-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ Lawrence of Arabia -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
333 replies to this topic

#281 of 334 DP 70

DP 70

    Second Unit

  • 378 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2011

Posted February 02 2013 - 11:28 PM

Its me again, I also asked my brother about Nic and Alex and he said that Columbia were trying something on 5 front channels with the outer channels being a slighty lower level than the centre channel giving some sort of a stereo spread thats all can remember but it was in 1971.

#282 of 334 john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor

  • 613 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted February 03 2013 - 08:01 AM

I spoke again with my brother re the 70mm print of Bridge he screened and he remembers it being 5 channel Mono and you could here some optical popping on the mag track .Also he remembers the front titles were squezzed to fit the 70mm frame. He also showed a 70mm print of Airport 75 at the Plaza which cropped the titles so they did not release it over here in 70mm. John, how long did Bridge play at the Casino.

I don't recall precisely, Derek, but I would guess not more than a few months.

#283 of 334 Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter

  • 1,806 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted February 03 2013 - 09:33 AM

Given that Kwai was quite clearly shot with 2.55 in mind, were no mag prints ever used that would use that format? I cannot recall whether the reissue I saw at the haymarket Odeon in London about 1964 was in stereo save for recalling quite clearly the jungle sounds that came from the effects/surround channels during the intermission. Would this not have come from a mag print? I regret now walking out of the 70mm reissue at the Casino Cinerama after the first few minutes. At least I would have noticed then whether it was in stereo or not!

I stayed in the Casino to the bitter end John, despite the terrible picture quality of the 70mm print, and the sound was mono.

#284 of 334 john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor

  • 613 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted February 04 2013 - 08:08 AM

I stayed in the Casino to the bitter end John, despite the terrible picture quality of the 70mm print, and the sound was mono.

Then Doug you deserve the Cinerama medal for conduct above and beyong the call of duty.
  • Robin9 likes this

#285 of 334 Dr Griffin

Dr Griffin

    Second Unit

  • 472 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2012
  • Real Name:Stanley

Posted April 04 2013 - 06:26 AM

I had never heard of this scene mentioned at IMDB. Anyone know what happened to it? Lawrence and Ali in quicksand.

 

http://www.imdb.com/...ternateversions



#286 of 334 KeithDA

KeithDA

    Agent

  • 29 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 25 2012

Posted May 18 2013 - 05:33 AM

Amazon UK still have the Collector's box set available - just how much of a limited edition was this?  Or have I overestimated how well I thought it would sell?



#287 of 334 Doug Wallen

Doug Wallen

    Supporting Actor

  • 648 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Doug

Posted June 15 2013 - 11:55 AM

Just purchased this film at Best Buy bogo with Taxi Driver.  Had only seen these films ages ago and could remember very little about them.

 

Was just blown away by Lawrence of Arabia.  Amazing film and a great looking blu-ray.  Thanks for your hard work on the restoration Mr. Harris. I was on sensory overload while savoring this film.

 

Doug


a:5:{s:9:"signature

#288 of 334 AlexF

AlexF

    Second Unit

  • 496 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2005

Posted June 15 2013 - 06:38 PM

I finally managed to find a copy of the limited edition today at the local Best Buy. I'd been 3-4 times and they'd listed a copy in stock but they were never able to find it.

 

Today?  Today, I found it.

 

It is a gorgeous set. I have absolutely no idea where I'm going to be storing it. But right now? I don't care. It looks good. :)

 

Hopefully I'll have time sometime in the next couple of weeks to sit down and watch it (last, and only time, I saw the movie was mid-80s on TV)



#289 of 334 Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer

  • 5,463 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted June 15 2013 - 08:50 PM

.


Edited by Steve Tannehill, June 15 2013 - 08:51 PM.


#290 of 334 willyTass

willyTass

    Second Unit

  • 351 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 2005

Posted December 23 2013 - 09:02 PM

recently released in Japan with high bitrate and the movie spread over 2 discs

Saw the bitrate around 38mbps most of the time

No extras

c4l5.jpg

3geb.jpg

#291 of 334 Reed Grele

Reed Grele

    Supporting Actor

  • 932 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Reed Grele
  • LocationBeacon Falls, CT

Posted December 23 2013 - 09:55 PM

Put me down for a real 4k player and a real 4k disc when they decide on the actual format, and the price won't break the bank.

 

Until then, I'm perfectly fine with the 1920x1080 specs.


  • FoxyMulder and Cinescott like this

#292 of 334 nikonf5

nikonf5

    Agent

  • 39 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2008
  • Real Name:Mian

Posted January 05 2014 - 05:35 PM

recently released in Japan with high bitrate and the movie spread over 2 discs

Saw the bitrate around 38mbps most of the time

No extras

 

If it follows BD specs, its still limited to 1080p as there is no BD 4K media spec officially out yet.

 

Cant be much of a higher bitrate if a movie this long is still contained within two discs.

 

The "mastered in 4K" slogan is true for the 2012 BD release as well so they are stating something new only from a marketing perspective, not a technical one.



#293 of 334 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,401 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted January 05 2014 - 06:16 PM

"Mastered in 4k" is meaningful, as higher resolution mastering affects the overall look and textures of an HD image, especially on larger screens or projection.

Will a higher bit rate Blu-ray yield a higher quality image? If a normal Blu-ray presentation, based upon a quality HD master is properly prepared, it should not have a meaningful difference.

While the concept of true 4k devices is sexy, and sizzles, I can't imagine where it would really come into play except on the largest of panels and in projection.

Is there really something to be gained viewing a 50" panel in 4k, as opposed to those low-rez 1920 x1080 panels, when seated at a proper distance?

I can only equate the concept to 35 vs 70mm projection.

While quality 35mm can look superb on a 30 foot screen, the image can begin to look less stellar at 40 or 50, a screen size for which 70mm begins to shine.

Is 70mm really worth running on a 25-30 foot screen?

I don't believe there's much to be gained, especially with the added effort and huge expense.

Make what you will of that.

RAH
  • davidmatychuk likes this

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#294 of 334 davidmatychuk

davidmatychuk

    Second Unit

  • 339 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 10 2012
  • Real Name:David Matychuk
  • LocationVancouver, B.C.

Posted January 05 2014 - 07:37 PM

"Mastered in 4k" is meaningful, as higher resolution mastering affects the overall look and textures of an HD image, especially on larger screens or projection.

Will a higher bit rate Blu-ray yield a higher quality image? If a normal Blu-ray presentation, based upon a quality HD master is properly prepared, it should not have a meaningful difference.

While the concept of true 4k devices is sexy, and sizzles, I can't imagine where it would really come into play except on the largest of panels and in projection.

Is there really something to be gained viewing a 50" panel in 4k, as opposed to those low-rez 1920 x1080 panels, when seated at a proper distance?

I can only equate the concept to 35 vs 70mm projection.

While quality 35mm can look superb on a 30 foot screen, the image can begin to look less stellar at 40 or 50, a screen size for which 70mm begins to shine.

Is 70mm really worth running on a 25-30 foot screen?

I don't believe there's much to be gained, especially with the added effort and huge expense.

Make what you will of that.

RAH

Here are the factors involved; here's the expert assessment. You're the man.



#295 of 334 BrianSiano2

BrianSiano2

    Auditioning

  • 10 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2010

Posted January 05 2014 - 08:11 PM

I can see one good thing coming from a 4K video standard. 4K screens would require 4K data to play on them, which means that someone's got to develop a data format that can send this amount of data to the screen. This means that this new format could send _uncompressed_ data to a 1080p resolution screen. That means better presentation of motion, less macroblocking... basically, stuff that only videophiles notice. 

But generally, 4K home screens seem like a luxury item to me, too. I'm happy with my current 46" 1080p screen. What bothers me is the drive for 4K cameras for home video. I do some freelance video stuff, and editing regular hi-def video pushes my computer to its limits. If I had to upgrade to 4K video, I'd need an editing machine that was at least eight times as fast, plus far greater data storage for archiving, ne editing software (under Adobe's expensive subscription plans)...  It'd be wonderful to shoot in 4K and have all of that extra room to reframe and crop in post for a 1080p final product... but again, the expense is massive. 

 

I'd be very happy if the home video standard remained as it is. 

 

 

While the concept of true 4k devices is sexy, and sizzles, I can't imagine where it would really come into play except on the largest of panels and in projection.

...

I don't believe there's much to be gained, especially with the added effort and huge expense.



#296 of 334 Persianimmortal

Persianimmortal

    Supporting Actor

  • 880 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2012
  • Real Name:Koroush Ghazi
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted January 05 2014 - 09:01 PM



I can see one good thing coming from a 4K video standard. 4K screens would require 4K data to play on them, which means that someone's got to develop a data format that can send this amount of data to the screen. This means that this new format could send _uncompressed_ data to a 1080p resolution screen. That means better presentation of motion, less macroblocking... basically, stuff that only videophiles notice.

 

I don't really understand what you're getting at with this. The recent HDMI 2.0 standard allows 4K data to be carried between a player and the screen (at up to 18Gbps), and 4K Blu-ray is already being developed (and discussed here). None of this is going to affect current 1080p Blu-ray specs, so it's not going to benefit 1080p TVs. That is unless you use a 4K Blu-ray player on a 1080p TV that supports HDMI 2.0, which I imagine won't be all that common.

 

 


I'd be very happy if the home video standard remained as it is. 

 

I imagine a lot of people would be. On current-sized screens, and with a good source and proper handling, 1080p looks more than adequate. The problem is that the manufacturers don't want to retain the current standard, and are deliberately pushing 4K. So basically, like it or not, in a few years' time, everything will be geared towards 4K. It won't be so much a luxury as a necessity if you're into home theater.



#297 of 334 lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,140 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted January 05 2014 - 10:50 PM

Put me down for a real 4k player and a real 4k disc when they decide on the actual format, and the price won't break the bank.

 

Until then, I'm perfectly fine with the 1920x1080 specs.

AMEN...waiting for the BDA to roll out the actual true 4k physical format this coming year...hope to see prototype players/discs at CES this week!!!



#298 of 334 Robin9

Robin9

    Screenwriter

  • 1,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 2006

Posted January 06 2014 - 02:02 AM

 

. . . manufacturers don't want to retain the current standard, and are deliberately pushing 4K. So basically, like it or not, in a few years' time, everything will be geared towards 4K. It won't be so much a luxury as a necessity if you're into home theater.

 

Why will it be a necessity? Why will it not be possible for film lovers like me simply to ignore 4K and to carry on with the Blu-ray standard? My BRDs are not suddenly going to become unplayable. 

 

I project onto a ten foot wide screen. For domestic reasons, I can't go much wider and I don't really want to anyway. BRDs like Funny Girl, Wild River and Lawrence Of Arabia look absolutely superb. I'm sceptical that there's scope for worthwhile improvement.



#299 of 334 OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,566 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted January 06 2014 - 04:10 AM

I project onto a ten foot wide screen. For domestic reasons, I can't go much wider and I don't really want to anyway. BRDs like Funny Girl, Wild River and Lawrence Of Arabia look absolutely superb. I'm sceptical that there's scope for worthwhile improvement.


When it comes to resolution the 4k material that I saw looked a bit better even on 1080p displays and downscaled to 1080p.

And I am sure that you would see a difference with Lawrence of Arabia at 1 screen width away. At 1.5 screen widths not that much and at 2 screen widths probably not. I also find it harder to see differences in picture quality on displays of lesser size and in most cases it is not practical to sit close neough anyway.

Also keep in mind that you will get full 4:4:4 full HD with 4k and probably also a higher bit depth (at least 10, possibly more) and hopefully a bigger color space.

So while luma resolution alone may not bring the worthwhile improvement for most there are other benefits that will probably be part of a new standard.

#300 of 334 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,401 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted January 06 2014 - 05:39 AM

Somewhere just above in the thread, someone mentioned uncompressed 4k data.

Uncompressed 4k data would generally be in the form of dpx files.

No one outside of the industry should desire or need dpx data. Nor would the industry be desirous of supplying it, for piracy reasons. I use dpx and high-rez QT files, but outside of my work...

No.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users