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

[Dave H]

No, here's what I'm saying.

Both the BD and DVD of RAIDERS are fixed, measurable quantities for all here.

On my BD copy, there is very subtle surface detail that is lost because the transfer is a tad too hot. How do I know the detail is lost? Because I can see it on the DVD. When I first got the BD, I couldn't believe it so I compared them.

If slight detail seen on the DVD was lost on the BD because the brightness got cranked up too much, then the BD transfer got it wrong. Period. Such lost detail is something quantifiable by media and equipment we all have access to. It has nothing to do with subjective memory or odd prints or anything else. It is tangible. All one needs to do is take the time to compare.

For that reason, among others, we need a transfer of RAIDERS that actually serves the entire detail of the negative.

I appreciate being allowed to express my beliefs in an open forum that values differences of opinion.

With Raiders, I think the Blu-ray has far more detail than the DVD.

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=1520&d2=1519

I also think the color grading looks more refined and film-like on the Blu compared to the DVD. There is no question which disc I would rather project at 124" on my set-up.

 

[Worth]

With Raiders, I think the Blu-ray has far more detail than the DVD.

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=1520&d2=1519

I also think the color grading looks more refined and film-like on the Blu compared to the DVD. There is no question which disc I would rather project at 124" on my set-up.

Look at the shot with the submarine. There's more noticeable detail of the clouds and the water on the DVD - on the blu-ray it's all washed out.

 

[Dave H]

Look at the shot with the submarine. There's more noticeable detail of the clouds and the water on the DVD - on the blu-ray it's all washed out.

I see your point, but there is still far more detail in that image overall. The white peaks seem higher on the DVD within the clouds where as if it's rolled off lower on the Blu despite less cloud structure. The DVD just seems like it has less of a graded look or something if you know what I mean. The Blu looks like film to me where as the DVD looks more like "video".

 

[Carabimero]

With Raiders, I think the Blu-ray has far more detail than the DVD.

I never said the BD had less detail than the DVD. That would be nuts to claim. I'm saying that the Raiders BD is too hot and some subtle surface detail on the negative has been lost. I was simply using the DVD to prove it. That the BD has more detail than the DVD doesn't make the BD right.

Look, even I know to watch the hot spots when I crank up the brightness. Sheesh.

 

[Dave MJ]

Leaving color out of the picture, the blu-ray does have exposure issues. It's too bright. The DVD has very even exposure, nothing is blown out. Dave H, have you seen the 30th anniversary restoration? I think it might be a revelation to you because it was done in 2011 and is similar to the 2012 blu, but with better exposure and minus the orange/teal color changes.

 

[Dave H]

Dave,

I have not seen it, but in my opinion the Blu looks far superior to the DVD in every way. I know some are bothered by a bit of the entire cloud structure not being seen on the Blu, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of the superiority (no pun intended) with the Blu. I realize I'm in the minority here. I don't find the Blu too bright because the white highlights are of a lower frequency - lower than that of the DVD if they were to be measured.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Dave,

I have not seen it, but in my opinion the Blu looks far superior to the DVD in every way. I know some are bothered by a bit of the entire cloud structure not being seen on the Blu, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of the superiority (no pun intended) with the Blu. I realize I'm in the minority here. I don't find the Blu too bright because the white highlights are of a lower frequency - lower than that of the DVD if they were to be measured.

I wouldn't say that as I think the majority of us are happy with the Blu-ray, but have chosen to remain silent.

 

[Carabimero]

To be fair to the Raiders BD, there are probably a lot of BDs with transfers far worse that I watch, enjoy, and never give a second thought about. Why? Because I don't know the movies well enough to know when details are lost, among other things. Raiders is only one of a handful of movies I care that much about--or have seen enough to know when details are missing.

I thought the DVD of Raiders did as well as it possibly could for SD, and I'm hoping we get a UHD of Raiders that, when viewed on a BD, greatly improves on the color and detail of the BD we have now (much the way My Fair Lady BD 2.0 improved on 1.0).

 

[Dave MJ]

Dave,

I have not seen it, but in my opinion the Blu looks far superior to the DVD in every way. I know some are bothered by a bit of the entire cloud structure not being seen on the Blu, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of the superiority (no pun intended) with the Blu. I realize I'm in the minority here. I don't find the Blu too bright because the white highlights are of a lower frequency - lower than that of the DVD if they were to be measured.

I don't think he is saying the DVD is superior. The argument is that the blu is supposedly what the film looked like in the theaters and that doesn't seem likely if it has blown out highlights which aren't on other versions created from low contrast timed prints (VHS, laserdisc and DVD). If the blu was true to the original timing, all versions would have that exposure baked in. The DVD has more detail in bright areas because it has correct exposure. So does the theatrical print I have worked with and the 2011 4K restoration. The blu just ain't correct, it is revisionist color and exposure. People liking or not liking it isn't the issue. There's a reason the orange/teal color is popular.

As for the 2011 restoration, if you are a fan you should try to seek it out. It's the original 4K restoration Spielberg approved and promoted prior to the changes made for the IMAX and blu-ray less than a year later. Most people don't know this version exists. Had it been the blu-ray release I doubt we would be having this debate at all. It's my preferred version to watch aside from a film print and I'm the pickiest Raiders fan I know.

 

[Carabimero]

With Raiders, I think the Blu-ray has far more detail than the DVD.

I never said the DVD was better. What I said is that if there are details on the DVD not present on the BD, it doesn't mean the DVD is better (of course not), it simply proves there are some details that should be on the BD that are missing.

I was asked a question and I answered it with the best proof I could muster within the specialized rules of this thread.

 

[Dave H]

I never said the DVD was better. What I said is that if there are details on the DVD not present on the BD, it doesn't mean the DVD is better (of course not), it simply proves there are some details that should be on the BD that are missing.

I was asked a question and I answered it with the best proof I could muster within the rules of this thread.

I think there is a disconnect as this is your second reply to me about this.

You said there was some detail in the DVD that was not in the Blu. I merely repeated that, but then you jumped on me for saying it. I'm puzzled.

And I never stated that you said the DVD was better.

Also, how do you know exactly what was lost on the negative without working on it?

 

[Dave H]

I don't think he is saying the DVD is superior. The argument is that the blu is supposedly what the film looked like in the theaters and that doesn't seem likely if it has blown out highlights which aren't on other versions created from low contrast timed prints (VHS, laserdisc and DVD). If the blu was true to the original timing, all versions would have that exposure baked in. The DVD has more detail in bright areas because it has correct exposure. So does the theatrical print I have worked with and the 2011 4K restoration. The blu just ain't correct, it is revisionist color and exposure. People liking or not liking it isn't the issue. There's a reason the orange/teal color is popular.

As for the 2011 restoration, if you are a fan you should try to seek it out. It's the original 4K restoration Spielberg approved and promoted prior to the changes made for the IMAX and blu-ray less than a year later. Most people don't know this version exists. Had it been the blu-ray release I doubt we would be having this debate at all. It's my preferred version to watch aside from a film print and I'm the pickiest Raiders fan I know.

lol

I never said Carabimero thinks it's better. I was making a generalized statement based on the sentiments within the thread from various posts.

Anyway, I'm going to step out of this thread at this point. I don't agree with a lot of the assumptions and the conversation is becoming pointless for me.

All the best.

 

[Carabimero]

I think there is a disconnect as this is your second reply to me about this.

You said there was some detail in the DVD that was not in the Blu. I merely repeated that, but then you jumped on me for saying it. I'm puzzled.

And I never stated that you said the DVD was better.

Also, how do you know exactly what was lost on the negative without working on it?

I apologize if you feel jumped on.

If detail was on the DVD, it has to be on the negative (unless the DVD was enhanced, but it wasn't, not for the details I am talking about, which can also be seen to a lesser degree on the laser disc.) That's the whole point of the comparison: To prove that no matter how superior the BD is to the DVD, it is missing detail on the negative. Why? Because the BD was overexposed and the detail was blown out.

I think I'm right behind Dave H. I've said all I have to say about the Raiders BD at this point. The comparisons speak for themselves.

Happy Indy watching everyone.

 

[Robert Crawford]

lol

I never said Carabimero thinks it's better. I was making a generalized statement based on the sentiments within the thread from various posts.

Anyway, I'm going to step out of this thread at this point. I don't agree with a lot of the assumptions and the conversation is becoming pointless for me.

All the best.

As long as you're happy with this Blu-ray that's all that really matters as it pertains to you. If there are those that are not happy with this Blu-ray then so be it and that's their issue to deal with.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Was the 2011 version of Raiders released on home video? If so, what was the exact version? Most of the recent releases on DVD are 2008.

 

[Dave MJ]

Was the 2011 version of Raiders released on home video? If so, what was the exact version? Most of the recent releases on DVD are 2008.

It was shown in theaters in a few cities around September of 2011, including some high profile screenings with Spielberg, Ford and other cast and crew where it was stated that it would coming out on blu-ray some time after the Star Wars release. It was praised as a pristine restoration. It was only ever shown on a Japanese HD station and a very good quality 1080p capture is around if you know where to look. PM me if you want a hint.

The 2011 restoration was done by Laser Pacific, which was subsequently bought by Technicolor who then did the 2012 blu-ray color.

It's my opinion that the 2011 version was brightened, contrast changed and teal/orange color applied to create the IMAX and blu-ray releases in 2012. The 2011 version was used in the first blu-ray trailer to demonstrate the restoration, so it seems the decision to change the color was made late in the game. I will refrain from posting screenshots in this thread. They also replaced a couple of the matte painting shots, made another digital alteration and remixed the sound.

 

[Dr Griffin]

It was shown in theaters in a few cities around September of 2011, including some high profile screenings with Spielberg, Ford and other cast and crew where it was stated that it would coming out on blu-ray some time after the Star Wars release. It was praised as a pristine restoration. It was only ever shown on a Japanese HD station and a very good quality 1080p capture is around if you know where to look. PM me if you want a hint.

The 2011 restoration was done by Laser Pacific, which was subsequently bought by Technicolor who then did the 2012 blu-ray color.

It's my opinion that the 2011 version was brightened, contrast changed and teal/orange color applied to create the IMAX and blu-ray releases in 2012. The 2011 version was used in the first blu-ray trailer to demonstrate the restoration, so it seems the decision to change the color was made late in the game. I will refrain from posting screenshots in this thread. They also replaced a couple of the matte painting shots, made another digital alteration and remixed the sound.

Thanks for clearing that up. I know it was mentioned earlier in the thread, and thanks for the details.

 

[Chuck_Kahn]

It's my opinion that the 2011 version was brightened, contrast changed and teal/orange color applied to create the IMAX and blu-ray releases in 2012. The 2011 version was used in the first blu-ray trailer to demonstrate the restoration, so it seems the decision to change the color was made late in the game. I will refrain from posting screenshots in this thread. They also replaced a couple of the matte painting shots, made another digital alteration and remixed the sound.

Is there any indication whether the 40th anniversary release next year will still have that teal/orange tint?

 

[Dave MJ]

There hasn't been much info beyond speculation since 2021 is the 40th anniversary of Raiders and when the new movie was originally coming out.

There is this report, but take it with a grain of salt. I'm not sure if a new scan is needed, but they certainly need to revisit the color grade.

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/en-us/film/home-releases-news/indiana-jones-4k-blu-ray-2021/

 

[Stephen_J_H]

There hasn't been much info beyond speculation since 2021 is the 40th anniversary of Raiders and when the new movie was originally coming out.

There is this report, but take it with a grain of salt. I'm not sure if a new scan is needed, but they certainly need to revisit the color grade.

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/en-us/film/home-releases-news/indiana-jones-4k-blu-ray-2021/

Link isn't working. I suspect the article may have been taken down.