A Few Words About A few words about...™ Jurassic Park - 25th Anniversary Collection -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Barrett]

JP1 has less grain because of how Cundey shot it, not because of DNR.

Jurassic Park was shot in 35mm film stock. Grain is inherent to the source unless wiped via DNR, which Universal's transfers are (unfortunately) known for and both previous bluray editions of the film suffered from.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's weird that on iTunes and such Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are HD, but the other two lesser films are in 4K/HDR. Very strange!

 

[Malcolm R]

I *hate* it when they do that. Come on Universal, et. al.!

Ditto. For me, this is another strike against upgrading to 4K (related to the other thread about "what's holding back 4K"). If I'm going to upgrade, I want the new improved transfer on the blu-ray as well as the 4K disc. Just throwing a copy of the blu-ray I already own into the 4K package isn't going to get me to spend $25-30 to buy it again.

I was set to buy the Die Hard 4K until it was revealed the included blu-ray was still the old version. Even though Walmart has the DH 4K for a more reasonable $17.96, it's still too much for me (esp since I don't currently have a 4K display and no plans to buy one anytime soon). If there were an improved transfer on the included blu-ray, the 4K set would already be in my collection.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Ditto. For me, this is another strike against upgrading to 4K (related to the other thread about "what's holding back 4K"). If I'm going to upgrade, I want the new improved transfer on the blu-ray as well as the 4K disc. Just throwing a copy of the blu-ray I already own into the 4K package isn't going to get me to spend $25-30 to buy it again.

I was set to buy the Die Hard 4K until it was revealed the included blu-ray was still the old version. Even though Walmart has the DH 4K for a more reasonable $17.96, it's still too much for me (esp since I don't currently have a 4K display and no plans to buy one anytime soon). If there were an improved transfer on the included blu-ray, the 4K set would already be in my collection.

In my case, this doesn't matter to me at all. I have yet to play any BD included in a UHD + BD combo set. The discs have never been removed from the case. If we want to watch one of these films on another display or while traveling, the sets usually also include a digital copy, which is what we would watch in those instances.

 

[Worth]

What was the first feature length Hollywood non documentary film shown in IMAX?

It probably doesn’t qualify as feature length, but Wings of Courage from 1995 was the first dramatic, non-documentary film shot in IMAX. It’s 50 minutes long and was directed by Jean Jacques Annaud and stars Val Kilmer.

 

[Worth]

It's weird that on iTunes and such Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are HD, but the other two lesser films are in 4K/HDR. Very strange!

They come up as 4K for me on iTunes, but I’m in Canada.

 

[Vincent_P]

Apparently a re-release of Apollo 13 in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films

That was the first "regular" movie that was "blown up" to IMAX using their digital process, but I recall starting with THE MATRIX, some theaters had started showing 35mm movies on their IMAX screens. I went to a showing of Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL in such a screening. The image didn't fill the full IMAX screen, but was still "larger" than the regular 35mm screens.

Vincent

 

[Robert Crawford]

That was the first "regular" movie that was "blown up" to IMAX using their digital process, but I recall starting with THE MATRIX, some theaters had started showing 35mm movies on their IMAX screens. I went to a showing of Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL in such a screening. The image didn't fill the full IMAX screen, but was still "larger" than the regular 35mm screens.

Vincent

In 2002, I remember seeing Apollo 13 at the IMAX theater in Universal City with a bunch of other HTF members during one of our first HTF Meets out in LA.

 

[Vincent_P]

Jurassic Park was shot in 35mm film stock. Grain is inherent to the source unless wiped via DNR, which Universal's transfers are (unfortunately) known for and both previous bluray editions of the film suffered from.

Not all movies shot on 35mm look the same. Cundey liked to use a lot of light. Look at how both JURASSIC PARK and HOOK look compared to the films Spielberg made later with Janusz Kaminski. Both the Cundey-shot films have always looked very "slick", bright, and finely-grained compared to the latter films Speilberg made with Kaminski.

Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

In 2002, I remember seeing Apollo 13 at the IMAX theater in Universal City with a bunch of other HTF members during one of our first HTF Meets out in LA.

They also had to edit it down to under 2-hours as I recall, as the IMAX platters couldn't accommodate a movie above that length at that point. I remember ATTACK OF THE CLONES was also edited for its IMAX screenings for this same reason.

Vincent

 

[Robert Crawford]

They also had to edit it down to under 2-hours as I recall, as the IMAX platters couldn't accommodate a movie above that length at that point. I remember ATTACK OF THE CLONES was also edited for its IMAX screenings for this same reason.

Vincent

Yup, they did edit the film's length down. TBH, I didn't care for that IMAX presentation for that reason.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yup, they did edit the film's length down. TBH, I didn't care for that IMAX presentation for that reason.

The 2005 "10th Anniversary" DVD of "Apollo 13" included the IMAX version, though that seemed pointless to me. A shorter version of a movie in an altered aspect ratio might be semi worth it on a ginormous IMAX screen, but on my home TV, there's no logical reason I can think of to watch it.

AFAIK, the IMAX version remains MIA on Blu-ray...

 

[EnricoE]

5/5 for all the movies? No way. Part 1 was a very minor upgrade over the Blu-ray. But it could look a lot better if Universal should've given us the unmolested 4K transfer. The DNR is not nice to look at. Part 3 looked better then 1. Still not a 5/5. Part 2 looked pretty good. The best was clearly part 4. Overall a 3.5/5 for the whole set.

As for audio it's bloody annoying not to get the original theatrical mixes. But I take it that most studios simply don't care.

Luckily the Cinema DTS is available for part 1, so we can do our own versions. At least the we can have the original mixes, alongside the new DTS:X mixes.

 

[Vincent_P]

5/5 for all the movies? No way. Part 1 was a very minor upgrade over the Blu-ray. But it could look a lot better if Universal should've given us the unmolested 4K transfer. The DNR is not nice to look at. Part 3 looked better then 1. Still not a 5/5. Part 2 looked pretty good. The best was clearly part 4. Overall a 3.5/5 for the whole set.

As for audio it's bloody annoying not to get the original theatrical mixes. But I take it that most studios simply don't care.

Luckily the Cinema DTS is available for part 1, so we can do our own versions. At least the we can have the original mixes, alongside the new DTS:X mixes.

What "DNR"?

Vincent

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It's weird that on iTunes and such Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are HD, but the other two lesser films are in 4K/HDR. Very strange!

I was browsing on iTunes via my Apple TV 4K late today, and I could have sworn I saw a 4K version of Jurassic Park on sale for $9.99. I came here to ask if anyone had seen the UHD version on iTunes to determine if it was worth buying at that low price.

 

[Wayne_j]

What "DNR"?

Vincent

Digital Noise Reduction.

 

[dpippel]

He wasn't asking for a definition of DNR, he was implying that there was none. I agree. JP 4K looks marvelous.

 

[Tino]

I was browsing on iTunes via my Apple TV 4K late today, and I could have sworn I saw a 4K version of Jurassic Park on sale for $9.99. I came here to ask if anyone had seen the UHD version on iTunes to determine if it was worth buying at that low price.

It actually was available for $4.99. Think that deal is over. But you can get the 4K bundle of all four films for $24.99.

 

[Nick*Z]

Ditto. For me, this is another strike against upgrading to 4K (related to the other thread about "what's holding back 4K"). If I'm going to upgrade, I want the new improved transfer on the blu-ray as well as the 4K disc. Just throwing a copy of the blu-ray I already own into the 4K package isn't going to get me to spend $25-30 to buy it again.

I was set to buy the Die Hard 4K until it was revealed the included blu-ray was still the old version. Even though Walmart has the DH 4K for a more reasonable $17.96, it's still too much for me (esp since I don't currently have a 4K display and no plans to buy one anytime soon). If there were an improved transfer on the included blu-ray, the 4K set would already be in my collection.

Personally, I don't see your point in 'holding out'. If you're buying the 4K package it's for the 4K discs - not another copy of the Blu-ray that, let's face it, one will likely never watch. Including the Blu with these 4K upgrades is a courtesy, much in the same way studios included DVD copies with earlier Blu-ray releases to gradually coax the public into switching from one format to another. Personally, I think it's a silly marketing ploy at best. They didn't include VHS copies with early DVD's, now did they?!?

Bottom line: if you're buying 4K you should already have at least a basic 4K setup to take advantage of the format. And if you're buying 4K simply to diss it by doing direct comparisons to the tired ole Blu's, personal opinion, of course, but outside of reviewers and critics, I just think you have waaaaaay too much time on your hands. Movies are meant to be watched for their pure visual/audio enjoyment. Could Uni's Jurassic Park collection have been better? Hmmm. Possibly, although remember that these SFX were rendered in a resolution below 4K with no real viable way to upconvert that footage. The live-action stuff on these discs looks fabulous. The SFX...well, as good as they will ever look.

PS - if $17.96 is still considered too expensive for 4K, again, I just don't think you're ready for the upgrade. Recall, if you will, that when LaserDisc came out, movies retailed for upwards of $80 to $150 a pop! When DVD launched, discs retailed for roughly $22. When Blu-ray first debuted, discs were retailing for, in some cases almost $40. I remember the defunct HMV having a 3 for $70 sale which, in Blu-ray's infancy, seemed like a steal! Launching a new format is always costly - simply, from the prospect of remastering a vintage film in 4K alone, let alone the marketing, packaging and manufacturing of the discs themselves.

So, the fact Fox can already sell Die Hard at a price point that is well below what it cost them to retail it in any of these previous formats, and still offer the consumer superior video/audio quality, is a minor marketing coup not to be taken lightly. No, you won't find 4K discs in your 'blue light special' bargain bin for $3.99 any time soon. Sorry, but you want quality, you have to pay for it. Mercifully, it won't cost you as much as it has in the past. Judge and buy accordingly!

 

[Tommy R]

Just got home with the UHD set as a Father's Day present to myself. I'm going to try to convince my wife to let me pick JW as the movie we watch tonight as we've got our Fallen Kingdom tickets bought for next Sunday. Hopefully I can find time soon to watch the original movie and see how it looks, it's one of my favorite movies of all time and never get tired of watching it. I don't think it's come up yet in this thread, but want to give props to Universal for what's probably the most sturdy physical box they've ever put out. I remember their old JP sets as well as their Back to the Future sets being flimsy as hell and warped to shit on the shelves at BestBuy. Maybe others don't care about that sort of thing but I always appreciate a nice solid package design.