A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Lawrence of Arabia -- in 4k/UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/02/digital-cinematography/

 

[zoetmb]

^ Wow. Six sheets tend to be VERY expensive (especially for an all time classic) but I'm surprised it was that much. I was going to buy an Escalade but I went for the Lawrence Of Arabia six-sheet instead.

That's not actually that high a price for classic, original movie posters. I think an original of "The Mummy" of which I think only six are known to still exist, has gone for above $250,000.

 

[Number 6]

^ Wow. Six sheets tend to be VERY expensive (especially for an all time classic) but I'm surprised it was that much. I was going to buy an Escalade but I went for the Lawrence Of Arabia six-sheet instead.

Now you've got me curious as to what my mint-condition six-sheet for the '71 re-release would go for. Not that I would ever part company with it.

 

[Number 6]

As a life long collector of memorabilia from LOA I would love to get my hands on the a full sheet original poster of the first scan. I assume that it is 27 X 41 but from the few I have seen for sale on the internet the asking price is in the hundreds if not thousands. Some years back I had an opportunity to buy a poster with that exact picture that was even larger than 27 X 41 but decided against it because I thought that it would be too large to frame. I have been kicking myself in the butt ever since.

I've got a mint-condition one of the second (long) version you have listed. It's a first-run Australian edition. The paper is very interesting; almost has a rice paper texture to it. Really makes the colours 'pop'.

 

[RolandL]

That's not actually that high a price for classic, original movie posters. I think an original of "The Mummy" of which I think only six are known to still exist, has gone for above $250,000.

I know a Metropolis poster sold for $690,000 in 2005. Something must have sold for more since then.

 

[TravisR]

^ I think a King Kong or Dracula poster might have gone for more in the last few years.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I saw LOA for the first time back in October in 4K. I then bought the Blu-ray in November and started to watch it at home on an 8' screen projected by a Sony 95ES. I turned it off in less than a minute because it was too small and did not give anywhere near the same impression as I had just had at the theater. If I was going to watch it, it was going to be big. Now my screen is just 2 4'x8' drywall that I had installed myself in the unfinished part of my basement using Sherwin Williams paint that colorwise is visually indistinguishable from the StudioTek sample I have. I put off expanding the screen size, which required getting additional drywall and spackling and painting. Recently I also got How the West Was Won with the Smilebox format and that also needed to be seen large so that gave me the impetus to expand the screen. To make a short story really long, I spent this past weekend and then until Tuesday hanging the new drywall and spackling and painting. The final screen size was 10.5' wide sitting 10.5' feet back. The whole family watched LOA tonight to break in our new super-sized screen and that extra 2.5' made a very big difference. It was marvelous and gives a true feeling of being at the theater but not quite as good as 50' back from a 50' screen. There is just something better about watching on a larger screen even when the ratio remains the same. I am pretty sure the Blu-ray didn't quite have the same resolution as the theater but it also didn't have the projector sharpening the image like it did at the theater so I'm not sure which presentation was superior. They were both great. Originally at the theater I couldn't tell if the image was created a little over sharpened or the projector was the cause but given I saw no sharpening artifacts on the Blu-ray presentation on those same scenes I am going with the projector was doing it. At the theater there were several scenes that immediately jumped out as artificially over sharpened. If I had known when I got the Sony 95ES a year ago how much better the larger screen would be, I would have done the expansion immediately. Now I am going to have to rewatch many of the movies I have watched over the past year just for the new, very theater like experience. However after a quick sampling it is clear that only the best Blus can stand up to such a size. The weaker efforts look very soft with sizable color blocks. Oh and top shelf 3D movies are beyond amazing.

 

[RolandL]

I saw LOA for the first time back in October in 4K. I then bought the Blu-ray in November and started to watch it at home on an 8' screen projected by a Sony 95ES. I turned it off in less than a minute because it was too small and did not give anywhere near the same impression as I had just had at the theater. If I was going to watch it, it was going to be big. Now my screen is just 2 4'x8' drywall that I had installed myself in the unfinished part of my basement using Sherwin Williams paint that colorwise is visually indistinguishable from the StudioTek sample I have. I put off expanding the screen size, which required getting additional drywall and spackling and painting. Recently I also got How the West Was Won with the Smilebox format and that also needed to be seen large so that gave me the impetus to expand the screen. To make a short story really long, I spent this past weekend and then until Tuesday hanging the new drywall and spackling and painting. The final screen size was 10.5' wide sitting 10.5' feet back. The whole family watched LOA tonight to break in our new super-sized screen and that extra 2.5' made a very big difference. It was marvelous and gives a true feeling of being at the theater but not quite as good as 50' back from a 50' screen. There is just something better about watching on a larger screen even when the ratio remains the same. I am pretty sure the Blu-ray didn't quite have the same resolution as the theater but it also didn't have the projector sharpening the image like it did at the theater so I'm not sure which presentation was superior. They were both great. Originally at the theater I couldn't tell if the image was created a little over sharpened or the projector was the cause but given I saw no sharpening artifacts on the Blu-ray presentation on those same scenes I am going with the projector was doing it. At the theater there were several scenes that immediately jumped out as artificially over sharpened. If I had known when I got the Sony 95ES a year ago how much better the larger screen would be, I would have done the expansion immediately. Now I am going to have to rewatch many of the movies I have watched over the past year just for the new, very theater like experience. However after a quick sampling it is clear that only the best Blus can stand up to such a size. The weaker efforts look very soft with sizable color blocks. Oh and top shelf 3D movies are beyond amazing.

I did something similar in my home theatre room. Upgraded from a Sanyo PLZV3 720P that produced about a 9 by 5 ft image, to a Panasonic PTAE8000 that I moved farther back with a 12 by 5 ft image for 2.4 titles. Big difference! Since my speakers are right below the image, the image is larger when I do letterbox 2.86:1 HTWWW than the smilebox version and I think looks better than the smilebox.

 

[Mark-P]

...The final screen size was 10.5' wide sitting 10.5' feet back...

What I like about you is that you're not afraid to sit close! I also sit about 1 screen-width away for 'scope movies. I hear about so many people who install 10-foot wide screens and then sit 25 feet away! What's the point in having such a large screen if you're just going to back away from it and make it small again?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Mark-P
What I like about you is that you're not afraid to sit close! I also sit about 1 screen-width away for 'scope movies. I hear about so many people who install 10-foot wide screens and then sit 25 feet away! What's the point in having such a large screen if you're just going to back away from it and make it small again?

Especially if there aren't people seated directly in front of you chatting, phoning, or wearing feathered hats...

 

[Chuck Anstey]

...The final screen size was 10.5' wide sitting 10.5' feet back...

What I like about you is that you're not afraid to sit close! I also sit about 1 screen-width away for 'scope movies. I hear about so many people who install 10-foot wide screens and then sit 25 feet away! What's the point in having such a large screen if you're just going to back away from it and make it small again?

As I said, there is a benefit from a larger screen even if the ratio remains the same so I would rather sit 25' back from 10' wide than 15' back from 6' wide. This actually becomes an even bigger advantage with 3D movies. However as you can see, my personal preference is around 1 screen width for best quality discs and I shrink my screen somewhat for lessor efforts, going more for 1.2 widths back. To add to my long story, I had a significant problem fully understanding much of the talking in LOA and had to really crank the volume. I found out today why. One of my 24 year old Infinity Kappa 6 speakers that I have since college had its midrange dome dry rot and break apart, pieces falling on the ground when I removed the speaker grille to figure out why the frequency response was out of whack. Several years ago I had to replace the foam around the woofers that had dry rotted. Time for a new set of speakers.

 

[OliverK]

As I said, there is a benefit from a larger screen even if the ratio remains the same so I would rather sit 25' back from 10' wide than 15' back from 6' wide.

Binocular disparity is much higher with smaller screen sizes, provided you use both eyes of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_disparity So even in a completely darkened room and with only the screen to look at we can notice the difference between a 6 ft and a 12 ft wide screen even at the same relative seating distance. And of course in most rooms there are plenty of other cues that give us an idea of screen size like for example speakrs or other equipment close to the screen, furniture, etc.

 

[Robert Harris]

http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/02/technicolors-tony-dustin-on-grading-silver-linings-playbook/

 

[JoshZ]

I saw LOA for the first time back in October in 4K. I then bought the Blu-ray in November and started to watch it at home on an 8' screen projected by a Sony 95ES. I turned it off in less than a minute because it was too small and did not give anywhere near the same impression as I had just had at the theater. If I was going to watch it, it was going to be big. Now my screen is just 2 4'x8' drywall that I had installed myself in the unfinished part of my basement using Sherwin Williams paint that colorwise is visually indistinguishable from the StudioTek sample I have. I put off expanding the screen size, which required getting additional drywall and spackling and painting. Recently I also got How the West Was Won with the Smilebox format and that also needed to be seen large so that gave me the impetus to expand the screen. To make a short story really long, I spent this past weekend and then until Tuesday hanging the new drywall and spackling and painting. The final screen size was 10.5' wide sitting 10.5' feet back. The whole family watched LOA tonight to break in our new super-sized screen and that extra 2.5' made a very big difference.

As you break in your projector, the lamp will age and dim. You may find yourself having difficulty illuminating an image that size. You might consider installing a screen with a little bit of gain to compensate. The other concern with projecting onto painted drywall is that you can see the texture of the wall surface through the image.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

As you break in your projector, the lamp will age and dim. You may find yourself having difficulty illuminating an image that size. You might consider installing a screen with a little bit of gain to compensate. The other concern with projecting onto painted drywall is that you can see the texture of the wall surface through the image.

Once the paint has dried for a while I sand it perfectly smooth, far smoother than any screen you can buy and no texture is visible. The only issue is the wall itself is not perfectly flat but that isn't visible. The only screen I would consider is so expensive at that size and will still have a visible bright area in the middle with noticeable fall off at the top, bottom, and sides and becomes darker than my painted screen. Some people are able to ignore hotspotting and light fall off. I am not one of them once it reaches a certain rather low threshold. The other is that my theater is a batcave and I used a CRT projector for 10 years so dim is a relative term but I will likely have to change the bulb after fewer hours than most.

 

[Robert Harris]

 

[zoetmb]

Super X! I love it. Meanwhile, Kodak film is disappearing fast. For 35mm still photography, they're now only selling 11 emulsions: BW400 CN; TMax 100, 400; Tri-X 400; Gold 200, Ultra Max 400, 800; Ektar 100 and Porta 160, 400 and 800. For motion picture camera film, there' s just Vision 2 50D, Kodak 500T and Vision 3 50D, 250D, 200T and 500T for negative; Extachrome 100D/25T for color reversal; Double X 200T/250D for B&W negative and Tri-X 160T/200D for B&W reversal. (And I have a feeling that Kodak and Vision 2 will be disappearing soon). For intermediates, there's four color and two b&w emulsions and for prints there's two color and two b&w emulsions (but I think three of those four color emulsions will disappear soon).

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by zoetmb
Super X! I love it.
Meanwhile, Kodak film is disappearing fast. For 35mm still photography, they're now only selling 11 emulsions: BW400 CN; TMax 100, 400; Tri-X 400; Gold 200, Ultra Max 400, 800; Ektar 100 and Porta 160, 400 and 800.
For motion picture camera film, there' s just Vision 2 50D, Kodak 500T and Vision 3 50D, 250D, 200T and 500T for negative; Extachrome 100D/25T for color reversal; Double X 200T/250D for B&W negative and Tri-X 160T/200D for B&W reversal. (And I have a feeling that Kodak and Vision 2 will be disappearing soon).
For intermediates, there's four color and two b&w emulsions and for prints there's two color and two b&w emulsions (but I think three of those four color emulsions will disappear soon).

Agreed.
Based upon need and sales, things will most likely be shrinking shortly. We'll lose a couple of negative stocks, and the print stocks. The preservation emulsions will hopefully be with us for awhile.
RAH

 

[Peter Neski]

This is late,But I like the box a lot ,the book is a lot better than I thought it would be,The extras on the third disc are great, the look of the Box with the widow isn't great ,I really liked that video with the set dresser ,it goes everywhere ,and he has plenty of interesting things to say about the film

 

[Robert Harris]

http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/02/rhythm-hues-a-brief-history-of-animal-cgi/