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

[Stephen_J_H]

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.

Let's start at the beginning:
How are the captures created?

Is there any compression happening following scanning?

Has any manipulation occurred following scanning?

What colour space is being used?

When doing the comparison screen caps, what software are you using? This is important, as some software players are known for having colour issues?

While you have indicated that you cannot disclose whose print this is publicly (and I completely respect that) you should be able to answer some of RAH's questions about film stock and production date, etc. from the edge coding on the stock.

Let's start there, and then we might get somewhere.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

Zero interest. With all due respect, the print is probably of no use.

 

[Dave MJ]

Zero interest. With all due respect, the print is probably of no use.

If our interest is if the Raiders blu-ray looks like a theatrical release print, then it seems pretty relevant to me. However, this is your thread so I can open up my own if you object. I'll put up a few more comparisons and people can take it for whatever they want. My only agenda is to get to the truth about my favorite movie. If it looked like the blu-ray I would be supporting that.

 

[Dave MJ]

The opening of the ark is probably the most altered scene on the blu-ray. It is supposed to be a dark and moody scene with bright ghosts flying against dark backgrounds. The blu is pushed brighter to the point of overexposure in some shots. The shot of Toht in particular is much brighter than the surrounding shots. The teal and orange push is inconsistently applied, most obviously in the bizarre orange shot of Indy and Marion.

35mm

Blu-ray

35mm

Blu-ray

35mm

Blu-ray

35mm

Blu-ray

35mm

Blu-ray

 

[Cees Alons]

Dave,

This thread has been locked for a while, because we wanted to reflect on the current flow of discussion.

This is a nice, informative and generally pleasant thread about the movie. But your somewhat mysterious 35mm copy brings in a very specific topic. Unfortunately, it is by its very essence, and the way you choose to handle it, impossible to discuss the merits of that print while following any usual way of logical reasoning.

As such it distorts the flow of this thread sufficiently to want us to change that. Please take this topic to a new thread of your own, as you already suggested yourself. From this point on any discussions of your 35mm print will be banned from this thread (but certainly not from the forum).

Please, consider this a moderator's directive. It has also been discussed with the OP.

Thanks for understanding.


Cees

 

[Carabimero]

Hopefully with Indy 5 being announced, we will get a new 4k transfer done properly.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hopefully with Indy 5 being announced, we will get a new 4k transfer done properly.

Just to be clear, you're saying that Mr. Spielberg and the staffs of Amblin and Paramount, haven't a clue what the film was meant to look like?

 

[Carabimero]

Just to be clear, you're saying that Mr. Spielberg and the staffs of Amblin and Paramount, haven't a clue what the film was meant to look like?

No, here's what I'm saying.

Both the BD and DVD of RAIDERS are fixed, measurable quantities for all here.

On my BD copy, there is very subtle surface 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. When I first got the BD, I couldn't believe it so I compared them.

If slight detail seen on the DVD was lost on the BD because the brightness got cranked up too much, then the BD transfer got it wrong. Period. Such lost detail is something quantifiable by media and equipment we all have access to. It has nothing to do with subjective memory or odd prints or anything else. It is tangible. All one needs to do is take the time to compare.

For that reason, among others, we need a transfer of RAIDERS that actually serves the entire detail of the negative.

I appreciate being allowed to express my beliefs in an open forum that values differences of opinion.

 

[Dave MJ]

Glad to see this thread is unlocked, I don't understand why there was such a fuss. My posts were respectful. As for the "mysterious" print, I have to be respectful of the owner. I offered to discuss privately but was told what I had was "worthless" and "rubbish". It did not appear that a discussion was welcome. It is a genuine print, which played in theaters and has been in private hands. It is not from ebay or any other such source. The scans were done by a professional who shares my passion for the film.

I have been a member of this forum for 15 years and have never caused any problems or made false claims. I have no reason or motivation whatsoever to deceive or lie to anyone here. I just happen to be passionate about Raiders and wanted to discover once and for all what the theatrical version looked like. My caps are accurate. Even allowing for some variance due bulb temperature or other factors, you can still see a huge difference compared to the blu-ray. I have viewed this print extensively, along with Super 8 and 16mm sources. They all basically agree with each other. The blu-ray is revisionist and does not match the theatrical version in terms of color, brightness, contrast or soundtrack. It just doesn't. I'm sure Spielberg approved the blu-ray, just like he approved the previous 4 transfers (2 of which were heralded as restorations and were closer to the theatrical look). He decided to go with a more "modern" look, which is his perogative.

I'm not sure why this is so inflammatory or controversial, that wasn't my intent, but I will bow out of the discussion.

 

[Robert Harris]

Glad to see this thread is unlocked, I don't understand why there was such a fuss. My posts were respectful. As for the "mysterious" print, I have to be respectful of the owner. I offered to discuss privately but was told what I had was "worthless" and "rubbish". It did not appear that a discussion was welcome. It is a genuine print, which played in theaters and has been in private hands. It is not from ebay or any other such source. The scans were done by a professional who shares my passion for the film.

I have been a member of this forum for 15 years and have never been caused any problems or made false claims. I have no reason or motivation whatsoever to deceive or lie to anyone here. I just happen to be passionate about Raiders and wanted to discover once and for all what the theatrical version looked like. My caps are accurate. I have viewed this print extensively, along with Super 8 and 16mm sources. They all basically agree with each other. The blu-ray is revisionist and does not match the theatrical version in terms of color, brightness, contrast or soundtrack. It just doesn't. I'm sure Spielberg approved the changes, just like he approved the previous 4 transfers (2 of which were heralded as restorations). He just changed his mind, which is his choice.

I'm not sure why this is so inflammatory or controversial, but I will bow out of the discussion.

Dave,

You're postings have never been anything but respectful. No problem.

There are multiple IPs, from which multiple dupes are struck, and each IP imparts its own color timing, good or bad.

Any dupes, whatever their format, will all mimic the same basic color timing baked into the IP - 35, 16, whatever.

While I can't speak to blown out highlights, I can to the overall cyan look of that print. I also had a print, and it looked nothing like what has been posted.

Was it correct?

Can't be certain. But it appeared far more normal.

I did look at the negative and test scans, and can only tell you that all involved took things very seriously. Things were showing up in a 4k scan that never would have been revealed via theatrical projection.

The bottom line, is that the master was approved for home video c, 2007-8.

Could it look different for a 4k release?

Absolutely.

But neither a single 35mm print nor human memories are helpful. Nor are previous home video releases.

More detail within a previous transfer?

Certainly curious.

Let's see what we find when the film is released in UHD.

 

[Konstantinos]

Just to be clear, you're saying that Mr. Spielberg and the staffs of Amblin and Paramount, haven't a clue what the film was meant to look like?

I can't say about Raiders but I think we have some confirmed cases where the creators got a bit carried away by the technology and revised their films.
There are even double bluray releases to prove this.
I think Bram Stoker's Dracula is an example.
All versions (DVD and 2 Blurays) are supervised by the creators, aren't they?
Yet ALL have different colors.

The French Connection is another example with 2 BLuray releases which feature different color palettes, both supervised by the director.

 

[Robert Harris]

I can't say about Raiders but I think we have some confirmed cases where the creators got a bit carried away by the technology and revised their films.
There are even double bluray releases to prove this.
I think Bram Stoker's Dracula is an example.
All versions (DVD and 2 Blurays) are supervised by the creators, aren't they?
Yet ALL have different colors.

The French Connection is another example.

Sorry, but I must disagree. Dracula was transferred for the abilities of home video reproduction at a specific time. The latest transfer used newer technologies.

As to The French Connection, it was never publicized as original. As I recall, in my review, I called it an interesting experiment.

Here's the problem.

The technologies via which we view feature films, has been a constantly changing landscape, which really only enabled us to replicate the look of film c. 2007. It has recently been upgraded again.

I cannot speak for others, only for myself.

I use specific reference, and match, as closely as possible to that reference, as the technology allows.

Examine certain shots that have come under criticism in Drscula, and you'll find, looking at the OCN and its scans, that there is nowhere to go in certain shots. The OCN zips simply too thin.

We have many naysayers, reviewing the work of professionals, who don't understand why certain things are as they appear.

One cannot use prints, videos or human memory of some odd screening, as reference.

It just doesn't work that way.

RAH

 

[Dave MJ]

Dave,

You're postings have never been anything but respectful. No problem.

There are multiple IPs, from which multiple dupes are struck, and each IP imparts its own color timing, good or bad.

Any dupes, whatever their format, will all mimic the same basic color timing baked into the IP - 35, 16, whatever.

While I can't speak to blown out highlights, I can to the overall cyan look of that print. I also had a print, and it looked nothing like what has been posted.

Was it correct?

Can't be certain. But it appeared far more normal.

I did look at the negative and test scans, and can only tell you that all involved took things very seriously. Things were showing up in a 4k scan that never would have been revealed via theatrical projection.

The bottom line, is that the master was approved for home video c, 2007-8.

Could it look different for a 4k release?

Absolutely.

But neither a single 35mm print nor human memories are helpful. Nor are previous home video releases.

More detail within a previous transfer?

Certainly curious.

Let's see what we find when the film is released in UHD.

Thanks, I appreciate your expertise and insight.

 

[Carabimero]

Sorry, but I must disagree. Dracula was transferred for the abilities of home video reproduction at a specific time. The latest transfer used newer technologies.

As to The French Connection, it was never publicized as original. As I recall, in my review, I called it an interesting experiment.

Here's the problem.

The technologies via which we view feature films, has been a constantly changing landscape, which really only enabled us to replicate the look of film c. 2007. It has recently been upgraded again.

I cannot speak for others, only for myself.

I use specific reference, and match, as closely as possible to that reference, as the technology allows.

Examine certain shots that have come under criticism in Drscula, and you'll find, looking at the OCN and its scans, that there is nowhere to go in certain shots. The OCN zips simply too thin.

We have many naysayers, reviewing the work of professionals, who don't understand why certain things are as they appear.

One cannot use prints, videos or human memory of some odd screening, as reference.

It just doesn't work that way.

RAH

Thanks for sharing your expertise, Mr. Harris. I appreciate it.

 

[Konstantinos]

Sorry, but I must disagree. Dracula was transferred for the abilities of home video reproduction at a specific time. The latest transfer used newer technologies.


RAH

So, you're saying that this particular shot here (you can move the cursor up and down to see the comparison)
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=6625&d2=6626&s1=62425&s2=62447&i=8&l=0

had a golden brown tint from the very beginning that was only revealed by the 4K scan, but the previous HD scan used in the previous Bluray couldn't reveal or translate right due to limitations of technology?

And if the brown tint was supposed to be there by default, why didn't they color correct the first HD scan, since obviously it never came as it was supposed to and we got that grey instead?
I'm trying to understand how things work..

 

[cb1]

I love these conversations! makes me appreciate the passion that goes into restoration more. Thank you all!

 

[Lord Dalek]

I still think bulb wattage is a factor in this argument.

 

[Dave MJ]

I still think bulb wattage is a factor in this argument.

 

[Bryan^H]

I recently saw Raiders Of The Lost Ark at my local Cinema. Founders Brewing Co. is having an ongoing series of classic films, with beer.

https://celebrationcinema.com/movie/Brewed+For+Film:+Raiders+Of+The+Lost+Ark
The Blu Ray projected on a large screen looked fantastic. The beer was pretty good.

 

[Dave H]

Dave,

You're postings have never been anything but respectful. No problem.

There are multiple IPs, from which multiple dupes are struck, and each IP imparts its own color timing, good or bad.

Any dupes, whatever their format, will all mimic the same basic color timing baked into the IP - 35, 16, whatever.

While I can't speak to blown out highlights, I can to the overall cyan look of that print. I also had a print, and it looked nothing like what has been posted.

Was it correct?

Can't be certain. But it appeared far more normal.

I did look at the negative and test scans, and can only tell you that all involved took things very seriously. Things were showing up in a 4k scan that never would have been revealed via theatrical projection.

The bottom line, is that the master was approved for home video c, 2007-8.

Could it look different for a 4k release?

Absolutely.

But neither a single 35mm print nor human memories are helpful. Nor are previous home video releases.

More detail within a previous transfer?

Certainly curious.

Let's see what we find when the film is released in UHD.

Points understood. But it would confuse me even more if Raiders in UHD is radically different from the Blu-ray in terms of color, contrast, and shadows (unless they somehow incorporated HDR).