A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Raiders of the Lost Ark -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[theonemacduff]

How about "lovingly escorted to the digital party"?

 

[Mark Oates]

How's about using the old fashioned "vanilla" term for just remastering, through to the full "knickerbocker glory"?

 

[Dee Zee]

You know, Homeland Security retired the color coded terrorist threat level so maybe we can reversion that for reissuing movies: This Film Has Been Renovated - Severe, High, Elevated, Guarded, Low.

 

[24fpssean]

The DCP I saw of Raiders earlier this year looked horrible, but that may have been the venue. Doug Slocombe's almost three dimensional cinematography is very contrasty, deep dark shadows, glowing highlights (Slocombe also shot The Lion in Winter), and projected digitally just made it look terrible, as if it were being projected, well... digitally. I'd just viewed a 35mm print of the film five months before and it was glorious, even with the occassional green scratch. Anyway, I sat there watching the DCP thinking that it would look much better on Blu-ray.
As far as naming conventions for transfers/harvests/scans, I leave that to the Home Theater Forum parliament. For me there is Watchable... and Unwatchable.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by 24fpssean /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/60#post_3970496
The DCP I saw of Raiders earlier this year looked horrible, but that may have been the venue. Doug Slocombe's almost three dimensional cinematography is very contrasty, deep dark shadows, glowing highlights (Slocombe also shot The Lion in Winter), and projected digitally just made it look terrible, as if it were being projected, well... digitally. I'd just viewed a 35mm print of the film five months before and it was glorious, even with the occassional green scratch. Anyway, I sat there watching the DCP thinking that it would look much better on Blu-ray.
As far as naming conventions for transfers/harvests/scans, I leave that to the Home Theater Forum parliament. For me there is Watchable... and Unwatchable.

For a film based project, the only difference that one should see viewing digital vs. film, is a lack of movement in the frame and a lack of cue marks. Other than that they should look alike.

RAH

 

[Dave H]

I'll be seeing Raiders at IMAX this weekend. Looking forward to it and the boxset. One of my very favorite movies of all time. I saw it around 12 times if I recall when it came out in 1981. I was only nine years old and it replaced Star Wars as my favorite movie! (Anyone around my age at that time knows how big of a deal that is). Furthermore, I am thrilled this is being done the right way for Blu-ray.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Can not wait for the original trilogy to come out on HD bluray disc! The first time I saw Indiana Jones at home was on Beta on a rear projection 50" or 55" screen! As you can see I have purchased these films before but I am looking forward to the films looking better than they ever have before!
Anyone know what audio mix we can expect from this bluray release?
5.1 Dolby True HD
5.1 DTS-HD MA
6.1 Dolby True HD
6.1 DTS-HD MA
7.1 Dolby True HD
7.1 DTS-HD MA
7.1 PCM

 

[Dave Moritz]

Re post deleted

 

[TravisR]

Anyone know what audio mix we can expect from this bluray release?

I can't vouch for the info but according to Blu-ray.com it's 5.1 DTS-HD MA.

 

[Spencer Draper]

The DCP I saw of Raiders earlier this year looked horrible, but that may have been the venue. Doug Slocombe's almost three dimensional cinematography is very contrasty, deep dark shadows, glowing highlights (Slocombe also shot The Lion in Winter), and projected digitally just made it look terrible, as if it were being projected, well... digitally. I'd just viewed a 35mm print of the film five months before and it was glorious, even with the occassional green scratch. Anyway, I sat there watching the DCP thinking that it would look much better on Blu-ray.
As far as naming conventions for transfers/harvests/scans, I leave that to the Home Theater Forum parliament. For me there is Watchable... and Unwatchable.

This sounds a bit similar to the experience I had with the 35mm version of this new...whatever you call it. Very contrasty, in fact the opening title blended back into the sky it was so bright. Colors seem very saturated, almost to the point of the teaser trailer on the DVDs. The snake reflection was gone in the Well of the Souls. Also there were some very thin delicate clear vertical lines running through different parts of the Tanis dig sequences, which if I recall is where the on-set negative damage occurred.
The sound was very unimpressive, sounded identical to the DVD's 5.1 mix if it had been turned down in volume somewhat. I thought it could have had something to do with the venue, but this was where I saw the 4K sourced 35mm of Blade Runner: The Final Cut which was so good that it is easily in my top 5 theater presentations ever. (Bone-rattling sound.) I'm thinking it was simply due to being lo bitrate audio on the print, compared to the higher resolution audio that accompanied the digital presentations that reviewers raved over. All of these are based on the 70mm six track masters, which are supposedly from the 35mm designed for VistaSonic (4 optical audio tracks instead of 2 channel matrix.) with the two baby booms added.
CLEAR, BRIGHT, DETAILED is the overwhelming notion you will get from this presentation.
In the end, it was just really disappointing to finally get to see Raiders on the big screen, even on a brand new print, and be this underwhelmed. I want to see an original print, no matter the condition to compare. (And to see the reflection on the big screen. I know it's a very tiny thing, but I love the imperfections of this film, as they are a part of it's charm.)
Now I'm really wondering what source will be utilized for Temple and Crusade.

 

[ackbak]

What a great upcoming slate for Blu-Ray catalog... Indy trilogy, Bond movies, Titanic, ET, etc... My 7 year old son asks me, literally, everday when these movies are being released on Blu-Ray. He had been playing the Lego Indy game on the Wii and desperately wants to watch the movies with me... Can't wait...

 

[kenkraly20212]

There's a video promoting the Indiana Jones Blu-Ray Collection on youtube where Ben Burtt was asked about the sound restoration for Radiers Of The Lost Ark and what he said was they wanted to go back to the original masters and remaster the original sound mix in DTS HD MA that way using the original sound recordings because they where better quality than the theater and the past home video releases.

 

[DVDvision]

Just saw the Blu-ray of Raiders on a giant screen. Film like and gorgeous! More tomorrow I'm going to bed.

 

[TomTom]

Yes I am always a little surprised that the maximum available information on the OCN is not utilised.I hope to that we get a very broad sweep of the OCN,and not a selective extraction.

I agree, to me, more is always better until it changes the composition. Just don't include the microphone pole.

As for the info left off the blu ray release at the sides, well i believe 2K is 2048pixels by 858 for a 2.35:1 film, instead of re-scaling which can introduce unwanted artifacts.....

I've heard this in the past too and people have mentioned this on Super 35 films but I'm not sure about Scope films.
Can anyone out there cite scaling issues on certain titles that didn't maintain this "one to one pixel standard"? I would like to pursue it deeper.
By the numbers -Raiders would be 3656x3112 and then from there they would scale down.
I'm not sure how feature post houses scale scope movies and what their pixel policy is?
I work in commercials where every pixel is eligible for pushing.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by TomTom /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/60#post_3971439
I've heard this in the past too and people have mentioned this on Super 35 films but I'm not sure about Scope films.
Can anyone out there cite scaling issues on certain titles that didn't maintain this "one to one pixel standard"? I would like to pursue it deeper.
By the numbers -Raiders would be 3656x3112 and then from there they would scale down.
I'm not sure how feature post houses scale scope movies and what their pixel policy is?
I work in commercials where every pixel is eligible for pushing.

As an example, we can use Alien which is a scope film, they did a 4K film scan, but it has a 2K master, instead of scaling that master they cut a little info from the sides and top and bottom, this got some people complaining that there was slightly less info than was on the last DVD release, i'm not saying Raiders will have this done to it but scaling can introduce some ringing into the equation, check out some Dreamwork animated titles, a number of them have some minor ringing visible, Kung Fu Panda, usually given 5/5 for image quality actually has some visible ringing due to scaling it down, review sites just seem to miss things like this, it hardly ever gets a mention, put some compression artifacts in there and make that visible and every site mentions it but ringing and edge enhancement often get overlooked by reviewers, it's a bugbear of mine.

 

[antoniobiz1]

As for the info left off the blu ray release at the sides, well i believe 2K is 2048pixels by 858 for a 2.35:1 film, instead of re-scaling which can introduce unwanted artifacts into the image i believe they just crop a little off the sides and top and bottom, a minimal amount, thus 2048 x 858 becomes 1920 x 804, this is why many films have a bit missing from the sides and a tiny amount missing top and bottom of the frame, probably within the intended safe frame composition, it can be jarring when you have seen the DVD version and it has a bit more but since that format already had sharpening applied ( unnecessary and not needed even on DVD ) and many other artifacts then a few more from downscaling doesn't matter. ( or does it )

2048 by 858 is 1,757,184; 1920 by 804 is 1,543,680. So 1,757,184 minus 1,543,680 equals 213,504. But then 213,504/1,757,184 equals 0,121503497. That means that more than 12% (TWELVE) is cropped, besides the initial cropping (the DCP 2k does not, I believe, show the whole frame). Is this acceptable?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/60#post_3971502
Is this acceptable?

You tell me.

Incidentally i don't think your figures add up, there is horizontal and vertical, the cropping is much less on one than the other and you can't just add all the pixels up and come up with a figure.

 

[antoniobiz1]

You tell me.

To me it is not even remotely acceptable. I find it insulting. I find it ridicolous that some of us try to do their best to recreate the original theatrical experience (you know, dedicated rooms, projectors and so on) only to find out that there is no way (except going the 35mm route), because the original frame is NOT THERE. But, as it does not seem to be a major concern, I am trying to understand if is considered an acceptable practice. That's all.
(Sorry for the rant)

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/60#post_3971515
To me it is not even remotely acceptable. I find it insulting. I find it ridicolous that some of us try to do their best to recreate the original theatrical experience (you know, dedicated rooms, projectors and so on) only to find out that there is no way (except going the 35mm route), because the original frame is NOT THERE. But, as it does not seem to be a major concern, I am trying to understand if is considered an acceptable practice. That's all.
(Sorry for the rant)

I wonder if there is a safe framing area and that they are simply ditching a part of the frame which is considered acceptable, remember some of the directors such as Ridley Scott approve the release and so must see the slight loss at the sides and sometimes top and bottom of the frame ( if its Super 35 then the top and bottom of the frame is not a huge deal ) it didn't seem to impact on Alien or any other film i have seen. I think it's around 3% on each side of the frame and maybe the same or close to the same on top and bottom, or maybe they choose 5% on one side of the frame depending on the scene and 1% on the other side and so on and so forth.

Someone else can do the math for more accuracy.

I give you an example of a blu ray release that has more information at the top of the frame and more at the sides compared to the DVD, the reverse is true of Alien and many other releases which lose some information just like the DVD comparison shot below. Let it load and then mouse on and off to see what i mean. Please bear in mind this is just an example to help illustrate what happens with some blu ray releases and the DVD was probably zoomed in to start with.

P.S. The film is Wild At Heart and it was shot in Panavision. There are no scaling artifacts, no ringing issues and thus i'm not sure why the major studio's cut a little off the sides of the frame and yet the smaller companies can leave the frame intact, someone with greater knowledge than me can maybe tell you that.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/dvd_bluray_comparisons/wild_at_heart/wild19.html

 

[antoniobiz1]

Isn't the figure more like 6% loss or thereabouts, you don't add all the pixels up you just calculate using 2048 minus the 128 to get to 1920 and then do the same and take 858 and minus the 54 to get the percentage of each, you don't combine the two, i am trying to do the sums using just my head.

Well, no. It is the difference between two areas.