A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Raiders of the Lost Ark -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Dave MJ]

I understand that, but I can make it watchable for me. It's too painful to think I couldn't watch and enjoy Raiders. Life is tough enough to think I could never enjoy this movie again. I have a special custom setting on my TV just for the Raiders BD (that took me a while to achieve), and I am at peace with it. Maybe if they do a 4K and I can get a good BD transfer from the 4K, but in the meantime, I have to keep loving this movie. I don't know what else to do.

There are other options, I sent you a PM.

 

[Dave MJ]

Another comparison:

35mm

Blu-ray

In case anyone doubts the 35mm image is legitimate:

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I hadn't looked at the Raiders Blu-ray until I gave it a scan through the other night. First impression is that the image has jacked-up contrast and saturation in the scenes I checked. I ran the film for 4 weeks back in 1983 during the reissue (as well as seeing it a half dozen times in 70mm in 1981; and seeing a local collector's 35mm print several times in the past few years) and the Blu image doesn't resemble it. I was also reaching for the (imaginary) framing knob on my projector as the image is noticeably tight at the top. So much so that I double checked my settings to make sure I wasn't accidentally zooming or cropping anything. So, based on this quick glance, I have to say I think the transfer is mucked up a bit too much. Something in-between Dave's 35mm scans and the current image would seem the best compromise.

 

[Worth]

There are other options, I sent you a PM.

Might you send me one of those, as well? It would be much appreciated.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I hadn't looked at the Raiders Blu-ray until I gave it a scan through the other night. First impression is that the image has jacked-up contrast and saturation in the scenes I checked. I ran the film for 4 weeks back in 1983 during the reissue (as well as seeing it a half dozen times in 70mm in 1981; and seeing a local collector's 35mm print several times in the past few years) and the Blu image doesn't resemble it. I was also reaching for the (imaginary) framing knob on my projector as the image is noticeably tight at the top. So much so that I double checked my settings to make sure I wasn't accidentally zooming or cropping anything. So, based on this quick glance, I have to say I think the transfer is mucked up a bit too much. Something in-between Dave's 35mm scans and the current image would seem the best compromise.

I just recently watched the blu of this for the first time too. I was disappointed in it as well. All the opening Jungle scenes look very contrasty, washed out. Previous versions did not look like this and I have owned this on VHS, Laserdisc and DVD. I also saw this twice in the theaters when it came out and I remember the opening Jungle scenes being very colorful. The Blu Ray make the movie look 30 years older than it is.

 

[Worth]

Maybe we'll get a redo when #5 comes out:

http://deadline.com/2016/03/steven-...s-5-disney-sets-july-2019-release-1201720725/

 

[kitt1987]

There are other options, I sent you a PM.

I wouldn't mind a prod in the right direction for this as well if it's not too much trouble. I've been hearing a lot lately about a good 30th anniversary xfer but so far I've turned up nothing. I received the Indy box set several years back as a gift and have only watched Raiders once and it just didn't "feel" right when we watched it....now I know why! What is this, any movie with George Lucas' name attached to it just can't get a faithful release on home video?

 

[Dave H]

I appreciate where you are going. but the caps I posted are from a legitimate low fade 35mm print. Not sketchy ebay photos or something I got from the internet. They are the real deal.

That is a promo photo with brighter lighting. If you look at the version here you can see that the walls of the bar are still gray and skin tones are more orange but not like the blu ray.

I have the original Raiders of the Lost Ark trading cards at home that I am going to take a look at. I realize they are not definitive like any promotional images, but curious none the less. I used to have the Raiders storybook when I was a kid that had a lot of images from the movie. I always remember a really warm look to the movie (I saw it 12 times if I recall from 1981-1982) as Neil indicated with the Album, but I was only around 10 years old and cannot remember the color timing of the viewings, of course. lol I can only say the 2K DCP viewing I saw last summer definitely stemmed from the same source as the Blu although I found the color just a tad more natually saturated such as the Nazi flag being a bit more red than the Blu although still not a deeper red. Skin tones looked a tad less orange too...but again, we're talking maybe 5-10% at most as far as variances between this 2K DCP viewing and Blu-ray...and I account that to probably because it was DCI-P3 color gamut vs rec 709 on the Blu.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm visiting here for the first time in aeons, and am confused by the reference of a 35mm print.

Whose 35mm print is this?

On what stock is it printed?

From which negative?

From which IP?

By what lab?

On what day?

Approved by whom?

RAH

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Thank you, RAH, for bringing empirical analysis back into the conversation. Screencaps are useless in this type of analysis, for the reasons cited above, as well as that we don't know the methodology by which the captures were obtained, resulting in subjective "well I think this looks better" type arguments.

 

[Dave H]

RAH,

Thanks for chiming in. What are your thoughts about how closely the 1981 "Making of" documentary looks to those 35 mm shots? These seem remarkably similar which made me question whether the Blu replicates how the movie looked in 1981.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4358497/

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH,

Thanks for chiming in. What are your thoughts about how closely the 1981 "Making of" documentary looks to those 35 mm shots? These seem remarkably similar which made me question whether the Blu replicates how the movie looked in 1981.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4358497/

About as irrelevant as anything can be. A presumably 16mm promo film, using optically created reductions from some element or other?

The entire discussion is worthless. Reminds me of a previous thread for which someone scanned production stills published in a magazine, and attempted to make a case for color?

Seriously!?

RAH

 

[Worth]

I can only say the 2K DCP viewing I saw last summer definitely stemmed from the same source as the Blu although I found the color just a tad more natually saturated such as the Nazi flag being a bit more red than the Blu although still not a deeper red. Skin tones looked a tad less orange too...but again, we're talking maybe 5-10% at most as far as variances between this 2K DCP viewing and Blu-ray...and I account that to probably because it was DCI-P3 color gamut vs rec 709 on the Blu.

Are there two different DCP masters floating around, then? Because the ones I've seen the last couple of times, excluding the IMAX version, are nowhere near as blown-out as the blu-ray.

 

[Dave MJ]

I'm visiting here for the first time in aeons, and am confused by the reference of a 35mm print.

Whose 35mm print is this?

On what stock is it printed?

From which negative?

From which IP?

By what lab?

On what day?

Approved by whom?

RAH

It is a privately owned print. I can't say more than that. I can send you more info privately if you are interested, I would like your opinion.

 

[Dave MJ]

About as irrelevant as anything can be. A presumably 16mm promo film, using optically created reductions from some element or other?

The entire discussion is worthless. Reminds me of a previous thread for which someone scanned production stills published in a magazine, and attempted to make a case for color?

Seriously!?

RAH

It matches remarkably well to the 35mm release print. And a Super 8 print. Neither of which looks anything like the blu-ray. That was the only point.

 

[Dave MJ]

I have the original Raiders of the Lost Ark trading cards at home that I am going to take a look at. I realize they are not definitive like any promotional images, but curious none the less. I used to have the Raiders storybook when I was a kid that had a lot of images from the movie. I always remember a really warm look to the movie (I saw it 12 times if I recall from 1981-1982) as Neil indicated with the Album, but I was only around 10 years old and cannot remember the color timing of the viewings, of course. lol I can only say the 2K DCP viewing I saw last summer definitely stemmed from the same source as the Blu although I found the color just a tad more natually saturated such as the Nazi flag being a bit more red than the Blu although still not a deeper red. Skin tones looked a tad less orange too...but again, we're talking maybe 5-10% at most as far as variances between this 2K DCP viewing and Blu-ray...and I account that to probably because it was DCI-P3 color gamut vs rec 709 on the Blu.

I have the trading cards as well. They are all promo pics I think, I'll have to take a look. Actual frame blowups from the early 80s tend to match the 35mm. I think there are some in the Raiders storybook and the book and record. Several issues of Cinefex magazine and the ILM book from the early 80s also have frame blowups which match pretty closely to the 35mm but not at all to the blu-ray.

 

[Carabimero]

On my BD copy, there is very subtle detail that is lost because the transfer is a tad too hot. How do I know the detail is lost? Because I can see it on the DVD.

Washed out detail in this transfer is a fact, not opinion.

 

[Dave MJ]

Thank you, RAH, for bringing empirical analysis back into the conversation. Screencaps are useless in this type of analysis, for the reasons cited above, as well as that we don't know the methodology by which the captures were obtained, resulting in subjective "well I think this looks better" type arguments.

What methodology would you recommend? The blu-ray is so far off from the 35mm it's hard to dismiss it as minor variations in screen capture or bulb temperature. However, I'm open to suggestions because I think this is very important.

 

[Tony Bensley]

On my BD copy, there is very subtle detail that is lost because the transfer is a tad too hot. How do I know the detail is lost? Because I can see it on the DVD.

Washed out detail in this transfer is a fact, not opinion.

Hi Alan!

While I'm no expert, I'd say your above explanation is the best argument in favor of there definitely being something off in the newest Blu-ray transfer!

Blu-ray should always reveal details not seen on the DVD, not the other way around!

By the way, I agree that the posted images from the 2012 transfer look too orangey, or hot as you describe it! It's definitely not how I remember seeing RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK during its long first theatrical run! Not even close!

For what it's worth, the posted 35mm images jibe far more closely to how I remember my initial viewing!

CHEERS!

Tony

 

[Dave MJ]

On my BD copy, there is very subtle detail that is lost because the transfer is a tad too hot. How do I know the detail is lost? Because I can see it on the DVD.

Washed out detail in this transfer is a fact, not opinion.

A close examination of the blu reveals many shots where detail is lost due to the inconsistent color changes, low contrast, overexposure or scrubbing of grain. The 35mm has more detail in places and it is a 4th generation release print. The DVD has more detail in places because it is exposed correctly. There is so much evidence that the blu is incorrect but I have already stated it repeatedly in several threads. I get that people doubt this, but I have seen the release print myself, I have high quality scans I have shared and i have done a lot of research. The blu doesn't match the theatrical 35mm, 16mm or Super 8mm. It doesn't match any early 80s frame blow ups. It doesn't match the 35mm trailer. It doesnt match any vintage documentaries. You can't get from most of the blu images to the 35mm or even the DVD in some shots.