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

[Doctorossi]

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.

If you want to re-create the original theatrical experience, your frame-line will need to vary considerably. Your cropped Alien disc may still be giving you a larger picture area than many original theatrical screenings. Also, you're going to need to scale your resolution down substantially.

 

[antoniobiz1]

If you want to re-create the original theatrical experience, your frame-line will need to vary considerably. Your cropped Alien disc may still be giving you a larger picture area than many original theatrical screenings. Also, you're going to need to scale your resolution down substantially.

This is interesting. Would you care to elaborate on the bold part?

 

[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_3971525
Well, no. It is the difference between two areas.

No it's not 12%, you are talking pixels, film doesn't have pixels, i am talking loss of some of the image compared to some DVD editions and that works out at about 3% at each side of the frame but Doctorossi maybe have the answer to why that is, sounds logical to me since i don't appear to be missing anything important when i view such films.

 

[Worth]

No cinema projects the entire image - even the very best theatres mask off a few percent of the total frame. Directors and cinematographers are aware of this and compose their shots accordingly.
I'm all for proper presentation, but complaints about losing a tiny sliver of information, or anal-retentive discussions about the differences between 1.78 vs. 1.85, or 1.33 vs. 1.37 are something of a pet peeve.
Given the amount of blu-rays still released with older, sub-par transfers, or excessive digital tampering, there are more important fights to pick out there.

 

[antoniobiz1]

No it's not 12%, you are talking pixels, film doesn't have pixels, i am talking loss of some of the image compared to some DVD editions and that works out at about 3% at each side of the frame but Doctorossi maybe have the answer to why that is, sounds logical to me since i don't appear to be missing anything important when i view such films.

What film has to do with my math? You were talking about the difference between DCP 2k and Blu-ray. Those are pixels. Either you scale, or your area varies. The area difference is more than 12% (unless my math is wrong).

 

[antoniobiz1]

No cinema projects the entire image - even the very best theatres mask off a few percent of the total frame. Directors and cinematographers are aware of this and compose their shots accordingly.

I'm not talking about one or two percent, I'm talking 12% besides the crop applied to the 2k DCP.

 

[Doctorossi]

Would you care to elaborate on the bold part?

Commercial cinema configurations in 1979 were inconsistent. There's a reason that the production standard for theatrical prints features a framing safe-area. I don't know if there's much more I can elaborate.
Printing varies.
Projector gates vary.
Throw distances and angles vary.
Matte boxes vary.
Screen dimensions vary.
Scrims vary.
Operator preferences and competencies vary.
Etc.

 

[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_3971548
What film has to do with my math? You were talking about the difference between DCP 2k and Blu-ray. Those are pixels. Either you scale, or your area varies. The area difference is more than 12% (unless my math is wrong).

Yeah but its 3% each side and 3% at top and bottom to add up to a total of 12%, it's not just a massive 12% lopped off one side only and without consideration, they film it with safeguards in mind and that's within the safe area of filming that cinematographers use and others on this thread have pointed out, indeed i even pointed out myself in my posts above and said this is the likely reason it happens. I'd love to see every pixel but there must be a tech reason they do it for blu ray and thus i can live with it.

 

[antoniobiz1]

Yeah but its 3% each side and 3% at top and bottom to add up to a total of 12%, it's not just a massive 12% lopped off one side only and without consideration, they film it with safeguards in mind and that's within the safe area of filming that directors and cinematographers use and others on this thread have pointed out, indeed i even pointed out myself in my posts above and said this is the likely reason it happens. I'd love to see every pixel but there must be a tech reason they do it for blu ray.

Forgive me if I insist. But this means two things: either the dcp is cropped when projected, or those who see the dcp will see a larger picture (meaning a larger portion of the frame). And by the way I know there is a difference between camera aperture and projector aperture, but I was under the impression that what you see on the DCP is the projection aperture, not the camera aperture. So, in other words, the original film has ALREADY been cropped when it becomes a DCP.
Please understand that I am not trying to win an argument with you or any other of the guys kind enough to reply, just trying to make sense out of something that irritates me to no end.

 

[Doctorossi]

But this means two things: either the dcp is cropped when projected, or those who see the dcp will see a larger picture (meaning a larger portion of the frame).

My guess (and this is only a guess) is that the DCP will feature the wider framing. The crop is performed for the Blu-ray master because scaling the video by such a small percentage (the difference between 2K and 1080p) could introduce processing artifacts. I would imagine that the DCP would be made from the master, as is. There would be no particular reason to perform the extra processing step to match it to the Blu-ray precisely and providing a little more viewable picture area would afford theaters some framing wiggle-room.

 

[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_3971559
Forgive me if I insist. But this means two things: either the dcp is cropped when projected, or those who see the dcp will see a larger picture (meaning a larger portion of the frame). And by the way I know there is a difference between camera aperture and projector aperture, but I was under the impression that what you see on the DCP is the projection aperture, not the camera aperture. So, in other words, the original film has ALREADY been cropped when it becomes a DCP.
Please understand that I am not trying to win an argument with you or any other of the guys kind enough to reply, just trying to make sense out of something that irritates me to no end.

As Doctorossi says and i already mentioned the possible scaling artifacts which is usually introducing ringing into the image.

 

[TonyD]

About to watch on IMAX. This is gonna b fun.

 

[TomTom]

either the dcp is cropped when projected, ..... And by the way I know there is a difference between camera aperture and projector aperture, but I was under the impression that what you see on the DCP is the projection aperture, not the camera aperture. So, in other words, the original film has ALREADY been cropped when it becomes a DCP......

Isn't DCP is masked when projected, not cropped.
Isn't film safety designed for the display and not the intermediates in between? A traditional film workflow would have film neg to film print and repositioning very rarely happened.
So that no one saw the horrible edges theaters masked about 5% all around it.
Most film scanning is 2k or 4k of the full aperture and from there you make your deliverables whether full width lasered to academy or 2k DCI or 1998 DCI.
Since people today watch these movies on computers and plasmas with zero overscan capability--"seeing all the picture" should be accounted for.

 

[JoshZ]

it didn't seem to impact on Alien or any other film i have seen.

It impacts Alien in the early scene where the crew awakens from their hibernation chambers. The shot was perfectly framed to show the sides of the pods and the tops of the open canopies. The Blu-ray is awkwardly cropped.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare2/alien/0.5.38_OldR1.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews52/alien_blu-ray_/930__alien_blu-ray_1.jpg
The framing isn't bothersome in the rest of the movie, however.

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

The difference in this comparison is only a tiny smidge of picture on each side. A difference like that isn't unexpected when comparing two separate scans performed on different telecines years apart. That's not the same situation at all.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/90#post_3971712
The difference in this comparison is only a tiny smidge of picture on each side. A difference like that isn't unexpected when comparing two separate scans performed on different telecines years apart. That's not the same situation at all.

I know it isn't but i had nothing else to use, it was more a case of trying to show that some blu rays have less picture info than the DVD, in this case it was the reverse.

 

[Wayne_j]

Just saw it in digital IMAX, looked great and very film like.

 

Compare the original dvd of Alien to the blu ray and you will notice even more cropping.

 

[Dave MJ]

I had the pleasure of attending the Indiana Jone panel at last weekend's Star Wars Celebration in Orlando. The speakers were Robert Watts, Ben Burtt, and Lorne Peterson. Most of the panel was spent discussing the making of the movies, which was a lot of fun to listen to, and it was good to see these three guys interact and appreciate each others work.
There were some details about the new release, mostly about Raiders.

• The Raiders soundtrack was redone from the original elements. While Burtt didn't specifically mention the two sets of audio mention in Robert's original post, he did say that there weren't any new elements added; the original sources were transferred at 96kHz; and the mix was then updated for today's surround standards. Dolby hadn't been widely adapted by that many theaters back in the 1980's, so the surround mix had to be enhanced, and the bass content has been improved to meet today's audience expectations. The result is an improvement in fidelity that remains true to the original soundtrack. Burtt didn't talk about the other three films.
• No new digital content has been added. This was in response to an audience member's question about a blooper, which was prompted by Burtt's earlier panel discussion about editing in today's digital environment. While characters can now be easily combined from two different takes of the same scene, nothing like that was done to Raiders.
• They showed a clip of one of the extras from Raiders, featuring some behind the scenes footage from Raiders interspersed with some deleted scenes. This particular documentary will feature never before seen clips, juxtaposed with documentary clips, but without any narration. They showed a clip, and it was interesting to see Spielberg working as a director, and then the completed scene that ended up being discarded.

It was a fun panel, with the only disappointment being that it only lasted for an hour. One of those fun moments happened when Lorne mentioned that he seen the movie a week or two earlier, when the host asked him how it sounded, he said "Pretty good," or something like that, which prompted Ben to say something like, "Remember those special effects that you won an Oscar for? Well, they were just OK." That exchange got a good laugh from the audience. Lorne went on to say that he had taken along his girlfriend, who's not part of the movie industry, and she was thrilled with the new presentation. He was genuinely surprised by how strong her reaction was, and used it as a testimony for how good this new edition looked and sounded.
I can't wait to see these movies in HD!
Scott

This is the first I have heard about the extras containing actual deleted scenes. That is great news. Can you elaborate about the scene that was shown?

 

[Dave MJ]

About a week ago, I received a private message on HTF asking what I knew about the new Raiders of the Lost Ark “restoration.”
For audio, Mr. Cava took counsel from Ben Burtt, the original sound designer, and the two created a newly designed mix, based with great care, upon the originals.
I make note of originals, as there were two.  The first was a 6-track discreet mix, used for sounding 70mm prints, formatted L-C-R, with baby booms in positions 2 and 4, and with a monaural surround channel.  35mm prints used a 2-track Dolby encoded, toward the creation of an optical SVA track.
Mssrs. Burtt and Cava returned to the original audio units, gently bringing the audio into the 21st century.
RAH

Hi Robert, Raiders is one of my all time favorite movies and I am intimiately familiar with the sound mix (I even have 2 different stereo cassette recordings I made in the theater as an 11 year old during the original 1981 run. I listened to them endlessly until the VHS was released years later) and am somewhat nervous that it will be different. Despite best intentions, there always seems to be differences in music levels, dynamic range, panning, etc. The DVD is mainly true to the dolby mix, but the surrounds were pumped up and the dynamic range was squashed in some places compared to the laserdisc. Was this a complete remix of the original elements, or just a remix of the main stems at higher quality? And what is an "optical SVA track"? I'm not familiar with that term.

 

[Todd Erwin]

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

The most prevalent modern method of recording sound on a film print is by stereo variable-area (SVA) recording, encoding a two-channel audio signal as a pair of lines running parallel with the film's direction of travel through the projector. The lines change area (grow broader or narrower) depending on the magnitude of the signal. The projector shines a light or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

And what is an "optical SVA track"? I'm not familiar with that term.