Search results

Not any more dead than this 124 page thread. People have been debating the Raiders blu-ray for years without hard evidence. So I spent a lot of time, effort and money to examine a theatrical print of Raiders and get definitive proof that the blu has revised color instead of just an opinion. I'm...

Fair enough. Moved to that thread.

Moved to Raiders thread http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-™-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray.317114/page-36

It is all way too bright. On some scenes the highlights are dialed down to hide the overexposure, giving it a dull look. Seeing the 35mm was a revelation because indoor and night scenes have a much more moody look.

That scene (the Ark opening) is much darker on the 35mm by design. The light sources are supposed to be moonlight and the light from the Ark plus bright, glowing ghosts and fire, and that's how it looks. The Super 8mm is even darker (too dark) because it doesn't have as much lattude as 35mm...

You just can't budge an inch can you? Lol. I'd ask you what your reasoning is to disparage the screencaps, but it doesn't matter. The 35mm cap has details and colors which are obliterated in the blu-ray so it could never have looked liked the blu-ray. Pretty simple. The whole movie is like that...

Yes, I suppose the difference between these two is due to the color temperature of the projection bulb ;) Who needs natural skin tones or the subtle blue highlight on Indy's face when you can have it brighter, with less detail and more orange! 35mm Blu-ray

But you still won't acknowledge that the blu-ray is not the original version of the film? No one has disputed the color and shown any proof or compared it to an actual film print. I have compared it very recently to Super 8 and 35mm and I challenge any of the so called experts to prove me wrong...

Nope, it's not. The color is different, that's not a matter of opinion and easily proven by looking at any non-faded Super 8, 16mm or 35mm print of the film. But even leaving that out of the discussion, the sound mix is not original and there are several digital changes. Therefore, it's not the...

I agree with some of your points, but the original version of Raiders is NOT available on blu-ray, despite what Spielberg claimed his intentions were. He changed his mind. The blu has very different color, revised contrast/brightness, remixed sound and several digitally altered shots, including...

They had issues with scrubbing too much grain for sure.

Lol. i just find it very odd he would make such big changes less than a year after a full restoration he claimed to be happy with.

I dug up some press releases about the Raiders DVD. A quote from Lowry about restoring Raiders: "While the ability to alter these imperfections is powerful, Lowry's technicians take great care not to tamper with the content of the original image. "Rather than dealing with art, we tend to deal...

I haven't seen any comment by Lucas or Spielberg praising the blu ray version, only the 30th anniversary version. Spielberg made generic comments about being "blown away" by the IMAX. But he has praised every home video version of Raiders as amazing. They may love the new color and sound, the...

I have a 1080p copy of the 30th anniversary restoration I am perfectly happy with. Spielberg was very happy with it and attended a screening in 2011 in which he sung its praises. Who knows why he changed his mind less than a year later for the blu-ray. Maybe he gave in to pressure to "modernize"...

Assuming I am one of "those guys" I'll just say that this thread is about the original versions of movies being available in addition to the changed versions. I'm fine with special editions, I enjoy them, but I want the original version to be preserved. If people like the Raiders blu, that's...

I haven't seen the DCP but it might be the 30th anniversary version, which looks great projected. The IMAX had the same color as the blu-ray.

The print I saw was an LPP and it doesn't match at all. All of the frame blowups (not production pictures) I have from the early 80s do not match the blu-ray but are very close to the 35mm I saw in terms of color and density. Hopefully proof will be forthcoming.

Sorry, you are 100% incorrect. The release prints do NOT have a golden or orange cast at all. I have personally seen one in the last few weeks and it does not resemble the blu ray color at all. Warmer bulb temperature would not make it look like the blu ray, just like raising the color temp...

I'm fine with Close Encounters, E.T. and Jaws but not Raiders. It looks terrible to me. I can understand some people liking the new "modern" look, but it's not at all faithful and it's too damn bright. Scenes like the temple, the well of souls and especially the opening of the ark are much too...

The blu-ray has all of the DVD changes plus additional digital changes. The biggest change is the modernized orange/teal color (which does not reflect the 35mm at all) and scenes which are overly brightened to the point of overexposure. Some people may like the new look, but it isn't authentic...

RAH was referring to fan restorations. I agree that Spielberg pays it lip service and Close Encounters is nicely done. E.T. doesn't have the original soundtrack but it looks pretty good. I'm not a Jaws expert but I'm told it has revised color. Raiders, however, has digital changes/fixes...

Maybe I'm getting too cynical. But I seriously doubt Lucas consulted with the original ILM effects artists to find out how the felt about their award winning work being thrown away. And Spielberg made a big fuss about Raiders and E.T. being the original theatrical versions, warts and all, and...

I disagree. The revisionist versions with changed effects, modernized color and digital scrubbing are disrespectful to all of the artists who worked hard on the film. It's almost incomprehensible to me that filmmakers like Lucas and Spielberg, who used to talk loudly about film preservation when...

The scan of a camera negative is raw and untimed for color or exposure, so each shot has to be digitally color graded. Grain level is also determined during grading. It's very possible it's the same scan with different color, grain structure and framing created during grading. I don't see detail...

Framing doesn't mean anything. The full anamorphic frame is scanned including the curved edges of the frame. Those are cropped out later to varying degrees. So it could easily be the same scan with different framing. I disagree about the more analog look. Once of the serious issues with the...

Are you sure there were 2 completely different scans? Or did they just rescan certain shots? I know the replaced a matte painting shot and there were additional digital tweaks, but it seems extreme that they would do 2 full 4k restorations and not use anything from the first scan.

He's 100% wrong. I recently had a chance to extensively look at a non faded release print and it's not even close. On the blu modern orange and teal have been haphazardly applied and scenes are way too bright, degrained and digitally tweaked. Some scenes, like the ark opening (which should be...

A 1080p transfer of the original, unaltered footage. Lucas needed the unaltered footage to make revised changes, they weren't done on top of the 1997 changes. Meaning the unaltered footage exists in HD, if not on film. Though most likely it still exists as the 1997 restored negative.

The full original ANH negative was restored BEFORE the special edition changes were done. That was the original intention before Lucas decided to make changes. They needed it as the base for many of the enhanced scenes. Many of those scenes were redone again in 2004 and 2011, so that means the...