A Robert Harris Bits Extra - Lawrence of Arabia: Superbit (1 Viewer)

[Gordon McMurphy]

IMO, any movie over 160 minutes with Dolby 5.1 and DTS 5.1 should be on 2 dual layer DVDs. And it gets trickier when you start to add audio commentaries, foreign language tracks, and of course, documentaries, deleted scenes, etc.

Now that this new master of Lawrence exists, I can safely say that when the HD-DVD version is released, I will be buying a player as fast as possible - that's if I haven't bought one already to watch American Pie 8: Fill My Pie! on!


Gordy

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Needless to say, this one's on pre-order. My dad's got the canvas case SE, but I'm without a copy. I might be able to convince him to get this release too, he's more of a movie-only kind of guy. I'd be happy to take the SE off his hands for little or nothing.

The image of the transfer, in HiDef, as viewed on a 32" high definition monitor is like looking through an open window to the desert

I know, even at DVD resolution, it'll look great with my HD-capable projector on a 106" diagonal screen!

Thanks, RAH! Any word on future projects, or is it all top-secret?

 

[Douglas R]

Earlier audio anomalies were eliminated as Mr. Crisp came forth with the original 6 track masters created in 1988 for the restoration.

I assume this means that the music is now correctly synchronised with the visuals when Lawrence walks along the top of the train carriages?

 

[Derek_McL]

Don't get me wrong I think this is all well and good. I respect Mr Harris immensely and always find his column interesting but with all the films appearing for the first time on the DVD format in the coming months I just don't have the finances to double dip on this.

I really like the film but I frankly don't see all the issues with the original edition being referred too here.

It looks just fine to me and the extras/packaging are excellent. To be fair I've never watched it on a widescreen TV or seen it in theatre (now that must be some experience!) and maybe I'm just conditioned to accepting less than perfect picture quality on classic films (I've enjoyed films going right back to the silents for years well before DVDs appeared).

I accept that Mr Harris is right about the colours being wrong etc when compared with how the film originally looked but I wonder if the average viewer watching on a average TV is going to notice much difference and the absense of any extras when Warner seem to be overloading their classic releases with them means the first time buyer is missing out on a lot.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I accept that Mr Harris is right about the colours being wrong etc when compared with how the film originally looked but I wonder if the average viewer watching on a average TV is going to notice much difference...

I doubt that the "average" viewer will even buy this DVD. To me, the great thing about this new DVD edition, is that it is kinda like a symbol of Sony/Columbia's attitude towards doing things right from now. I hope I'm right.

As far as the picture and sound anomalies go; once you notice them, it is hard to watch the DVD again. And if like me you love this film, then that is a frustrating burdon.


Gordy

 

[James_Garner]

Now, the question is,"Will this version of Lawrence use the original theatical sound mix, or will all the vocals be in the center channel only?"

 

[Bill Burns]

Robert Harris wrote (in his article):

The main effort took us all the way back to the "uncorrected" high definition transfer created several years ago, which was derived from a restored 65mm interpositive ....

... New digital processes added secondary color controls, which were not available to a HiDef large format transfer at the time that the earlier work was created.

I'm thrilled that the new version maintains the 65mm look of the old by using a 65mm source element -- do I understand correctly that the same high definition video master created for the first release has now been reworked and corrected? No new film to tape transfer was done? That sounds like the right decision, given the detail and overall look of the first release and just how recently that transfer was performed, but I have a technical question regarding color controls.

If color control (timing) is applied to a film after it is transfered to tape (rather than during the transfer process), why does the source element affect the availability of color controls? A high definition tape transfer from a 65mm element and a high definition tape transfer from a 35mm element would presumably yield the same physical form of HiDef tape. Or would a different form of tape be used? If it's the same, and color correction is applied after the tape is made ... how does the source element affect the availability of color and density controls? Is it that the controls used on 35mm transfers to tape wouldn't equate with the unique color properties and densities of a 65mm film? Apply the same controls to the same form of tape, and what works for an image originated as 35mm would be all wrong for an image originated as 65mm? The color spectrum is the same, of course, so this remains puzzling.

I'm also curious as to just how color timing for a print and color timing for a video master differ in their methodology, but that's rather afield of the thread.

The new Lawrence sounds like a winner, unsurprisingly. Would C/T be advised to similarly revisit Lean's A Bridge on the River Kwai, or are the color and sharpening processes used on that disc less objectionable than those visited upon the first Lawrence?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Bill,
The secondary color correction on Lawrence is completely analogous to the secondary color correction done on Spartacus for the Criterion DVD. Once they are in the digital domain, they have considerable flexibility to re-time. For Spartacus, there's a nice featurette on the Criterion DVD that shows how they color corrected the Universal transfer in the digital video domain to match samples from a 35mm IB source, the timing of which had been contemporaneously approved by Stanley Kubrick.

Regards,

 

[Bill Hunt]

Certainly, there's something to be said about the continual double-dipping with these titles. It's becoming a growing problem with many studios.

That said, you certainly have to give Columbia TriStar credit for being aware of the problems on the previous release, revisiting the transfer of this title and for allowing Robert to come back and be involved in the process. Now that Das Boot has been re-released, I can't think of a more obvious title for Superbit treatment than Lawrence. And the good news is that now that the work has been tweaked to perfection in a new high-def transfer, we can one day look forward to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD version - one in which disc space is no longer a problem. I've heard from a lot of DVD producers who are clamboring to work in the new blue-laser medium. Disc space (or lack thereof) on DVD presents no end of problems for content producers.

 

[Bill Burns]

Thanks, Ken -- that's what I thought. I have Criterion's Spartacus (along with Universal's Vertigo, whose documentary also gets into color correction). But where, then, do these "new" color controls previously "unavailable" fit in? That's what continues to puzzle me, as the high definition tape that they're correcting for a new master should, unless I've missed something (always possible), be the same sort of tape we'd find from a high definition 35mm film to tape transfer. The color and density controls for one should be available on the other -- only the equipment necessary to make the 65mm transfer to tape should differ, due to the sizes of the two formats.

... New digital processes added secondary color controls, which were not available to a HiDef large format transfer at the time that the earlier work was created.

Mr. Harris has said previously (on other threads) that the definition and "character" (my word) gains of large format mastering for disc are off-set by limitations in color controls and after-the-fact processing (as again reiterated in his article). I assumed from this that some measure of timing and processing was being done in the process of transferring the film to tape, because the resultant tape should be the same high definition tape used for a 35mm film to tape transfer (Artisan's new T2: Extreme Edition, for instance).

If color correction and density correction have been, or are now, equal in their robustness to those available for 35mm, I think that ends the debate on returning to large format for films shot as such in taking them to disc -- Mr. Harris has again agreed that the benefits in definition are real, and it's hard to deny what my eyes have seen all along -- a unique character to large format films sourced as such somewhat-to-distinctly missing from reduction sources, depending on the quality of the reduction.

Still, though, my questions about these "new color controls" persist, as described in my earlier post, and tangentially, how color timing a video master differs, technically, from color timing a print (that one can wait, as it doesn't really matter in this context ).

 

[Bill Burns]

Bill Hunt -- lest it get lost in my usual verbosity, a quick question I mentioned earlier: would C/T be wise to revisit Lean's A Bridge on the River Kwai similarly, or are the qualities of that master closer to the film's intent than was the case with Lawrence? I thought both looked quite good in their original DVD forms, so I'm unsure what to look for in deciding whether such a revisit would be wise. While I've had a handful of large format theatrical experiences (including a mesmerizing 70mm print of Harris' restoration of Vertigo), these I've never seen as such*, unfortunately.

*I see that Kwai was shot as 35mm and enlarged to 70mm for certain showings, but the issues of artificial sharpening and improper color may persist, depending on the care taken with the original master. Large format versus standard format film origins may not be the only issue (and of course many 35mm films have needed new transfers to correct for these and other problems).

 

[Sven Lorenz]

Although there is some question as to whether the final compression will allow the first half of the film to run to completion on disc one

I really hope they'll manage to get the first part of the movie on disc one. The place for the intermission was chosen for a reason and to just move the intermission to the exact middle of the movie would be terrible.
I'll wait for the first reviews - if the intermission is not in the right place I'd rather keep the old edition and won't get this one.

 

[Robert Harris]

At the time of the original transfer, there was very little (if any) control in large format. Further, there was an inability to do finely honed corrections which are available to us today on the most modern equipement. It is only in the past few years that the top techs in the field have learned how to take full advantage of these new controls.

I'm unfortunately not a video expert and this is a bit out of my field. I never, ever actually touch any of these controls as the earth could easily be set off axis.

I just know that they work and allow us much more fine tuning of the image. Essentially the language of video transfer and film are different. If I work in a video bay and speak in terms of points, people will occasionally look at me as if I've three eyes.

That's what people the likes of Jim Ward and Maria Palazolla are for.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

As far as the placement of the intermission is concerned, DVD and the amount of information that can be captured by the format has nothing whatsoever to do with minutes, numbers of discs, etc.

Lawrence of Arabia is a film with a length of 26 reels.

A print weighs well over 700 pounds.

The fact that it cannot be squeezed into the space of a mailbox is of no importance.

Re: High defination and DVD...

The high definition incarnation of this film is simply amazing. I personally can't wait for the format to find its way to the consumer, I'll be first on line for a new HiDef player.

RAH

 

[Patrick McCart]

The earlier DVD isn't terrible. It just isn't as good as it could have been.

The main problems I have seen have to do with pixelation and the color being odd in some scenes.

The sound "jumps" where sound had to be re-recorded are too obvious, too.

I may have to wait a little for the disc (college) but it's on my "must get" list. The placement of the break is a non-issue to me. Quality is important here. IMO, the ideal goal should be to get the film to have about an hour per layer to let it breathe well. Perhaps putting the first 2 hours (or as close to that to allow a good breaking point) on disc one and the last 1 1/2 hours on the second would really do wonders.

Along with Milestone's Phantom of the Opera Extreme Ultimate Edition, September 9th is going to a happy day!

 

[Carlo_M]

Cannot wait to finally own a great copy of this film! Thanks to RAH and the Sony team for taking the time to do this one right!

 

[RobertR]

I really hope they'll manage to get the first part of the movie on disc one. The place for the intermission was chosen for a reason and to just move the intermission to the exact middle of the movie would be terrible.

Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he meant to say that the intermission will be placed at a different point in the movie. Rather, I think he was saying that the break between DISCS may not coincide with the film's intermission. This is a big difference, and even though it would be somewhat bothersome, it would not harm the artistic intent the way "moving the intermission to the exact middle of the movie" would.

 

[Bill Hunt]

Bridge would be a good choice for revisiting. As someone informed me earlier this morning, Columbia TriStar also seems to be giving Dr. Strangelove the Superbit treatment... at least in Japan:

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=SB-10035

 

[Robert Harris]

RobertR is quite correct.

The intermission will be where the intermission has always been in roadshow prints... at the 135 minute mark.

The intermission in LoA was designed for this specific point, as opposed to the intermissions in some titles.

Spartacus, for example, had intermissions in various previews of the film at three different locations.

RAH

 

[Matt Brighton]

I too am looking forward to this new release. And I don't mean to get off the subject, but is there any new re-mastered version of Vertigo (which RAH had worked to restore) on the horizon? The one in Region 1 isn't even anamorphic.

Still this new version of L of A looks to be a keeper (and I'll keep my old SE for the features) and it's good to know that Columbia/TS isn't just trying to get us to buy the same disc twice (well, they're succeeding, but at least there's a reason to buy this title again)!