Steel into the loop.  It is because of Ms. Steel's efforts and approvals that the film survives as it does today.
As far as putting the entr'acte in the correct place, I can assure you that it will be correct.
One final point, there were rumors (and possibly some truth) to the fact that some theatre-owners in 1962-3 were allowing the venues to get a bit warmer as the Intermission neared..
and then adding a bit more salt to the popcorn.
Also, for those who may be wondering, the Blu-ray release is on track to arrive this millennium.
RAH

I can't remember when I've had such a satisfying answer. So they're just continuing your work, no missing scenes left to add? How do you feel about presenting the overture, intermission, etc? Personally I'd rather not have the words onscreen unless (the intermission title) they were there in the first place.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

And speaking of digital presentations, here are a couple of instructive pieces from Disney that will give you an idea of what you have to look forward to in the future.
Won't it be fun to download your 2k or 4k programming via Amazon or Apple and then set it up for your system...
http://digitalcinema.disney.com/dcIngestMov.aspx
http://digitalcinema.disney.com/dcKDMsMov.aspx

And then at home we can enjoy the same problems we in the booth have now with defective DCP files/drives and late-generated and expired keys.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/60#post_3898431
I can't remember when I've had such a satisfying answer. So they're just continuing your work, no missing scenes left to add? How do you feel about presenting the overture, intermission, etc? Personally I'd rather not have the words onscreen unless (the intermission title) they were there in the first place.

I believe we were the first to present the Overture, Intermission, Entr'acte and Exit in this way...

DL agreed that no title should remain on screen. Just a brief visit to allow the viewer to know that their hardware and software were functional.

Therefore, music should begin, and within a few moments a simple title should appear, remain on screen for 3-4 seconds, and fade out.

Simple, elegant, and gets the job done.

Closest we can come to lights dimming, and main curtain opening as the audience would settle.

BTW, your earlier query asked about the "controversial scene," which was doubled in length to show Ali waiting outside in the shadows and day changed to night. I believe the point was made.

RAH

 

[benbess]

I saw the 1989 version in 70mm at the Edwards Big Newport in Newport Beach, CA. It was magnificent!
But, I did notice that there were a few scenes here and there that seemed to have less good resolution. It seemed like there were a few parts (lasting just a few minutes out the whole film) that might have been taken from a 35mm source, or ...? Don't know.
Anyway, do you know if that issue that I saw all those years ago is likely to be fixed in the new version?

 

[mark brown]

Bob: Thanks for the insightful lesson regarding the restoration of Lawrence! I never tire of hearing these success stories. If only we had more folks like Scorsese, Spielberg and Steel we might be able to save the likes of other 70mm epics like Alamo and Mad World before it is too late. mdb

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by benbess /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/60#post_3898452
I saw the 1989 version in 70mm at the Edwards Big Newport in Newport Beach, CA. It was magnificent!
But, I did notice that there were a few scenes here and there that seemed to have less good resolution. It seemed like there were a few parts (lasting just a few minutes out the whole film) that might have been taken from a 35mm source, or ...? Don't know.
Anyway, do you know if that issue that I saw all those years ago is likely to be fixed in the new version?

You were seeing an image derived from 65mm separation masters. No 35mm elements were either used or in any harmed in the restoration.

RAH

 

[NY2LA]

I believe we were the first to present the Overture, Intermission, Entr'acte and Exit in this way...
DL agreed that no title should remain on screen.  Just a brief visit to allow the viewer to know that their hardware and software were functional.
Therefore, music should begin, and within a few moments a simple title should appear, remain on screen for 3-4 seconds, and fade out.
Simple, elegant, and gets the job done.
Closest we can come to lights dimming, and main curtain opening as the audience would settle.
BTW, your earlier query asked about the "controversial scene," which was doubled in length to show Ali waiting outside in the shadows and day changed to night.  I believe the point was made.
RAH

I am all for elegant simplicity. I may be a bit of a purist, but I'd vote in favor of not adding any titles at all. For me it's like putting one on the feature that says "movie" - redundant. If there has to be a visual, I'd prefer something like a simple key art image, or else a carefully chosen still that will not come up on screen in the opening credits. Saul Bass had a good idea, if you HAVE to have the curtain open for the overture, give them something to look at, but not too literal.
I'd like the default menu to be also a simplified image from the ad art, static still, no music loop. Something like a show drop that's there inbetween acts in a legit house.
Did Lawrence have presentation cue sheets from the studio? What are the chances Mr. Crisp and co. will include that in the package? I've seen that done once or twice before, either in onscreen text or enclosed booklet.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/60#post_3898457
I am all for elegant simplicity. I may be a bit of a purist, but I'd vote in favor of not adding any titles at all. For me it's like putting one on the feature that says "movie" - redundant. If there has to be a visual, I'd prefer something like a simple key art image, or else a carefully chosen still that will not come up on screen in the opening credits. Saul Bass had a good idea, if you HAVE to have the curtain open for the overture, give them something to look at, but not too literal.
I'd like the default menu to be also a simplified image from the ad art, static still, no music loop. Something like a show drop that's there inbetween acts in a legit house.
Did Lawrence have presentation cue sheets from the studio? What are the chances Mr. Crisp and co. will include that in the package? I've seen that done once or twice before, either in onscreen text or enclosed booklet.

Only presentation cue sheets for the restoration. The final decision re: titles over black was agreed upon with DL. No one has the moral right to change that.

RAH