Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[DawnShadow]

Back in stock at Amazon for $45.99. Doesn't seem to be low stock either.

[vector72]

Originally Posted by blakninja

How good (faithful) is the restoration work on this 4K version?

This is the same restoration used in the previous bluray. Otherwise, you may want to read paragraph 7 of the review linked below:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=531

[sephirothkefka]

Originally Posted by Toscaclarinet

I don't know if it will be confirmed until someone receives the reissue but looks like everyone is assuming it will be the same content. Content was the same between the Columbia vol 1 release and the later steelbook, doesn't make sense they would change now.

I bought the Amazon release a few weeks ago as a Columbia Classics Vol 1 box set I got at a good price 2 years ago had scratches on disc 1 for LOA (RIP). It worked but it was sensitive. The steelbook is 1:1 identical with the Columbia Classics release complete with the revised bonus features Bluray (the original Vol 1 had the wrong Bonus Bluray which curiously was already fixed in my boxset). The standard Bluray is identical to the 2012 Bluray.

[-shadow-]

Originally Posted by vector72

This is the same restoration used in the previous bluray. Otherwise, you may want to read paragraph 7 of the review linked below:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=531

Reading this atm and, while I was aware that the Original Negative wasn't in the best shape, this reads as if it's worse than I had thought. Have Sony (or other parties involved with the restoration) released any comparison screenshots in high quality of before and after? There's a few I can find, but they're all rather low resolution. Genuinely curious how it compares to the final product.

[matbezlima]

Sony had to develop new software to remove some cracks that were unlike anything they had ever encountered before. Due to horrible preservation, and the fact the film was shot on the desert, to say that the state of the original negative is horrendous is a gross understatement. The 2012 digital restoration was a miraculous job that took over two years and insane money to pull off.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

Sony had to develop new software to remove some cracks that were unlike anything they had ever encountered before. Due to horrible preservation, and the fact the film was shot on the desert, to say that the state of the original negative is horrendous is a gross understatement. The 2012 digital restoration was a miraculous job that took over two years and insane money to pull off.

The initial restoration of this was done in the late 1980s with Robert Harris. If they hadn't done that, the 2012 version would more than likely been impossible.
https://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/lawrence/index.htm

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by DawnShadow

Back in stock at Amazon for $45.99. Doesn't seem to be low stock either.

Horrendous pricing, seriously, I know demand is high but still, shameful.

[cupboy]

Originally Posted by MrJoeKalel

Horrendous pricing, seriously, I know demand is high but still, shameful.

I like the pricing. It makes sense. It keeps the scalpers away otherwise these would have already been all bought up by them and not available to people who actually want to play the discs, rather than those taking them for capitalism/investment reasons.

[NotASpeckOfCereal]

Originally Posted by cupboy

I like the pricing. It makes sense. It keeps the scalpers away otherwise these would have already been all bought up by them and not available to people who actually want to play the discs, rather than those taking them for capitalism/investment reasons.

The market selling this film for these high prices where a standard edition could be sold for sane prices (and people could still shell out more for a so-called "limited" fancy package) is definitely high capitalism.

Chris

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by cupboy

I like the pricing. It makes sense. It keeps the scalpers away otherwise these would have already been all bought up by them and not available to people who actually want to play the discs, rather than those taking them for capitalism/investment reasons.

I know here we all love this movie, but with the price, you can buy the Dark Knight Trilogy and 1917, that's my point. I mean, I still have the super edition and the Best But steel book, but this price is $10 too high...I guess this will be my Christmas gift for the next two years 😂

[samuelkhan999]

Originally Posted by sephirothkefka

I bought the Amazon release a few weeks ago as a Columbia Classics Vol 1 box set I got at a good price 2 years ago had scratches on disc 1 for LOA (RIP). It worked but it was sensitive. The steelbook is 1:1 identical with the Columbia Classics release complete with the revised bonus features Bluray (the original Vol 1 had the wrong Bonus Bluray which curiously was already fixed in my boxset). The standard Bluray is identical to the 2012 Bluray.

My disc 1 of LoA had some sort of deep scratch or laser burn as they would say in the says of xbox360. I kept on persevering SPHE and eventually got a replacement. How come you didn't pursue them?

[sephirothkefka]

Originally Posted by samuelkhan999

My disc 1 of LoA had some sort of deep scratch or laser burn as they would say in the says of xbox360. I kept on persevering SPHE and eventually got a replacement. How come you didn't pursue them?

I did however despite their promise for a replacement (and the fact I contacted during the discontinuation period of not only CCV1 but also the first run for the steels) they never did send it so I had no choice but to somehow procure another copy. Thankfully I managed to nab a reprint steel in pristine condition from Amazon and all was finally well (plus i never did like the stacked case the CC version uses).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The initial restoration of this was done in the late 1980s with Robert Harris. If they hadn't done that, the 2012 version would more than likely been impossible.
https://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/lawrence/index.htm

Ehhhhh. The negative was shot to hell and the 1980s 'restoration' did absolutely nothing to arrest its decline because there's nothing that can be done. You can't magically repair torn frames, faded frames, cracked frames, warped frames etc in the analogue space. It's why dupes were cut into whatever movie to replace damaged OG neg back in the day; they couldn't do anything more than that then and they can't do anything more now. They 'restored' the longer cut of Lawrence, yes, but the physical condition of the negative was extraordinarily poor and it will always remain so. The 2012 4K transfer got a leg up in terms of what cut to use but for image quality purposes they were basically starting from scratch, restoratively speaking.

That's what cracks me up every time you go on one of your "it's not a real restoration!!" tangents because what does that even mean? Actual 'film restoration' itself can't undo the ravages of time on the negative any more than 'digital restoration' can. You can clean the film photochemically, sure, and maybe reset any splices that have come undone, but that's pretty much it and the former can be done seamlessly in the digital space anyway.

[aibo]

Lawrence of Arabia is my all time favorite movie.
David Leans masterpiece look and sound amazing in 4K.

Must have disc in any collection.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ehhhhh. The negative was shot to hell and the 1980s 'restoration' did absolutely nothing to arrest its decline because there's nothing that can be done. You can't magically repair torn frames, faded frames, cracked frames, warped frames etc in the analogue space. It's why dupes were cut into whatever movie to replace damaged OG neg back in the day; they couldn't do anything more than that then and they can't do anything more now. They 'restored' the longer cut of Lawrence, yes, but the physical condition of the negative was extraordinarily poor and it will always remain so. The 2012 4K transfer got a leg up in terms of what cut to use but for image quality purposes they were basically starting from scratch, restoratively speaking.

That's what cracks me up every time you go on one of your "it's not a real restoration!!" tangents because what does that even mean? Actual 'film restoration' itself can't undo the ravages of time on the negative any more than 'digital restoration' can. You can clean the film photochemically, sure, and maybe reset any splices that have come undone, but that's pretty much it and the former can be done seamlessly in the digital space anyway.

So did they replaced the "original takes" which the negatives were damaged with "alternate takes" from negatives that were not damaged?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ehhhhh. The negative was shot to hell and the 1980s 'restoration' did absolutely nothing to arrest its decline because there's nothing that can be done. You can't magically repair torn frames, faded frames, cracked frames, warped frames etc in the analogue space. It's why dupes were cut into whatever movie to replace damaged OG neg back in the day; they couldn't do anything more than that then and they can't do anything more now. They 'restored' the longer cut of Lawrence, yes, but the physical condition of the negative was extraordinarily poor and it will always remain so. The 2012 4K transfer got a leg up in terms of what cut to use but for image quality purposes they were basically starting from scratch, restoratively speaking.

Having Peter O'Toole come in and ADR missing dialogue is something they couldn't have done in 2012. Also going over the cut with David Lean himself is also something impossible to do in 2012. Color timing that restoration with Lean. Not to mention all the notes and such they take when doing the restoration.

That's what cracks me up every time you go on one of your "it's not a real restoration!!" tangents because what does that even mean? Actual 'film restoration' itself can't undo the ravages of time on the negative any more than 'digital restoration' can. You can clean the film photochemically, sure, and maybe reset any splices that have come undone, but that's pretty much it and the former can be done seamlessly in the digital space anyway.

The digitally restored film is usually filmed out to a new safety negative and vaulted for future use. That is NOT done with those digital remasters supposedly "restored" as Kino or someone would report.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Having Peter O'Toole come in and ADR missing dialogue is something they couldn't have done in 2012. Also going over the cut with David Lean himself is also something impossible to do in 2012. Color timing that restoration with Lean. Not to mention all the notes and such they take when doing the restoration.

As I said, it gave them a leg up in actually having that 'final cut' of the film but it did precisely nothing as regards the digital restoration of the picture in 2012 as they were still starting from that same grotty OG neg with all the wear, tear and damage therein.

The digitally restored film is usually filmed out to a new safety negative and vaulted for future use. That is NOT done with those digital remasters supposedly "restored" as Kino or someone would report.

But why would you filmout a new negative when the existing one is fine as per any 'restoration' of a modern-ish film? More to the point, how is a brand new filmout negative any good for fixing/restoring the actual damaged OG element? Heck, on The Godfather they filmed out brand new protection elements back in 2007 for the RAH 4K restoration but when they did the 2022 4K transfer they just went back to the brittle, time-ravaged OG neg anyway.

Originally Posted by blakninja

So did they replaced the "original takes" which the negatives were damaged with "alternate takes" from negatives that were not damaged?

Not usually, no. The point is that those takes were selected for a reason, so if the camera negative becomes damaged then they return to protection elements like interpositives, internegatives and YCM separations to create a new dupe neg of that same take which is (was) then cut into the OG neg. This dupe is inevitably of a lower quality, but in the photochemical era if you want that same take then it's all you've got.

But a rare case of replacing a piece of camera negative with an alternate shot would be on the 2007 Godfather restoration. A shot of Marlon Brando asleep in bed at the hospital was so badly damaged it was unusable, but instead of using a dupe they went through the trims and found the rest of the footage from that camera reel, selecting anothet few seconds of Brando breathing and using that for that that shot instead.

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But why would you filmout a new negative when the existing one is fine as per any 'restoration' of a modern-ish film?

But what about filming out the raw newest scan to preservation film, such as polymer film? I think that makes sense. The more ways you backup something, and the more backups you do, the better.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by matbezlima

But what about filming out the raw newest scan to preservation film, such as polymer film? I think that makes sense. The more ways you backup something, and the more backups you do, the better.

They do all sorts of things, including vaulting the 8K scans that they did of Lawrence, but it's still just a backup, it can't actually improve/supplant the OG material which will always remain the primary source, for better or worse. And as I said, in the case of The Godfather they just returned to the actual OG neg and started over anyway!

[matbezlima]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They do all sorts of things, including vaulting the 8K scans that they did of Lawrence, but it's still just a backup, it can't actually improve/supplant the OG material which will always remain the primary source, for better or worse. And as I said, in the case of The Godfather they just returned to the actual OG neg and started over anyway!

True, they won’t ever supplant the OG neg. Nevertheless, the backups are very important, especially when the OG neg eventually degrades to a point that you truly can’t use it anymore. Modern properly stored film, made of polymers, can easily last centuries if not more, not so much with old film made of nitrate, for example, which is doomed to completely degrade, you can only slow down the chemical process if I'm not mistaken. Hence the importance of both filmouts (hell, even Netflix likely has their library backed-up in filmouts) and raw vaulted digital scans for preservation.