Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[You Got The Ag]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Does Criterion own La Strada and Nights of Cabiria again? I got impatient and bought the Studio Canal release of Cabiria from earlier this year. It's a pretty nice restoration.

The Lack of rights to certain Fellini titles is what worries me about that boxset. As far as I know they Don't own the US rights to the following major Fellini films: La Strada, Cabiria, Toby Damnit, Casanova, City of Women. And those are just the bigger titles, there are more they don't have rights to, lets hope Criterion has an ace up their sleeve!

On Topic: With regards to the Atmos score, I'm not expecting it to be a modern blockbuster, but will the Jarre score possibly sound better than the Blu-ray DTS-HD? I always thought it sounded the slightest bit flat.

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by You Got The Ag

The Lack of rights to certain Fellini titles is what worries me about that boxset. As far as I know they Don't own the US rights to the following major Fellini films: La Strada, Cabiria, Toby Damnit, Casanova, City of Women. And those are just the bigger titles, there are more they don't have rights to, lets hope Criterion has an ace up their sleeve!

On Topic: With regards to the Atmos score, I'm not expecting it to be a modern blockbuster, but will the Jarre score possibly sound better than the Blu-ray DTS-HD? I always thought it sounded the slightest bit flat.

They have always and still continue to own the rights to La Strada, its just between print runs which is probably due to the box set coming. Casanova is Universal who continuously do business with C and its been speculated that they most likely have Cabiria back too. The others Im sure they can work out licensing deals with whoever else owns them.

[nightrained]

How does it compare to the Amazon prime digital edition which didn't have Atmos or HDR

[sonyfanboy]

Vudu stream got upgraded to Dolby Vision.

[LordoftheRings]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxqS...ature=youtu.be

Me too, I want it separate. Perhaps Spring 2021?
I can wait, I got time, plenty of time.

[LordoftheRings]

Some background on Lawrence of Arabia; the man, the legend, some tragic truth ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6yS...ature=youtu.be

[heinzw]

Oh boy is this UHD amazing. Easily one of the best presentations of a classic film on the format. Absolutely beautiful.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by heinzw

Oh boy is this UHD amazing. Easily one of the best presentations of a classic film on the format. Absolutely beautiful.

And Spartacus, hopefully, is next.

[Ricky G]

Man, I really want this but I don't wanna shill out for the whole collection!!!!

[CHONK!]

@Ricky G - I felt the same way, so I just bought the 4K Digital from Vudu, it’s only $7.99 right now.

Seems like a good compromise.

[amarster]

Originally Posted by Ricky G

Man, I really want this but I don't wanna shill out for the whole collection!!!!

Yeah, this Strangelove and Gandhi are the only ones I want!

[Ricky G]

The price is a big factor, but I also just don't want to have that giant boxset take up so much space on my shelves.

[Dubstar]

I've only watched the first disc, so I can't comment on the whole movie, but generally it's an outstanding transfer, outside of one starscape shot which didn't have the inky black levels I was expecting, I'm assuming it's the way it was captured on 'film' - the colors in Dolby Vision have such a wonderful textualization and sharpness to the overall image.

[heinzw]

Dubstar, I think you mean the second night sky shot with the moon? That one has always looked "off", almost like it's stock footage perhaps? After that beautiful starry sky shot moments before, it is a bit jarring. The heat damage (vertical lines) are still there in certain desert shots, but they seemed fainter than the on the BD, less distracting, but I haven't watched LoA for about two years so not too certain there. Maybe I was just distracted admiring the lovely new transfer. Seriously, forget your Blu-ray, once you see this you won't ever watch any other version. It really is THAT much better.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by heinzw

Dubstar, I think you mean the second night sky shot with the moon? That one has always looked "off", almost like it's stock footage perhaps? After that beautiful starry sky shot moments before, it is a bit jarring. The heat damage (vertical lines) are still there in certain desert shots, but they seemed fainter than the on the BD, less distracting, but I haven't watched LoA for about two years so not too certain there. Maybe I was just distracted admiring the lovely new transfer. Seriously, forget your Blu-ray, once you see this you won't ever watch any other version. It really is THAT much better.

thanks for pointing that out, guess I never noticed that til now, seeing all the 65mm shots in 4K IS quite a marvel.

[Rizor]

Watched this last night and it's as terrific as you'd expect.

The movie's 65mm cinematography is among the very best and the restoration work is great. One of the benefits "Lawrence" has over many films of its age is how damn good it's always looked. While there are some minor print issues to be seen (such as the aforementioned vertical heat damage in certain earlier desert shots), it's devoid of many of the flaws you'd expect from classic movies. There aren't any notably poor looking dupes or opticals. The fades and transitions are all remarkably crisp and clean. Detail and clarity is strong and colors are vibrant. Like the 2012 Blu-ray release, there are some edge halos around objects and characters during several shots but the footage does not exhibit any other signs of untoward digital noise reduction or sharpening in my eyes. Perhaps they're dupes, only they look much more detailed than these types of shots in other restorations. I'm reminded of all the ringing on the DVD releases and what a miracle this restoration is compared to that.

On the audio front, I found that the new Atmos track actually seemed to smooth out some of the re-recorded dialogue that stuck out on the previous versions - namely the dubbed Alec Guinness lines when he's talking to the Jackson Bentley character shortly after the intermission. There used to be some tone differences that stuck out when it cut to the re-recorded dialogue, but it sounds much more consistent now.

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by Ricky G

The price is a big factor, but I also just don't want to have that giant boxset take up so much space on my shelves.

They’re all in their own plastic cases, so you could toss the box and sell the titles you don’t want.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Rizor

Watched this last night and it's as terrific as you'd expect.

The movie's 65mm cinematography is among the very best and the restoration work is great. One of the benefits "Lawrence" has over many films of its age is how damn good it's always looked. While there are some minor print issues to be seen (such as the aforementioned vertical heat damage in certain earlier desert shots), it's devoid of many of the flaws you'd expect from classic movies. There aren't any notably poor looking dupes or opticals. The fades and transitions are all remarkably crisp and clean. Detail and clarity is strong and colors are vibrant. Like the 2012 Blu-ray release, there are some edge halos around objects and characters during several shots but the footage does not exhibit any other signs of untoward digital noise reduction or sharpening in my eyes. Perhaps they're dupes, only they look much more detailed than these types of shots in other restorations. I'm reminded of all the ringing on the DVD releases and what a miracle this restoration is compared to that.

On the audio front, I found that the new Atmos track actually seemed to smooth out some of the re-recorded dialogue that stuck out on the previous versions - namely the dubbed Alec Guinness lines when he's talking to the Jackson Bentley character shortly after the intermission. There used to be some tone differences that stuck out when it cut to the re-recorded dialogue, but it sounds much more consistent now.

Owing to the way that 65mm shows were edited, the fades and dissolves should all be first generation quality (unless they contain a different optical effect in the adjoining pieces of film). The mild haloing that's still visible in the Blu (I don't have the 4K yet) has always looked more more like Mackie lines to me, which is a photochemical effect where high contrast edges can 'bleed' out slightly during developing.

[algoncer]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I've only watched the first disc, so I can't comment on the whole movie, but generally it's an outstanding transfer, outside of one starscape shot which didn't have the inky black levels I was expecting, I'm assuming it's the way it was captured on 'film' - the colors in Dolby Vision have such a wonderful textualization and sharpness to the overall image.

This shot is an optical effect. Two images put together, one for the stars on the left and one for the Moon on the right. Nowadays it´s not possible to expose both the Moon and the stars properly at the same time (different brightness) without digital trickery, let alone 60 years ago. Moreover, I don´t think the stars could be photographed separately in 1962 because of the film speed and star trailing. I can´t check the image right now but I guess they are fake.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by Ricky G

The price is a big factor, but I also just don't want to have that giant boxset take up so much space on my shelves.

It's far from a giant box set, it's pretty small actually.