Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[DR Herbert West]

Caps of Arabia

[ROSS.T.G.]

Good gravy... I need to open up my set and watch this.

[BamaDullard]

What am I missing here? I see a very minuscule upgrade over the blu-ray. I think the colors actually look a little worse on the new release.

[professorwho]

Since Caps a Holic does a simple HDR to SDR conversion, I don't think comparing color and brightness is a fair comparison here, as with any conversion, there is the possibility for error and inaccuracies.

As for detail... that's a totally valid comparison.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by BamaDullard

What am I missing here? I see a very minuscule upgrade over the blu-ray. I think the colors actually look a little worse on the new release.

It's weird how little upgrade in terms of detail LOA and 2001: ASO have over their 1080p counterparts, despite being shot on 65mm film. I'm talking about the remastered 1080p blu ray of 2001, not the old blu ray. I would've thought that the UHDs would expose oceans of new detail that weren't visible on the 1080p blu rays.

Those caps make the decision to spread the UHD over two discs look even more baffling.

[eChopper]

Alternatively , what caps-a-holic has posted doesn't reflect reality

because if it does the UHD looks like shitttFor65mm film

[SpinDoctor]

As someone who’s seen LOA more times than I can remember, and as a film that’s in my own personal Top 5, I pretty satisfied with the 4K disc. I totally agree it could look better, and I did expect a much bigger jump in fine detail, but to me the HDR saves the day. The improvement in color being the biggest beneficiary of the HDR grading. It’s a clear upgrade from the 1080p version as well as the sans-HDR 4K iTunes version (which has since been upgraded to DV). And again, could it look better? Sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that this is the best LOA has looked. I think some of the criticism is a little over the top, but Geoff seems to strike the right balance in his review. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy it again.

[Mister VistaVision]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

it was edited again in 1970, Lean agreeing to remove another 5 minutes but with a further 10 taken out for good measure, 15 minutes in total.

Actually there was footage put back in the 1970 prints that was missing from the 1963 general release prints. The 1-minute 20-second fireplace scene that was in the 1962 premiere prints was put in the 1970 prints. It was a big surprise seeing that for the first time back then.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by eChopper

Alternatively , what caps-a-holic has posted doesn't reflect reality

because if it does the UHD looks like shitttFor65mm film

I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that even though it's shot on 65mm, it's still 1960s film stock. It's not like it was shot on the most modern IMAX stock.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I think that it probably has something to do with the fact that even though it's shot on 65mm, it's still 1960s film stock. It's not like it was shot on the most modern IMAX stock.

Lens quality is probably also an issue, not just improving with time but generally larger format lenses will not have the same performance per negative/sensor area as smaller formats. it could I spose also be that 70mm scanners tech isn't quite as good as 35mm?

Your also dealing with a previous version that looks like it has quite a bit of edge enhancement on it so losing that in favour of real detail is part of the advantage.

[Geoff D]

I think it's a bit of everything with Lawrence. Expectations tell us that large format 65mm is like the greatest thing ever but the lenses and stocks used will always have a part to play and neither were as good then as they are now, so even 65mm can only do so much. (Change of subject slightly but I think that these elderly 65mm sources are close to maxing out in 4K resolution when the realities of real world image capture are factored in, rather than what it's capable of on paper. Not that an 8K restoration wouldn't reveal anything else but it would be fractions rather than some massive bump in detail.)

Then there's the restoration itself, it was done with the absolute best of technology at the time but does it deal with the demands of HDR as well as a 2020 do-over could do? I'd say no. But then I'm of the opinion that 2001:ASO's UHD - which was a brand new restoration - got more than a little tickle of "grain management" because Nolan didn't like how it reacted to the HDR (also on the bright side, like Lawrence), so perhaps they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Or maybe don't push so much light through them in HDR to begin with, JAWS being a lovely example of how a conservative HDR pass can still enhance without setting the whole thing on edge.

Then there's the demonstrable filtering that's been done to the UHD disc version of Lawrence vs a prior streaming 4K version, the UHD has still got more detail than the 1080p disc but it stops short of what it could be doing and that's really the main puzzler here.

[jh901]

A League Of Their Own image is staggering. Astonishing. Only 35mm. But there are other variables as discussed above. I accept the argument that Lawrence could look better, but I'd definitely also suggest that screening on a large screen delivers FAR more than any incremental image quality improvement (on a "perfect UHD") as viewed on 16x9 TV.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by jh901

A League Of Their Own image is staggering. Astonishing. Only 35mm. But there are other variables as discussed above. I accept the argument that Lawrence could look better, but I'd definitely also suggest that screening on a large screen delivers FAR more than any incremental image quality improvement (on a "perfect UHD") as viewed on 16x9 TV.

I don't know if they used the same master for the initial blu ray release that they used on the UHD for A League of Their Own, but League certainly shows a more noticeable upgrade over the 1080p counterpart than Lawrence. So does Jerry Maguire for that matter. Even though they're both 35mm films. Which indicates that the age of the film/film stock is a more important factor than its size.

I'm not trying to s**t on the LoA UHD or anything. If this was the first release since the DVD, everyone would be extremely impressed. It's just that when compared to the blu ray, it doesn't really stand out because the blu ray was so good to begin with and is known to be reference quality.

[PeterTHX]

I think people are missing the fact this thing needed TWO full (actual) restorations - one analog and one digital - to even get this film in the shape it's in now. Yeah, it was done in 2012 but they've spent millions of dollars over those 2 restorations.

That's the problem with people throwing out the term "restoration" with every 4K remaster that's had a couple scratch removals and simple color correction. It degrades the work done on actual film rebuilds like Lawrence, Spartacus, My Fair Lady, etc. Films that were close to being lost forever. I think it's a minor miracle Lawrence looks as good as it does when you consider the state it was in.

[awp69]

Originally Posted by zen007

I have seen the 4K SDR digital version many times. I am not too confident of the HDR UHD being significantly better (a game changer for e.g.). It is likely that many who are impressed by the disc have not compared it with the 4K SDR version

Probably in the minority here but digitally, I preferred the SDR version (compared for the brief time iTunes still had SDR and Vudu had HDR/DV). I actually think the SDR showed more detail, perhaps because of what Geoff noted in his review that HDR/DV brought out more artifacts.

Although blacks are not as black as they are with the HDR added, I actually preferred the color timing on the SDR better as well.

But the transfer still looks good on the whole. Just not as blown away as some people have been.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I think people are missing the fact this thing needed TWO full (actual) restorations - one analog and one digital - to even get this film in the shape it's in now. Yeah, it was done in 2012 but they've spent millions of dollars over those 2 restorations.

That's the problem with people throwing out the term "restoration" with every 4K remaster that's had a couple scratch removals and simple color correction. It degrades the work done on actual film rebuilds like Lawrence, Spartacus, My Fair Lady, etc. Films that were close to being lost forever. I think it's a minor miracle Lawrence looks as good as it does when you consider the state it was in.

This post should be at the top of the thread

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I don't know if they used the same master for the initial blu ray release that they used on the UHD for A League of Their Own, but League certainly shows a more noticeable upgrade over the 1080p counterpart than Lawrence. So does Jerry Maguire for that matter. Even though they're both 35mm films. Which indicates that the age of the film/film stock is a more important factor than its size.

A League of their own is a completely new master. They never scanned the OCN before. Same thing for Gandhi.

Again, when a new master is created of course the upgrade will be noticeable. Because the Blu-ray disc came up short

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I think people are missing the fact this thing needed TWO full (actual) restorations - one analog and one digital - to even get this film in the shape it's in now. Yeah, it was done in 2012 but they've spent millions of dollars over those 2 restorations.

That's the problem with people throwing out the term "restoration" with every 4K remaster that's had a couple scratch removals and simple color correction. It degrades the work done on actual film rebuilds like Lawrence, Spartacus, My Fair Lady, etc. Films that were close to being lost forever. I think it's a minor miracle Lawrence looks as good as it does when you consider the state it was in.

Ha! Knew you'd get your patented "this a real restoration!" gripe in there some how.

The minor miracle is one thing, for even if they couldn't avoid any of the restoration artefacts being shown up in HDR then filtering it for the UHD and lowballing the compression despite splitting it over two discs were completely avoidable and are the main points of contention, if anything they do a slight disservice to all the effort that's gone into it which is what's so damned odd about this.

They spent all that money, did all that work, then fumbled it over the line for the UHD disc. It looks as good as it does because of all the work that's gone into it, I mean they'd have to go out of their way to truly **** this up, but given how prestigious it is and how the previous restorations were 'the best of the best' at the time I'm baffled why the UHD mastering/encoding wasn't afforded the same treatment.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ha! Knew you'd get your patented "this a real restoration!" gripe in there some how.

A gripe shared by the people who do actual restorations - their hard work is reduced to a buzzword used to promote something like frikkin' Pitch Black. Like that 2000 film was rotting in some backwater warehouse...

The minor miracle is one thing, for even if they couldn't avoid any of the restoration artefacts being shown up in HDR then filtering it for the UHD and lowballing the compression despite splitting it over two discs were completely avoidable and are the main points of contention, if anything they do a slight disservice to all the effort that's gone into it which is what's so damned odd about this.

Grover Crisp's team did what they did for a reason. Could have been budget. Could have been they did tests and it may or may not have looked better...as in "it looks better but not $500K (or whatever $$$) better". We're all speculating here.

[birdztudio]

just finished the first disc... all i can say is what a great time to be alive...

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

We're all speculating here.

No. We're not. (Dammit. )You don't seem to get (or ignore it) that we're also looking at and comparing it with what's already out there and what is stemming from the same restoration. And the web rip has clearly more detail. It's just one cap, but I can basically see the same softness on the UHD throughout, so I think it safe to say that the UHD has been filtered throughout. And as Geoff said, according to your own words, filtering the fine detail degrades the hard work that went into the restoration. I wouldn't go that far, but disappointing is what I'll call it.

I see no reason for Lawrence looking that soft as I see no reason for Cliffhanger having fubar DNR in some scenes as I see no reason for My Girl coming with black crush (the latter finally being fixed, but introducing poor compresssion in exchange). Sometimes pointless stuff just happens and it does so with Sony as well.