Universal Blu Ray Catalog Releases - Quality Control Issues (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder



Exactly and a new master created from a new film scan from last year would not require digital remastering, there would be no edge sharpening to the extent that halos, however minor to some people, would be visible on the image.


Some anonymous source says its a new film scan created and i suppose i have to believe that despite seeing issues which would not exist with a new film scan, okay, if you say so.


As for the limited options on the poll, well, i just couldn't believe anyone would vote mostly yes but occasionally they release a dud, i never for one moment thought that was a reasonable option since their catalog releases, even relatively new titles like The Mummy exhibit dnr issues, and that film isn't that old and the HD DVD version looks far more film like and natural.


As for the "You may not appreciate the scans, but you're entitled to that opinion and we all respect that. And if this release does not measure up to your standards, you can always stay with the earlier DVDs or laserdiscs." That is an easy thing to say but the fact is that no one is saying this release isn't better than the DVD or Laserdisc editions, it is, some of us are saying edge sharpening would not exist on a newly created master taken from a fresh film scan from 2010, it just would not exist, if they really did do a new film scan then someone at Universal then decided to apply some edge sharpening, and Spielberg then approves that. ? Seems unlikely based on his past releases but you apparently were told this by an anonymous source.

Don't assume everybody agrees with your opinion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert


I always love that. Like that is the definitive, final word on the issue. I always chuckle and think of Baghdad Bob or even Frank Drebin. You know that scene, "move along, there is nothing to see here"
The Jurassic Park BD comes from an older digital master. I don't care what anyone says. The facts are right there on the screen.

Since, you've made up your mind then Adam or Kevin shouldn't bother to reply to you any further.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK

Scott and Malcolm, you guys can feel free to voice your opinions about the quality of the release, but the other things you're implying here simply don't stand up to the facts.


The person who spoke to us is not "an anonymous source" with whatever ominous idea you're implying there. The person is an employee of USHE who was happy to discuss the work that went into this release. This wasn't an investigation where the person was peppered with questions of "Why did you allow EE on these discs?" or "Why didn't you make sure the wobbling credits were fixed?" or "Can you show us photos of Steven Spielberg looking at each frame of the scan?" If you're this unsure of the facts we've presented here, I again recommend either or both of you to contact USHE and Amblin Entertainment by phone or email. I would also ask that you come back here afterward with any further information once you talk to them. If you feel that this is not a definitive, final answer, the proper recourse would be for you to ask them. If your only response is to come here and make statements about the integrity of USHE or the people who spoke to them, I don't know that you're helping your cause much.


You may believe what you wish about this transfer but that goes in the face of the facts, unfortunately. I know both of you have opinions about USHE releases that have been less than complimentary, and there have been releases where those opinions were merited. This one simply isn't one of them.

The point that Robert and Adam were trying to make about the poll is that you're tipping the options toward what you're hoping to hear. (We call this a "push poll" in other circles) You're clearly trying to get people to say that they either don't think that USHE makes Blus that look good, or that most of them don't. Had you put in an option where people could say that they're happy with most of them but that occasional titles fall down, you would have seen a better response.

Kevin, you claim the air moved with the low frequency sound in this film, yet your subwoofer frequency response is 24hz, thats not ultrasonic below 20hz and in the air moving bass range, when i say the air moved then i mean i felt the bass, not just heard it, my subwoofer has 2 12inch drivers, is a huge SVS beast and due to the size of my room and how its all set up is capable of air moving bass that i hear but also FEEL and i didn't get that from this film, i expected to get it though, it makes me wonder if the disc i received has an audio problem akin to the dts 10db problem that originally existed on some DVD discs, either that or the soundmix is just not as impressive as some films which deliver ultrasonic feel the bass moments, maybe my memory of how great the bass is on this release is a false memory.


You talk about facts, yet you dismiss the obvious facts as being "so minor its irrelevant", this release has edge sharpening halos, you admit this in your review ( begrudingly ) this is a fact, if this is a new film scan then tell me why edge sharpening was deemed necessary, which bright spark decided to take a brand new film scan and new master ( so you say ) and then for the blu ray encode apply some digital sharpening which has resulted in as you call it "minor edge enhancement"


No one is tipping any poll to what i want to hear, people can also voice their opinion within the thread.


Maybe instead of mollycoddling up to these studios, sites like this should do a little investigative journalism and ask a few hard questions, nothing wrong with asking why there are some halos on this transfer, why edge enhancement sharpening was deemed a necessity, you say the employee was happy to discuss the work that went into this release, well next time do those of us who intensely dislike edge enhancement a favour and ask why Universal deemed that necessary, stop defending edge enhancement and this notion that its hard to spot and come down on the home cinema fans side instead of the studios side.


I mean the whole point is this, so the employee says a new film scan was done, thus a new master was created, you never bothered to ask the pertinent questions that us home cinema fans want, was the scan 4K or 2K, why after doing the scan did you add edge enhancement to the blu ray release, was this added at the master stage or for the blu ray encode, very simple questions that a home cinema site should ask.


The final point though is why does gate weave still exist on this release, no new film scan would have that, yet you persist in telling me its a new film scan, okay then tell me the rest of the details, don't hold back, tell me why edge enhancement was deemed a necessary evil, i'm all ears.


I'm not unsure of any facts, you haven't given me any relevant ones to be unsure of, you have just said an employee said it was a new film scan, well listen up, i talked to a Universal employee earlier today, they told me this was an old master and they just added some digital tweaks to make it "look better" on blu ray, see how easy that was for me to claim that, i could write that on my site, you see without some sort of additional technical information those claims of a new film scan mean nothing to me, my eyes tell me differently, my eyes see the edge enhancement, my brain tells me some dnr was applied to select scenes and then because of detail removal those scenes got sharpened up and my ears tell me the sound mix is inferior to what i previously heard, my film knowledge tells me gate weave looks out of place with a new film scan, you do understand what gate weave is and why it shouldn't be present on this release, right. ?


I shouldn't have to contact anyone at Universal, you are the one making these claims of a new film scan, back them up with some technical facts on the transfer and then get back to me on why edge enhancement exists on this release and why gate weave is in the opening credits, indeed i find it very strange that Universal didn't put anything about a brand new film scan and brand new master on the packaging, instead they simply put digitally remastered which in the past has meant old master with digital tweaks applied, that is a fact and one of the few real ones in this thread. Universal would have plastered the packaging with information about this being a new film scan if indeed it actually was and yet they don't.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Post deleted.

 

[Kevin EK]

Malcolm, the anger in your post is strange to me.


I'll be brief here, since I've made my points repeatedly and this can't be of much interest to the forum readers.


Your dissection of subwoofer ultrasonics is interesting, but has no impact on what I wrote in my review. I said that the bass was shaking my living room, and it was. It's why I don't recommend watching movies like this with the subwoofer on after midnight at a high volume. Unless you like meeting angry neighbors at that hour.


The slight wobble in the credits and the EE you noted as not being a major issue are the crux of your complaints here. I stand by my comment that the EE is minor enough that you really need to be actively looking for it, which means it's not distracting for most of us, even those of us who are aware of it.

I stand by my comment re your poll - it's tilted toward the conclusion you've already reached. Just because people can voice other opinions below doesn't change the fact that people aren't voting due to the choices you've left them.


Neither I nor anyone I know at Home Theater Forum is "mollycodlling" any studio, or any reader for that matter. You seem to be very angry that the person who spoke to HTF from Universal didn't give the answer you wanted, yet you refuse to make a single phone call to either Universal or to Amblin. I believe your comment about having talked to someone at Universal earlier today is a jest as that would mean you were reaching someone in the office on Saturday.

I have no answer why Universal didn't advertise "brand new transfer" on the packaging, other than that this will not affect what are projected to be large sales numbers. I have no answer why there are minor picture issues on JP1, and I have encouraged you to contact the appropriate parties to ask your questions. I wish you would do so, as it could answer your questions. I do recommend that when you contact these people, you avoid the kind of phrasing seen in your above post, as you may find it does not help you get a constructive answer.


In short, you have every right to not be happy with this release. You have every right to your opinion about its qualities. And you have every right to express your opinion both here and with your wallet when it comes to these releases. But making unfortunate comments about me or HTF will not help you get the answers you seek.

 

[AnthonyP]

I'll be brief here, since I've made my points repeatedly and this can't be of much interest to the forum readers. .. The slight wobble in the credits and the EE you noted as not being a major issue are the crux of your complaints here.  I stand by my comment that the EE is minor enough that you really need to be actively looking for it, which means it's not distracting for most of us, even those of us who are aware of it. 

Could be just me but I appreciate, from both parties, the back and forth. I love to see the passion and knowledgeable debate in regards to the quality the end result receives on Blu-ray. In regards to the artificial sharpening techniques and gate weave mentioned, is it an accurate comment that those would not be present in the original elements of JP and therefore wouldn't typically be present on a new scan using whatever those source elements Universal used? It reads to me like the impasse is in regards to that. Whether or not those, no matter how slight they are or are perceived in motion from the vast majority of viewers, represent something that would be present in a situation where a new scan of the IP/OCN etc. was created. If not, does that equate to a new scan not being created or that Universal then tinkered with that new scan with or without others approval? Perhaps I have missed the answer to that (if there is one or if that is something anyone could possibly get an answer to), as I do think other issues have been added to the mix out of frustration and passion, but, personally, I still think that is a valid question in order to determine how the end result came to be if those observations are indeed accurate ones. If those are accurately being conveyed as being present and would be part of a new scan that was done then that would seem to be the end of that. But, if they were introduced after a new scan by Universal with or without anyone' approval, is that something worth wondering why they might be present (or that them being present equates to a new scan not being done contrary to the stated source). I don't know the answer to any of those but, personally, appreciate that questions like that are asked and that there are people such as Kevin willing to converse and consider them.

 

[Douglas Monce]

First let me say that I don't own this release yet, so I can only talk about what I know with regard to how it was photographed, and what I see in the frame captures presented here in this thread. I looked at the captures, and I can't see anything that I would regard as halos or edge enhancement. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, but I was looking at the edges of shoulders with bright sky behind them and other shots of the like. I do see what looks to be the product of the digital compositing on the brachiosaurus shot. Some other shots I do see some things that could be the result of the way the film was photographed. Almost every shot of Jurassic Park was made with filtration on the lens of the camera. If I remember the American Cinematographer article, the film was shot with Tiffen pro mist filters ranging from a #2 to a #5. This could easily explain things that might be interpreted as edge enhancement or haloing, particularly when these effects are as mild as they appear to be on this particular release. In addition, Panavision primo lenses are some of the finest lenses made, but they are not perfect and under some conditions, namely wide open aperture, can exhibit chromatic aberrations. The red edge on the cow discussed before, sounds to me as most likely an artifact of the taking lens rather than anything that was done in post production. Much of this film was shot in low light conditions with fast film. (this would also explain the fact that some scenes show more grain than others.) I'm not saying that there isn't any post processing going on on this title, but from what I can see on the captures, you would have to look at the screen with a magnifying glass to see it, if it is there. I don't generally watch movies at that distance. As to the gate weave issue, a new scan will have gate weave, if the gate weave is a product of the original elements. It has already been stated that JP in particular was in need of some work, and a little gate weave isn't surprising. Gate weave is corrected digitally AFTER the scan is done. Why it wasn't corrected for on this title, I'm not sure, unless Spielberg decided that the gate weave made the movie more film like. Doug

 

[Scott Calvert]

In regards to the artificial sharpening techniques and gate weave mentioned, is it an accurate comment that those would not be present in the original elements of JP and therefore wouldn't typically be present on a new scan using whatever those source elements Universal used?

Sharpening can and does happen in new transfers but is something that happens in the video domain and is thus not part of the original film elements. Gate weave is just a product of the physics of projecting film. It is always going to be there in some form when projecting film. When scanning film into the digital domain using a new datacine, these minute changes in film alignment are corrected digitally on the fly. Older HD transfers using telecine equipment, not so much. That's why we know JP is not taken from a new "scan" and either Kevin is confused or is a little too trusting of anonymous PR sources.

 

[Scott Calvert]

As to the gate weave issue, a new scan will have gate weave, if the gate weave is a product of the original elements. Doug

No, Doug.

 

[Kevin EK]

Scott, I think I've been pretty clear. You just don't agree with the facts I've presented. That's not confusion, just that you and Malcolm have made up your minds as to what you believe, regardless of what anyone else says. And you're entitled to do that - but not in such a way that unfortunate comments are made about other people.


As to the person at USHE who spoke to Home Theater Forum, this person spoke to Adam on background, and their comments were relayed directly to me. The name of the person isn't relevant. What is relevant is that the person works in a position to know whether new transfers were done, and whether Amblin Entertainment was involved, and the answer to both of those questions was yes. Challenging the integrity of Adam, that person or myself does not change the facts, and I would suggest that such an approach is really unfortunate. I personally think that if Malcolm were to call up Amblin Entertainment for information for his website, they would likely talk to him about the work that went into this release. Why he refuses to do this is a mystery to me.


I believe, based on what Van Ling discussed with us on this forum a couple of years ago, that there is always going to be some processing work done when a film is transferred onto digital media. According to Ling, there is always some digital work done, and the issue with it is that it be done judiciously, to avoid the kinds of problems we've seen when the knob is turned too far and detail is lost.

Anthony, the issues you're seeing discussed here wouldn't be part of the original film element - they're not on the original negative. But they can and do come up when the film is transferred to digital media, and may be noticeable to viewers depending on how the work was done. If the work was not done carefully, you get a situation where there is clearly something off with the picture (Patton, Spartacus). In most other cases, and in this one, you get a situation where the picture quality is quite good. Even in the case of JP1, there may be still be a little edge enhancement or other evidence of digital work that can be seen if you're really looking for it. But in order to see it, you would need to go into the movie actively hunting for that problem. My criteria for picture quality is whether these things distract me from the movie. In this case, they didn't, and even the people complaining the most about it are acknowledging this is not a scenario of bad picture quality.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

Originally Posted by AnthonyP [url=/t/315636/universal-blu-ray-catalog-releases-quality-control-issues/60#post_3865487]

In regards to the artificial sharpening techniques and gate weave mentioned, is it an accurate comment that those would not be present in the original elements of JP and therefore wouldn't typically be present on a new scan using whatever those source elements Universal used?

Sharpening can and does happen in new transfers but is something that happens in the video domain and is thus not part of the original film elements.

Gate weave is just a product of the physics of projecting film. It is always going to be there in some form when projecting film. When scanning film into the digital domain using a new datacine, these minute changes in film alignment are corrected digitally on the fly. Older HD transfers using telecine equipment, not so much.

That's why we know JP is not taken from a new "scan" and either Kevin is confused or is a little too trusting of anonymous PR sources.

As someone who has talked to studio people from all the studios (and contracted firms), occasionally they may dodge and weave, or try to avoid questions that they know people might not be happy with answers on, but I have never know one to give deliberate misinformation. Once they do that their personal credability is shot, so it just doesn't happen.


In this instance I was told specifically by someone in the right place to know that there WAS a new transfer done for the Blu-ray in 2011. It was NOT the same transfer done for DVD, there never was a transfer done in the first place for HD DVD, so it wasn't recycled. Once the new transfer was complete, there were thousands of hours of cleanup done. Amblin was involved with EVERY stage: video, audio, they approved check discs. You can choose to not believe it, but as someone who has dealt with them in the past, I have no reason not to. Most of the people I talk to are on background, which is typical for not only us but the Digital Bits and other sites too.

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce [url=/t/315636/universal-blu-ray-catalog-releases-quality-control-issues/60#post_3865490]

I looked at the captures, and I can't see anything that I would regard as halos or edge enhancement. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, but I was looking at the edges of shoulders with bright sky behind them and other shots of the like. I do see what looks to be the product of the digital compositing on the brachiosaurus shot. Some other shots I do see some things that could be the result of the way the film was photographed.

I'm not saying that there isn't any post processing going on on this title, but from what I can see on the captures, you would have to look at the screen with a magnifying glass to see it, if it is there. I don't generally watch movies at that distance.

When watching the Blu-ray (120+ screen) I wasn't able to see it unless I paused the film at a high contrast scene and literally put my nose up to the screen, even then it was iffy. Looking at the zoomed screen shots I was able to see what appeared to be a very mild case, but not knowing all the gory details about lenses, film stock, how it was filmed, etc I don't know if it is natural or artificial. Regardless it is very minor in my opinion. If you opt to pick this up I would be interested to see what you think after watching it Doug.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Kevin- Jinx, you owe me a coke!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK

Malcolm, the anger in your post is strange to me.


I believe your comment about having talked to someone at Universal earlier today is a jest as that would mean you were reaching someone in the office on Saturday.
I do recommend that when you contact these people, you avoid the kind of phrasing seen in your above post, as you may find it does not help you get a constructive answer.


In short, you have every right to not be happy with this release. You have every right to your opinion about its qualities. And you have every right to express your opinion both here and with your wallet when it comes to these releases. But making unfortunate comments about me or HTF will not help you get the answers you seek.

This is a perfect example of miscommunication, in no way am i angry and if you think my posts come across as angry then you don't understand the bluntness of a Scotsman, indeed i think you are confusing my blunt direct way of typing as anger, can i ask that you stop with the road you are going down and do not say this again.


The comment about speaking to someone at Universal was my way of saying that anyone can claim to have insider knowledge from an anonymous source, if you have access to one then why not ask them some of the questions i have asked you, after all it is yourself and this site that is saying this is a new transfer.


Who says i am not happy with the release, i am not happy with certain aspects of it, i never said the entire release was poor, thats you putting words into my mouth, i am questioning certain aspects of the release, thats all,


What comments have i made about you that have offended you, my subwoofer comments. ? I would hope not since i'm talking in purely technical terms and not putting it or you down, indeed if i can give a compliment then i would say your plasma has in all likelihood got much better black levels than my projector.


To Douglas who thinks this is a lens thing, read my earlier posts and you will see i clearly mention chromatic abberation during the cow scene, i thought about this being a lens thing during some of the other scenes and took into account the compositing during the first dino scene, i still stand by the fact that first dino scene has been sharpened up, and the other scenes are edge enhancement and not a lens thing, not at all, i have seen enough edge enhancement in my time to recognise that and the differences between a lens issue and real added edge sharpening.


Oh and Douglas, as already explained, i do not need to go up to the screen to see this, its obvious from a normal sitting distance, perhaps on a smaller screen it may be missed but on a projection system it is obvious to me, that some find it minor is meaningless to me, the real question is why is it there, its not lens related, you really think a cinematographer like Dean Cundey or a filmmaker like Spielberg are going to shoot a movie with halos on many crucial daytime shots, seems unlikely to me and anyway it looks like edge enhancement and not a lens issue.


Oh and Adam regarding this statement "but I have never know one to give deliberate misinformation. Once they do that their personal credability is shot, so it just doesn't happen." okay so lets go back a few months to the Star Wars thread, you had some access to Lucasfilm and they state ALL the lightsaber scenes have been fixed, we know this is untrue especially of Return Of The Jedi where Vader has some nice pink lightsaber moments, not once did i see this site question that, neither in the review done for this site nor in an article, you basically stuck two fingers up at the forum members and didn't take Lucasfilm to task over their misleading on this particular issue, and yes they did mislead, the article clearly stated all the fixes were done, hell even the fan edits have fixed those issues and yet Lucasfilm still haven't and they mislead you and us, no one in a position of authority at this site wanted to rock the boat with Lucasfilm and the silence from the reviewer and the owners was deafening, so yes deliberate misinformation goes on and credibility is shot and it does happen, just because home theater forum does not acknowledge it doesn't mean there wasn't an issue.


Another point to make Adam, is that, just because you had to go up to the screen to spot it, don't assume others have to, some of us are sensitive to edge enhancement and halos, we don't need to put our noses up to the screen to see it, it stands out a mile away.


I'm willing to keep an open mind on this and willing to believe it may be camera and lens related, i just say that to me it looks like edge sharpening and not the former, put it this way, if you have a cameraman or cinematographer at the site and they categorically state its a camera/lens issue then i can buy into it provided they give some indepth technical info to back up that theory, even if i do buy into that theory, its still annoying and it still stands out, right now i firmly believe its edge sharpening, i firmly believe a new film scan would have corrected the gate weave during the opening titles.


Okay just read this post.

Originally Posted by Kevin EK [url=/t/315636/universal-blu-ray-catalog-releases-quality-control-issues/60#post_3865545]

I believe, based on what Van Ling discussed with us on this forum a couple of years ago, that there is always going to be some processing work done when a film is transferred onto digital media. According to Ling, there is always some digital work done, and the issue with it is that it be done judiciously, to avoid the kinds of problems we've seen when the knob is turned too far and detail is lost.

Anthony, the issues you're seeing discussed here wouldn't be part of the original film element - they're not on the original negative. But they can and do come up when the film is transferred to digital media, and may be noticeable to viewers depending on how the work was done.

Now we are finally getting somewhere, this we can both agree on and i do notice the "digital enhancements" which were done specifically for the blu ray release of Jurassic Park, it stands out to me, that it does not for other people is no consolation.

 

[Kevin EK]

Malcolm, thank you for your response.


I'm honestly not offended by your comments - I'm only concerned about statements that imply that either we haven't contacted the people we've talked to, or that we've been fooled somehow by those people. It's a matter of integrity, not only for myself but for the forum. I'm always happy to correct my posts if I misspeak - as I did earlier about the new scan when I said that this wasn't a new scan and that nobody expected one. I was wrong about that, and felt I should acknowledge that on both threads. But the information we have from USHE isn't something where I've gone in and made an incorrect statement - I've relayed information, as we normally do here. As for the subwoofer material, I am honestly no expert in that - I only know that the one I have was literally shaking the room during many scenes in all 3 JP movies, and I have to be careful about that as I live on an upper floor and I'd rather not send my downstairs neighbor through the roof....


I may have misinterpreted your earlier posts about the quality of this release, and if so, I was wrong on that count. I believed that you started this poll out of a concern over this release (among other releases), and that you said you would like to see the set recalled. Asking for a recall is a pretty significant thing, so I took that to mean your concern was more serious than perhaps I should have.


I honestly do believe as the operator of your own website that you could contact Amblin and ask questions about EE and other issues, and I believe they will take the time to talk to you. I recommend going through Amblin first as they were the ones approving the material and would know better about the choices that were made.


Finally, I would not wish to insult any Scotsman, given my affection for that country. I spent about a week there two summers ago, travelling from Edinburgh up to Elgin by car, and I hope I can return there at some point in the next couple of years. It's a beautiful country, and I feel lucky to have been able to go there.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK Finally, I would not wish to insult any Scotsman, given my affection for that country. I spent about a week there two summers ago, travelling from Edinburgh up to Elgin by car, and I hope I can return there at some point in the next couple of years. It's a beautiful country, and I feel lucky to have been able to go there.

Were you lucky enough to get sunshine and did you encounter the dreaded midges up in Elgin.


I live less than an hour from Edinburgh, its a beautiful city, if you walk along Princes Street during the evening they light up the castle and it looks amazing.


As for Jurassic Park, we have both had our say, while we don't totally agree on some things, that isn't a problem, i will tell you the reason i started this poll is that i cannot just blind buy and hope to get a great release with Universal back catalog titles, with Sony/Columbia i never worry about getting a great back catalog release and i can place an order and blind buy the title, for me i prefer the absolute minimum amount of digital tweaks, especially with regards to edge sharpening and adding in halos however mild they may appear to some of the forum members.


I'd prefer a release with no edge halos present, thats all i will say and i feel Universal or Amblins decision to sharpen up some scenes has resulted in a slightly processed look during some of the daytime scenes ( not all ) thats just my opinion and i appreciate it will not be shared by all.

 

[Kevin EK]

My stay in Scotland was half washed in rain, and half washed in sun. Thankfully didn't get hit by the midges, but did get to the Cathedral. On another day, walked through the field at Culloden. At another time, stood at the edge of Loch Ness and challenged the monster to come out (I have that on video, for posterity). At Edinburgh, I walked through the castle right before they closed up shop for the day, and then walked the length of the Royal Mile to get to the palace, which was closed off due to the Queen being in residence at the time... Of course, we also stopped at multiple distilleries along the way, and came home with multiple bottles... I love the country. Next time I go, I'll likely go to Islay and then swing toward the north.

Back to the topic at hand, I agree about not blind buying. I tend to wait to see what comes out on these forums to see if there are any major problems. I usually wait for Robert Harris to weigh in, as he's never steered me wrong.

 

[John Hodson]

My stay in Scotland was half washed in rain, and half washed in sun. 

"Look into the distance; if you can't see the mountains, it's raining. If you can, it's going to rain" - old Scottish saying...

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK

My stay in Scotland was half washed in rain, and half washed in sun.

During some parts of the year its not uncommon to have sun, rain, sun again, rain again, followed by strong winds and maybe a little snow all in the same day. I think the sunshine has come early the last few years, i think April/May was better than July this year and last.


P.S. The monster is scared of tourists, you need to show it lots of dollars before it appears, even then you are only guaranteed to see a strange object which will always be out of focus if you try and shoot it with a camera. I hear the same thing happens when people try and shoot bigfoot over there.

 

[AaronMK]

I believe, based on what Van Ling discussed with us on this forum a couple of years ago, that there is always going to be some processing work done when a film is transferred onto digital media. According to Ling, there is always some digital work done, and the issue with it is that it be done judiciously, to avoid the kinds of problems we've seen when the knob is turned too far and detail is lost.

One screen shot comparison I would love to see is a frame as acquired by the scanner, and the frame on the blu-ray of a highly respected release. (ie Braveheart, Gladiator's second release, most Sony catalog titles, etc.) It seems naive to think that film, the result of a photo chemical process, could just simply be scanned into an array of uniformly spaced pixels, with the raw color data output from the sensor ready to be fed into an encoder frame-by-frame to create a digital video stream faithful to the projected look of that film. Without going into technical details, many of which I don't completely understand anyway, the nature of reconstructing an image from incomplete data the sensors actually detect makes that seem too good to be true. Even with "purist" goals in mind, the key seems to be judicious "digital work", not an absence of "digital work".

 

[Douglas Monce]

To Douglas who thinks this is a lens thing, read my earlier posts and you will see i clearly mention chromatic abberation during the cow scene, i thought about this being a lens thing during some of the other scenes and took into account the compositing during the first dino scene, i still stand by the fact that first dino scene has been sharpened up, and the other scenes are edge enhancement and not a lens thing, not at all, i have seen enough edge enhancement in my time to recognise that and the differences between a lens issue and real added edge sharpening. Oh and Douglas, as already explained, i do not need to go up to the screen to see this, its obvious from a normal sitting distance, perhaps on a smaller screen it may be missed but on a projection system it is obvious to me, that some find it minor is meaningless to me, the real question is why is it there, its not lens related, you really think a cinematographer like Dean Cundey or a filmmaker like Spielberg are going to shoot a movie with halos on many crucial daytime shots, seems unlikely to me and anyway it looks like edge enhancement and not a lens issue.   Now we are finally getting somewhere, this we can both agree on and i do notice the "digital enhancements" which were done specifically for the blu ray release of Jurassic Park, it stands out to me, that it does not for other people is no consolation.

As I said I haven't seen the blu-ray of these films yet myself, only your screen captures. There are many steps on the mechanical and optical components of a film camera that can introduce unwanted artifacts. We have already talked about optical issues with the lens which may or may not be adding to the effect you are seeing. Not to mention artifacts intentionally added by the use of filtration on the camera lens. Some film stocks can cause unusual artifacts. When Spielberg shot Schindler's List, the first week of shooting they kept having problems with strange flashes on the film. They finally figured out that modern black and white film stock has a much lower silver content than was used in the in the past. As a result, static was building up in the camera, and when it would discharge it would cause flashes on the film. They had to find ways to keep the static build up from happening in the camera. To say that a particular effect could not because by the equipment used to film the scene is being slightly simplistic. Would Cundy or Spielberg going to intentionally add halos to a shot? Well that depends on what you mean by halos. Promist filters definitely add halos around bright and dark objects in varying degrees depending on the level of filtration used. Again from looking at your screen shots, at full resolution, I'm not seeing anything obvious that looks like digital edge enhancement, or if it is there it is extremely faint. As I'm sure you are aware, transferring an analog medium such as film, to digital, more often than not has unwanted side effects. Down converting a 4k image to HD can add its own set of problem. Tools like noise reduction and sharpening are used on virtually every film put into a digital medium, because a straight transfer rarely looks like the original film being presented. It has to be digitally massaged to in order to look like the film projected in theaters. Now of course these tools can be used and abused, but when used correctly, they are not only useful, they are essential. Again I'm not saying that what you are seeing isn't there, I just don't see it on these screen shots. Hopefully I'll be able to get my hands on the set soon and look at it for myself. Now my screen is only 47 inches, but I can get my nose very close to it. Doug As to automatic gate weave removal, like anything else its an option that can be used or not. Sometimes its not desirable, and other tools would be used to correct this issue.