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

[TravisR]

...I wasn't previously aware that the DVD's were missing frames...

More knowledgable folks can correct me if I'm wrong but it only would be noticable when the change between 'old' and 'new' footage was one continuous shot.

 

[William Ross]

While I was unable to make it, I can confirm that there was no additional footage. The film is locked at 217/27.
That does not mean that additional footage may not appear on the Blu-ray.
RAH

It's locked? Darn! So if we get it at all, it'll be as a special feature. Oh well.

 

[Vincent_P]

More knowledgable folks can correct me if I'm wrong but it only would be noticable when the change between 'old' and 'new' footage was one continuous shot.

Correct, you won't see it if the restored footage happens at a scene cut. One reconstructed shot early on where you can see one of the small jumps is when Lawrence is leaving his friends in the basement to see the general and the one guy turns to the other and says, "He's balmy!" Watch Lawrence in the background and you'll see him suddenly jump ahead where a frame or two are missing.
Vincent

 

[Michel_Hafner]

What happened was, whenever a negative is cut, frames are lost at the cut points. Since LOA was recut more than once after it's initial release, and later put back together by Robert Harris and his team, frames were inevitably lost at points where cuts to the negative were made. The result is an occasional "jump" at a point where footage has been restored and a frame or two has been lost at the point where the cut was made and Robert reinstated the footage. What Bill is saying is that those occasional jumps are still present, just as they were when Robert Harris restored the film back in the late 1980s.
Vincent

I wish they had interpolated the missing frames as this can be done now in a seamless way that shows no artifacts at 24 fps playback. Fixing the audio for this should be no big deal either.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/1920#post_3951962
I wish they had interpolated the missing frames as this can be done now in a seamless way that shows no artifacts at 24 fps playback. Fixing the audio for this should be no big deal either.

Again, it cannot be changed.

The film is locked, as approved by David Lean, and as restrained by c. 1987- 88 technology.

While we could do fixes now, we are not authorized to do so.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

I call your attention to the final graph in Jeff Wells' piece beginning with the words "Before the screening..." I'm not in a position to discuss as yet, but this may answer some questions.

RAH

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/07/radiant_spotles.php

 

[Stefan Andersson]

Adding the balcony scene as an extra on the Blu would be very welcome indeed.
Hopefully the extra would include the full scene, not just the missing bits, thus making it easier for viewers to follow the words, and their implications, between Lawrence and Allenby.
I suggest subtitling Allenby´s lines as the easiest, most economically feasible means of making the scene understandable to viewers.
I also suggest using seamless branching to give viewers the option to view the whole balcony scene while playing the film. But maybe this would go against the film as locked and approved by DL. To a layman like me the subject seems like a grey area.
Just giving my personal opinions on the subject before the Blu contents are locked.
BTW, Mr. Finney´s screen test would also be a first class extra on the Blu. There has been very little discussion on the subject in this thread. AFAIK it was quite ambitious and could probably be seen as yet another interesting part of DL´s filmography.

 

[DSmith1984]

Correct, you won't see it if the restored footage happens at a scene cut. One reconstructed shot early on where you can see one of the small jumps is when Lawrence is leaving his friends in the basement to see the general and the one guy turns to the other and says, "He's balmy!" Watch Lawrence in the background and you'll see him suddenly jump ahead where a frame or two are missing.
Vincent

I watched this just now on the Sony Movie Classics version on my DVR. I looked and looked and just couldn't tell where it was. As a former editor in college, I must say well done to RAH for such a seamless job. I wasn't a film editor, just video for television but I know it takes special skills and talent to be good at it. Well done.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Stefan Andersson /t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/1950#post_3951977
Adding the balcony scene as an extra on the Blu would be very welcome indeed.
Hopefully the extra would include the full scene, not just the missing bits, thus making it easier for viewers to follow the words, and their implications, between Lawrence and Allenby.
I suggest subtitling Allenby´s lines as the easiest, most economically feasible means of making the scene understandable to viewers.
I also suggest using seamless branching to give viewers the option to view the whole balcony scene while playing the film. But maybe this would go against the film as locked and approved by DL. To a layman like me the subject seems like a grey area.
Just giving my personal opinions on the subject before the Blu contents are locked.
BTW, Mr. Finney´s screen test would also be a first class extra on the Blu. There has been very little discussion on the subject in this thread. AFAIK it was quite ambitious and could probably be seen as yet another interesting part of DL´s filmography.

The test was edited by Ann Coates.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

The Academy screening handout, as posted elsewhere:

I'll make a single correction, lest things get confused. It should also be acknowledged that the comments as written are edited for brevity.

The film has undergone one reconstruction, and two restorations, one in 1988, and one completed in 2012. Our restoration, which was obviously analogue, replaced damaged shots with material printed from the sep masters, the replacement of damaged head and tail sections of multiple shots from trims, and the use of alternate takes for some missing or heavily damaged material. The use of trims and alternates being totally transparent to the completed film.

That understood, it is also important to understand that some damage correction, that we were unable to perfect in 1987-88 has been further corrected digitally.

The two restorations, as a sum total, have made the film as beautiful as it can ever be.

RAH

 

[owen35]

Correct, you won't see it if the restored footage happens at a scene cut. One reconstructed shot early on where you can see one of the small jumps is when Lawrence is leaving his friends in the basement to see the general and the one guy turns to the other and says, "He's balmy!" Watch Lawrence in the background and you'll see him suddenly jump ahead where a frame or two are missing.
Vincent

There is another moment of a missing frame or two in the scene that occurs after the intermission between Prince Feisel (Guiness) and Bentley (Kennedy). Feisel is talking about the war with Bentley and says "One figure I can give from my head because it never leaves my head." the shot continues but there is a minor jump cut as Feisel continues to say "Since starting this campaign 4 months ago...." Listening to the audio you can clearly hear a difference in Guiness' vocal tonality indicating that the "One figure" sequence was a restored sequence whereas the continuation of the "Since starting" moment was from the original (edited) footage.

 

[ReggieW]

The Samuel Goldwyn always gives out beautiful glossy programs on coated paper - I always save them. The one for Sleeping Beauty last week was also a keeper.
I can't way to see the forthcoming programs for 2001 and Spartacus next month!
The screening itself was fantastic. The event, at tleast for me, made a strong case why films like this should be seen in a large theater with an enthusiastic crowd (there were about 1100 there for the screening). I was just as moved by the audience interaction as I was the beautiful 4K restoration. I had an interesting discussion with an elderly couple sitting next to me about the historical T.E. Lawrence before the show started - something you'd never do with a run of the mill audience.

 

[Kevin EK]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]I'm just getting caught up on this thread.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]I was grateful to be able to attend the screening on Thursday night at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater. Along with the DGA Theater on Sunset Blvd, it is absolutely the finest place to see a movie presented in Los Angeles. [/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]Prior to this screening, I had never seen Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen,so this was an incredible opportunity.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]Bill Hunt's description of the event is fairly accurate, and he even provides a scan of the program we were issued upon entering the theater. Grover Crisp's brief remarks about the movie were fairly specific. I understood him to be saying that the 8K scan was done of the OCN - and specifically that this would be of David Lean's Director's Cut as restored by RAH. The additional footage of the balcony scene is not a part of this presentation, nor has anything been re-inserted into the movie itself since the Director's Cut. That said, the end credits have been slightly extended to include the people who worked on the 2012 release.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]Mr. Crisp's After/Before demonstration of the condition of the actual negative was quite effective. He presented several brief shots as they appear in the new 4K presentation. He then presented the same shots, as they would appear without any restorative work. All of the shots showed a certain amount of damage and distress. Most problematic are the actual cracks and creases in the negative, which Mr. Crisp took additional time to discuss. A further clip was shown, with a zoom in to the crease, which resembled a zipper or what RAH has charmingly described as a "dry lake bed". Mr. Crisp discussed that this damage is all over the negative, and it doesn't just show up in one area of frames here and there. It moves around, not appearing in the same places every time. Visually, the damage appears as solid pillars or columns on the negative. Mr. Crisp mentioned that they had to develop entirely new software to deal with the problem - this is not something that can just be fixed by just replacing the information with material from the prior frame.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]Watching the movie itself after Mr. Crisp's presentation was a revelation. First, the movie reallly MOVES. For a nearly four-hour event, the time really flew by. The story, the direction, the presentation and the performances are mesmerizing. The depth of color was breathtaking, from the red-orange sunrise, to the water scene at Aquaba to the rich blue cloth worn I believe by Omar Sharif later in the movie. The color of the wood in the table at the Arab Council is another good example. [/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]During intermission, I spoke with a filmmaker in the upper seating area outside the theater doors. We noted that some of the shots and sequences, like the charge on Aquaba or the plane attack on Faisal's people, are not only amazing examples of staging - they're also the kind of thing that if somebody blows their cue or doesn't perform correctly, you then spend a whole day trying to reset. My question to him was "What happens when you have to do Take 2?" His response, which I enjoyed, was "You mean the reset where you want to blow your brains out?" (When I was a trainee, I remember Jerry Ziesmer telling us a story about shooting Apocalypse Now, specifically the shot where the PBR arrives at the Kurtz compound and all the natives are standing in their boats wearing the white body paint. During the first take of this, partway through the shot, the natives, who were used to fishing in those waters, saw fish for the catching and they all jumped into the drink. All the body paint gone in seconds. No way to do another take til tomorrow. Always a fun moment for an Assistant Director when David Lean or Francis Coppola is watching their whole day go out the window...)[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]The movie looks very good in the 4K presentation, but I do need to add a caveat. This isn't about the occasional missing frames, which are evident when those moments pop up. Nor is it about a couple of moments where it's clear that the dialogue is coming from later looping that doesn't always match. Those are things that are part of the movie - really, part of the Director's Cut, and there isn't a "fix" for them. The caveat has to do with the pillar/column effect which appears in multiple shots. The first time I really noticed it was during the night portion of Lawrence's initial journey into the desert with his ill-fated guide. I initially thought this was something to do with the screen or the projection, but it didn't pop up in every shot. Multiple times in the movie, particularly during some grand panning shots across the desert, I could see the echoes of pillars/columns in various places on the screen. They shifted a bit, almost like the boxes I remember seeing dance around the spaceships in the original theatrical cuts of the Star Wars movies. The problem was less pronounced during the second half of the movie, but it still popped up. One shot in particular, an up-angle of Lawrence directly after the "No Prisoners" massacre as the American reporter finds him, has a solid vertical line to the left of Lawrence. None of this is a problem in the restoration, and I don't want to be interpreted as saying that. It's simply an illustration of how much detail the 8K scan brought out from what is a severely damaged negative. And there is only so much that even the finest restoration work can do. I should also note that I was sitting in the 8th or 9th row, in the center section, approximately five seats in from the right center aisle.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]I believe that this will be visible on home theater setups, particularly on the larger screen projection setups. This could be misconstrued as a problem with the transfer or with the production of the Blu-rays. But it's actually a result of the condition of the negative. There will undoubtedly be people who will either review this title or will comment on reviews about this and make some comments in an uninformed direction, and I am concerned there will be some carping about it. I believe that RAH's continuing conversation with Mr. Crisp, as published here, will help illuminate this situation. And I feel fortunate to know that RAH can be here to be able to answer these questions. With that thought, and with RAH's permission, I'm going to quote here his thoughts on this matter:[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]"Much of the damage that had to be dealt with after the 8k scans of the negative, were covered to a major degree by our ability to use wet gate printing,[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]toward the manufacture of both our final original print, as well as our interpositives. While the wet gate may not have made these problems totally[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]invisible, it was able to tone them down considerably.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]The 8k scans brought them front and center, and in almost a daring manner, taunting one to try to get them out. The situation brings to mind an old[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]animated TV commercial, as I recall for some brand of vacuum cleaner, with all of the animated dust and dirt happily living deep in the carpet piles,[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]thinking they are impervious to even the best vacuums.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]I consider Mr. Crisp's desire to work from our original in the same league as Lawrence crossing Sinai (with the boys).[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]"He is mad," but in the best way possible, especially as he needed to do it within full visibility of a corporate structure and budgetary feasibility.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black]He took on that challenge, and I can only think of one other person foolish enough to have gone that route." RAH[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE= 14px][COLOR= black] [/COLOR][/SIZE]

 

[haineshisway]

Mr. Crisp's single, self-effacing comment was everything he needed to say about any caveats (and there are a minor handful) - "Is it perfect? No."

 

[OliverK]

There will undoubtedly be people who will either review this title or will comment on reviews about this and make some comments in an uninformed direction, and I am concerned there will be some carping about it. I believe that RAH's continuing conversation with Mr. Crisp, as published here, will help illuminate this situation. And I feel fortunate to know that RAH can be here to be able to answer these questions.  With that thought, and with RAH's permission, I'm going to quote here his thoughts on this matter:
"Much of the damage that had to be dealt with after the 8k scans of the negative, were covered to a major degree by our ability to use wet gate printing,
toward the manufacture of both our final original print, as well as our interpositives.  While the wet gate may not have made these problems totally
invisible, it was able to tone them down considerably.
The 8k scans brought them front and center, and in almost a daring manner, taunting one to try to get them out.  The situation brings to mind an old
animated TV commercial, as I recall for some brand of vacuum cleaner, with all of the animated dust and dirt happily living deep in the carpet piles,
thinking they are impervious to even the best vacuums.
I consider Mr. Crisp's desire to work from our original in the same league as Lawrence crossing Sinai (with the boys).
"He is mad," but in the best way possible, especially as he needed to do it within full visibility of a corporate structure and budgetary feasibility.
He took on that challenge, and I can only think of one other person foolish enough to have gone that route."  RAH
 

Starting work with an 8k scan from the original 65 mm negative is so costly that so far the only classic movies it has been done for were Ben Hur and LoA, I hope it will be done more often in the future

 

[JParker]

Kevin, thanks for the update; this whole project is a minor miracle and readers here know that the best than can be done was done.
You wrote:

The movie looks very good in the 4K presentation, but I do need to add a caveat. This isn't about the occasional missing frames, which are evident when those moments pop up. Nor is it about a couple of moments where it's clear that the dialogue is coming from later looping that doesn't always match. Those are things that are part of the movie - really, part of the Director's Cut, and there isn't a "fix" for them. The caveat has to do with the pillar/column effect which appears in multiple shots. The first time I really noticed it was during the night portion of Lawrence's initial journey into the desert with his ill-fated guide. I initially thought this was something to do with the screen or the projection, but it didn't pop up in every shot. Multiple times in the movie, particularly during some grand panning shots across the desert, I could see the echoes of pillars/columns in various places on the screen. They shifted a bit, almost like the boxes I remember seeing dance around the spaceships in the original theatrical cuts of the Star Wars movies. The problem was less pronounced during the second half of the movie, but it still popped up. One shot in particular, an up-angle of Lawrence directly after the "No Prisoners" massacre as the American reporter finds him, has a solid verticle line to the left of Lawrence. None of this is a problem in the restoration, and I don't want to be interpreted as saying that. It's simply an illustration of how much detail the 8K scan brought out from what is a severely damaged negative. And there is only so much that even the finest restoration work can do. I should also note that I was sitting in the 8th or 9th row, in the center section, approximately five seats in from the right center aisle.

Now, let me put forward some thoughts, as an interested layman, although I hope the question isn't awkward. The image states Prasad EFX of India (a firm I've no knowledge of personally) did clean up work. With the immense server farms at Sony Picture Imageworks, was any contact made with these bright people to "brainstorm" an out of the box solution? Would Reliance Mediaworks "proprietary" software ameliorated this unusual damage, the firm that employs the work of the late John Lowry? Thus, my question is, were both these firms and others involved, would these "pillars" have been removed? I suspect such work would have taken, if possible, even more time and money beyond the budget and not improved the final product.
Links include: http://www.imageworks.com/
Example of The Robe restoration -- damage of a different kind, i.e., scratches: http://lowrydigital.com/
http://www.studiodaily.com/2008/11/working-over-the-robe-with-the-lowry-system/

Scratches are tougher, says Inchalik, since a scratch that moves might look like a telephone pole in the distance while the camera pans. “If my scratch is moving and the camera is stationary, it may tell that it’s not obeying the law of physics,” he says. “Still, you do need manual intervention to take out what the computer left in. The key is to make restorations affordable by making computers as smart as possible, and keep people working on the places where you need artistry.”

Obviously, Mr Harris knows all this backwards and forwards, but as you say, the average customer won't. Perhaps if the Blu-ray isn't finished yet, not the firm issues but the "flaw" you discovered can be written about or part of an audio commentary track.
On the whole, since no one else viewing above noticed, perhaps it's unobtrusive and I suspect not at all an impairment to the excellence of the restoration. I'm sure 99.9% of customers, other than a cranky, unreasonable lot, will be thrilled! Not to worry.
Added Reliance link as an F.Y.I. for projects, etc.

 

[Kevin EK]

I believe that everything that could possibly be done about the negative damage was done. The work I see in the 4K was of the highest quality. But the reality is that this is a severely damaged OCN.

Not everybody in the screening saw it. My friend who came with me did not see it at all - she was just caught up in the movie. But the filmmaker I spoke to at intermission absolutely did. We shrugged our shoulders - this is the reality of the negative and it doesn't detract from the tremendous achievement of both the movie and the restoration.

I only mentioned the matter to head off the kind of things that we've seen happen with prior releases, without mentioning any names. I just wanted to make sure people understood what the issue they were seeing was. It's all too easy on the internet for some to opine about PQ issues without having the facts in hand. And I don't exempt myself from that. It's just that in this case, I was able to see the best possible presentation and get the backstory. That's a luxury we don't normally get.

 

[JParker]

I believe that everything that could possibly be done about the negative damage was done.  The work I see in the 4K was of the highest quality.  But the reality is that this is a severely damaged OCN.
Not everybody in the screening saw it.  My friend who came with me did not see it at all - she was just caught up in the movie.  But the filmmaker I spoke to at intermission absolutely did.   We shrugged our shoulders - this is the reality of the negative and it doesn't detract from the tremendous achievement of both the movie and the restoration.
I only mentioned the matter to head off the kind of things that we've seen happen with prior releases, without mentioning any names.    I just wanted to make sure people understood what the issue they were seeing was.  It's all too easy on the internet for some to opine about PQ issues without having the facts in hand.   And I don't exempt myself from that.  It's just that in this case, I was able to see the best possible presentation and get the backstory.  That's a luxury we don't normally get.

Thanks; I just wondered since fixing such damage necessarily involves CGI, whether the talented artists at Sony Imageworks, who obviously (perhaps, I suspect) have never been involved with such a project, would have gotten a kick out of becoming involved and brainstormed a heretofore unimagined solution; except most likely it would entail hard work, money and adversely affect the film. I just have no idea; only Mr. Harris and his team can possibly know the answer, which most likely is in the negative, but maybe worthwhile to consider for the future, i.e., go to Imageworks as yet another Sony resource.
And now that you posted, and perhaps in the "Few Words" on the Blu-ray later this year, this "non-issue" can be nipped in the bud!
Changed become to becoming.

 

[Robert Harris]

deleted as duplicate

 

[Robert Harris]

deleted