Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Jr7936]

As much as I think the discs should only be part of the set. If they made the classics discs different from the standard 4k set I would be OK with it
AKA maybe not include all the features, just something different, other then not including a slip and probably different artwork.

Originally Posted by useless watcher

Next year is the 60th anniversary. I would be surprised if they let it pass without issuing a standalone.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by useless watcher

Next year is the 60th anniversary. I would be surprised if they let it pass without issuing a standalone.

Yeah I agree that it would be silly for Sony to not release some sort of anniversary edition. Given how scarce Vol 1 is, I would say the chances are pretty high at this point that we'll get a standalone.

[JG7]

Originally Posted by Jr7936

As much as I think the discs should only be part of the set.

Why? I own the disc, I own the set, but I don't see why this should be the case. The set is supposed to help with the sale of other classics and it already did. Sony would be silly not to release it next year.

[Dubliner1]

Originally Posted by Jerry2345

Do we know whether the single 4K release will also include the bonus disc? Because I notice the Indian release is barebones…

I’ve really been dying to see the deleted balcony scene (well, it’s not really a ‘deleted’ scene, more a scene which used to be part of the movie, but which was not reinstated because, as I understand, the director died before he could give his ok…)

I must say, I really HATE the way Sony has been handling the releases of this movie. First, in 2012, there was a regular 2-disc edition, which soon was available for about 10 EUR, and a gift collectors set, with a huge book, a soundtrack cd and an additional third bonus disc (which included the abovementioned balcony scene), which I recall went for approx 100 EUR. Problem was, as I was not interested in the huge book or the soundtrack cd, the only real appeal of the gift collector’s set to me was the balcony scene. And I really consider it ridiculous to pay 90 EUR extra for a 7 min scene (including introduction, so I guess the exact scene is probably quite a bit shorter…). So I went with the regular edition, hoping that one day, a more affordable edition which included the balcony scene would be made available.

Finally, after 8 years of waiting, there finally is again a release of Lawrence of Arabia which includes the balcony scene. Except this time, it’s only available when bought together with five totally unrelated movies, two of which are American sports movies I don’t have the slightest interest in… So I decide to wait for the single release (which is taking forever, really). I actually have not yet switched to 4K, but I’m going to someday, and I’m happy to future proof (if there’s one movie I’d want to have in 4K, it would be Lawrence of Arabia), and that way I would already have the balcony scene in the meantime. And I really cannot bring myself to buy an expensive boxset which contains only a few movies I’m interested in, in a format I can’t play yet, just for a 7 min scene…

And then I see there is a single release in India…. which is totally barebones…

I’m starting to fear that the only way to ever see that scene is to pay for a whole lot of stuff I don’t really want (be it a huge book I wouldn’t know where to put, or movies I’m not interested in, in a format I can’t even play yet…), which really is driving me crazy… It’s getting so far that it’s basically ruining my experience of one of my favourite movies, as I almost can’t think of the movie anymore without getting worked up about this

Apologies for the rant, but I really needed to get that off my chest.

tl;dr: Will the single release of Lawrence of Arabia contain the bonus disc with the balcony scene? If not, I’ll go crazy

...I almost feel like throwing myself off a balcony after reading this rant...

[hariseldon]

I really don't understand why the "Is this going to get released" post keeps happening.

Is there really someone on this board who believes an Actual Release would be announced and NOT have 8 thread immediately pop up celebrating it, then denigrating it, then complaining about why it took so long, then complaining about something being left off/the price/the packaging/who selling it/why preorders are being slow to appear

[okayflint]

wow can’t imagine what happens during this balcony scene but it must be sick

[teddyballgame]

Originally Posted by okayflint

wow can’t imagine what happens during this balcony scene but it must be sick

top 5 balcony scene for sure

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by useless watcher

Next year is the 60th anniversary. I would be surprised if they let it pass without issuing a standalone.

It would be nice if it could get a fresh, modern, full restoration 6K or 8K scan for that standalone edition.

[Geoff D]

As much as I'd love that to happen (as the 2012 restoration isn't done any favours by HDR), it won't.

[punisher]

the Columbia Collection set 1 price is way overboard now, over 1K also someone here is doing us a "favor" by selling it for 500. When it first came out I bought a copy of LOA from a seller here. I also got the corrected bonus disc too from Columbia so I have it in a nice multi disc case that holds it all without compromising the slip cover. With no one selling it, not even on e-bay, I might list it for 2K...lol....Should it have been re-leased in a standalone by now?..yes...Will it?..I thinks so. There is a 4K copy out there from Japan but I have no clue how good that release is. Hopefully those that don't have it will get a chance to own it soon.

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As much as I'd love that to happen (as the 2012 restoration isn't done any favours by HDR), it won't.

Unfortunately I know your right about that.

However, what I never understood is a term you used in describing what's lacking visually in the last restoration with high frequency content or something like that?

I associate the term high frequency (or what ever term it is you use) to describe higher frequency with audio reproduction, but I don't know what it means visually.

What ever it is, you said it's lacking in that 2012 restoration.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thebarnman

Unfortunately I know your right about that.

However, what I never understood is a term you used in describing what's lacking visually in the last restoration with high frequency content or something like that?

I associate the term high frequency (or what ever term it is you use) to describe higher frequency with audio reproduction, but I don't know what it means visually.

What ever it is, you said it's lacking in that 2012 restoration.

Are you familiar with resolution test charts? Think of a multiburst with lots of thick lines at one end and lots of thin, tightly-packed lines at the other. The thicker lines are lower frequency and the thin lines are high frequency, the greater the latter can be resolved without moiré or looking like they're blending together the more fine detail can be resolved by whatever medium the pattern was intended for (film, video, projektion, direct view etc).

So, at a certain point in this UHD of Lawrence that fine 65mm detail is being filtered off vs the streaming version. It still looks superbly detailed because it's Lawrence and because it's 65mm and because it got an 8K scan for this 4K restoration, you'd have to work hard to make it look bad, but for whatever reasons Sony took a little off the top.

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Are you familiar with resolution test charts? Think of a multiburst with lots of thick lines at one end and lots of thin, tightly-packed lines at the other. The thicker lines are lower frequency and the thin lines are high frequency, the greater the latter can be resolved without moiré or looking like they're blending together the more fine detail can be resolved by whatever medium the pattern was intended for (film, video, projektion, direct view etc).

So, at a certain point in this UHD of Lawrence that fine 65mm detail is being filtered off vs the streaming version. It still looks superbly detailed because it's Lawrence and because it's 65mm and because it got an 8K scan for this 4K restoration, you'd have to work hard to make it look bad, but for whatever reasons Sony took a little off the top.

Hi, yes I've seen those test patterns and thanks for the detailed description. Now I know what you mean, but that is odd that Sony took a little off the top. Obviously now, nothing will replace that fine detail except a fresh scan that doesn't clip off that higher frequency information.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thebarnman

Hi, yes I've seen those test patterns and thanks for the detailed description. Now I know what you mean, but that is odd that Sony took a little off the top. Obviously now, nothing will replace that fine detail except a fresh scan that doesn't clip off that higher frequency information.

It's there in the "scan", just not in the UHD iteration of that master.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's there in the "scan", just not in the UHD iteration of that master.

Are they gonna save it for the 65th anniversary reissue?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by punisher

the Columbia Collection set 1 price is way overboard now, over 1K also someone here is doing us a "favor" by selling it for 500. When it first came out I bought a copy of LOA from a seller here. I also got the corrected bonus disc too from Columbia so I have it in a nice multi disc case that holds it all without compromising the slip cover. With no one selling it, not even on e-bay, I might list it for 2K...lol....Should it have been re-leased in a standalone by now?..yes...Will it?..I thinks so. There is a 4K copy out there from Japan but I have no clue how good that release is. Hopefully those that don't have it will get a chance to own it soon.

I failed to pull the trigger on Vol 1 and it was too late. Was close to buying the Italian set for £150 delivered but it had Italian writing and no slips. So kept waiting and finally found a nice soul in eBay UK. Paid £215 for the US set with digital code. Sold the digital codes for £15. So paid £200 for the set which I believe is not too bad. Taking no more chances with upcoming Classics set but it's not going to be as good as the first one as the films in the set do matter. If Sony releases couple of films from Vol 1 on its own with the slips, I expect the price of the boxset to tumble.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

why on Earth would a studio low pass filter a source for a UHD and not for streaming? maybe someone messed up and used the filtered version for UHD and the non-filtered for the streaming by accident? I mean the UHD has higher bitrate.

[Geoff D]

It does, but not by that much considering the UHD has an average of like 55 Mb/s or thereabouts despite being split over two discs and leaving plenty of room to spare on those discs. But there are certain aspects of the 2012 restoration that don't play nice in HDR because of how the higher range literally exposes areas that the SDR does not - the infamous stream was SDR - and so I wonder if they low pass filtered it a tiny bit to compensate.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It does, but not by that much considering the UHD has an average of like 55 Mb/s or thereabouts despite being split over two discs and leaving plenty of room to spare on those discs. But there are certain aspects of the 2012 restoration that don't play nice in HDR because of how the higher range literally exposes areas that the SDR does not - the infamous stream was SDR - and so I wonder if they low pass filtered it a tiny bit to compensate.

that is a bit curious bitrate considering

ah, if the stream was SDR then I guess that could explain it as they sometimes try to do a trace of filtering of brights if UHD makes the grain look unnaturally extreme (that said there should be more specially targeted ways to do this and just blanket lowpass every part of every frame, but movie studios tend to be somewaht more archaic in what they do)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

that is a bit curious bitrate considering

ah, if the stream was SDR then I guess that could explain it as they sometimes try to do a trace of filtering of brights if UHD makes the grain look unnaturally extreme (that said there should be more specially targeted ways to do this and just blanket lowpass every part of every frame, but movie studios tend to be somewaht more archaic in what they do)

Yeah, I think that's the point, it's just easier to filter it globally than roto/window the offending parts and dial them down a tad. But what I find curious is that Strangelove's 4K restoration is even older, like 2004 or thereabouts (IIRC it was the first full 4K remaster for a black and white film), and doesn't even come from camera negative, yet it looks far more consistent in 4K HDR. They do say in the restoration notes that these movies had more work done on them for the HDR remasters, but neither got a brand new 'restoration' as such. I guess Lawrence's 2012 resto had such damaged source elements to contend with that the extensive digital fixes just show up more in HDR.