Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The restoration at this point is getting up there in age, but I still think it looks fantastic for the most part. Can't say I was too bothered by any noise, but bringing some of these older 4K masters scanned on older machines into the HDR realm tends to accentuate noise and exacerbate grain. They talk about this regarding Lawrence in the book for the Columbia Classics set; HDR exposed both minor and major flaws that largely went unnoticed before.

Lawrence of Arabia could look better with a fresh scan and native HDR workflow, but I can't see Sony doing another laborious restoration anytime in the near future.

[Special Feature]

Oh, was the Lawrence 4K disc based on the scan used for the 2012 Blu-ray?

[peppapigstan]

yep, not saying the remaster is bad but it could be better

[trespoochies]

Marginal returns at this point, the current release is very much reference for a film like that. Zero need for a new remaster.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The restoration at this point is getting up there in age, but I still think it looks fantastic for the most part. Can't say I was too bothered by any noise, but bringing some of these older 4K masters scanned on older machines into the HDR realm tends to accentuate noise and exacerbate grain. They talk about this regarding Lawrence in the book for the Columbia Classics set; HDR exposed both minor and major flaws that largely went unnoticed before.

Lawrence of Arabia could look better with a fresh scan and native HDR workflow, but I can't see Sony doing another laborious restoration anytime in the near future.

Honestly, I'd make do with some work done on the absolute worst bits of the restoration that're shown up by the HDR (the long distance reveal of Omar Sharif has all sorts of crap that's invisible on the SDR 4K stream), undoing the filtering (again, it's not on the SDR 4K) and last but not least, a proper encode. All splitting it over two discs did was permit Sony to cram on a gajillion audio tracks, many of them lossless, that just eat up the bitrate. It's not a 'bad' encode and still eats the usual Paramount tosh for breakfast, but even for the time it just wasn't up to Sony's usual standard.

In a way it's a damned shame this had Dobly to begin with because there's no immediate reason whatsoever to revisit it, even if it was just with a fresh encode. I don't even like the movie that much but I recognise its importance to cinema history, and given all the work that went into making and then restoring it it deserves to have the very bestest treatment and the UHD falls short IMO. Maybe, just maybe, Sony will go back to the vaulted 8K scans and give it a full 8K restoration for the 65th anniversary, starting over in HDR space to make sure this master is fit for the ages. I highly doubt it'll happen, but 8K is the only possible reason I can see them going back to it.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

In a way it's a damned shame this had Dobly to begin with because there's no immediate reason whatsoever to revisit it, even if it was just with a fresh encode. I don't even like the movie that much but I recognise its importance to cinema history, and given all the work that went into making and then restoring it it deserves to have the very bestest treatment and the UHD falls short IMO. Maybe, just maybe, Sony will go back to the vaulted 8K scans and give it a full 8K restoration for the 65th anniversary, starting over in HDR space to make sure this master is fit for the ages. I highly doubt it'll happen, but 8K is the only possible reason I can see them going back to it.

There's still hope, with Karate Kid they did yet another disc for it's "VHS Collectible Packaging" release last year, to add more extras. So I think they could revisit Lawrence, as it's high time it gets a proper wide release. Doubt they'll touch the encode, but who knows.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

There's still hope, with Karate Kid they did yet another disc for it's "VHS Collectible Packaging" release last year, to add more extras. So I think they could revisit Lawrence, as it's high time it gets a proper wide release. Doubt they'll touch the encode, but who knows.

Oh, I think it'll get re-released in whatever form over the years, just not fiddled with.

[jtu128]

Originally Posted by trespoochies

Marginal returns at this point, the current release is very much reference for a film like that. Zero need for a new remaster.

Some people are constantly chasing perfection. I’ve reached the point of diminishing returns and I’m very happy with a high quality HD print.

[sojrner]

Yup, the standard "stop looking for flaws and wAtCh ThE mOvIe" lives on my forum bingo card. Thanks for checking that one off today.

[jtu128]

Originally Posted by sojrner

Yup, the standard "stop looking for flaws and wAtCh ThE mOvIe" lives on my forum bingo card. Thanks for checking that one off today.

Someone can find a flaw in literally anything.

[Geoff D]

I don't throw around the "p" word a lot because nothing ever is, but if anything ever deserved such a thing, it's Lawrence.

[trespoochies]

Originally Posted by jtu128

Some people are constantly chasing perfection. I’ve reached the point of diminishing returns and I’m very happy with a high quality HD print.

This is why I no longer care. This forum is proof enough everyone is "chasing perfection". Problem is that everyone has their own idea of what that is, and no one will ever agree on the same perfection. For me, this release has captured perfection.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by trespoochies

This is why I no longer care. This forum is proof enough everyone is "chasing perfection". Problem is that everyone has their now idea of what that is, and no one will ever agree on the same perfection. For me, this release has captured perfection.

I don't think anyone is saying it's a bad release. No, it's quite good.

But when the streaming version shows more actual film grain and finer detail over the UHD BD, something is definitely wrong. That should never be the case and that leads to a little bit of the frustration especially on a film of this magnitude.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by jtu128

Someone can find a flaw in literally anything.

Sure seems in vogue to ridicule those who notice oddities/flaws/issues, sometimes to the point of distraction, as if that observational ability itself is a flaw.

If I'm walking along and notice a dog turd coiled up on the sidewalk, it's going to distract me such that I avoid stepping in it. Others walk without ever noticing, whether for ignorance or blindness, missing it or not by chance. Those who can are not wrong for seeing it, willfully avoiding it, and letting others know it exists so (maybe) more can avoid it if they so choose. Whether you see it or not, it's still there, and if you step in it, getting more people to follow just makes everything smelly. Further getting offended by those pointing out the issue or you (ahem) poo-pooing the warning does not help either; your time is better spent in the park with a stick, scraping the bits out of your shoe tread...

I prefer sight and awareness more than luck, but I have nothing against those who are satisfied in that life of luck. Take care, forum denizen. Live your life and avoid land mines.

Rock on.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Honestly, I'd make do with some work done on the absolute worst bits of the restoration that're shown up by the HDR (the long distance reveal of Omar Sharif has all sorts of crap that's invisible on the SDR 4K stream), undoing the filtering (again, it's not on the SDR 4K) and last but not least, a proper encode. All splitting it over two discs did was permit Sony to cram on a gajillion audio tracks, many of them lossless, that just eat up the bitrate. It's not a 'bad' encode and still eats the usual Paramount tosh for breakfast, but even for the time it just wasn't up to Sony's usual standard.

In a way it's a damned shame this had Dobly to begin with because there's no immediate reason whatsoever to revisit it, even if it was just with a fresh encode. I don't even like the movie that much but I recognise its importance to cinema history, and given all the work that went into making and then restoring it it deserves to have the very bestest treatment and the UHD falls short IMO. Maybe, just maybe, Sony will go back to the vaulted 8K scans and give it a full 8K restoration for the 65th anniversary, starting over in HDR space to make sure this master is fit for the ages. I highly doubt it'll happen, but 8K is the only possible reason I can see them going back to it.

I remember seeing comparisons between the UHD and a 4K stream where the stream seemed to have the edge when it came to detail and grain; I'm assuming that this was the 4K SDR stream you speak of? If so, then is there also an HDR stream that has an edge over the physical UHD release?

Some seem to be using noise reduction when doing these HDR passes to mitigate the noise brought out because of what HDR can expose, so it wouldn't surprise me if Sony did that for Lawrence's HDR grade.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I remember seeing comparisons between the UHD and a 4K stream where the stream seemed to have the edge when it came to detail and grain; I'm assuming that this was the 4K SDR stream you speak of? If so, then is there also an HDR stream that has an edge over the physical UHD release?

Some seem to be using noise reduction when doing these HDR passes to mitigate the noise brought out because of what HDR can expose, so it wouldn't surprise me if Sony did that for Lawrence's HDR grade.

Someone posted comparisons of the HDR stream back a ways, it was still filtered the same way but it seemed to have betterer compression than the UHD. Yes, really, which perhaps puts the quality of the disc's compression into context as how poor it is by Sony's standards. The filtering already knocks out the highest frequency detail, the meh compression then turns the grain into coarse-ground stuff, it makes the HDR transfer look more like a 35mm reduction while the 4K SDR stream has that extra touch of precision which gives a proper 65mm vibe.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by trespoochies

This is why I no longer care. This forum is proof enough everyone is "chasing perfection". Problem is that everyone has their own idea of what that is, and no one will ever agree on the same perfection. For me, this release has captured perfection.

Funny how y'all who don't care still care enough to tell us that you don't care. Never understood that mentality, shirley your time would be better spent not wasting it on us at all? We complain about movies, you complain about people complaining about movies, and I'm not sure which one is sadder.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Someone posted comparisons of the HDR stream back a ways, it was still filtered the same way but it seemed to have betterer compression than the UHD. Yes, really, which perhaps puts the quality of the disc's compression into context as how poor it is by Sony's standards. The filtering already knocks out the highest frequency detail, the meh compression then turns the grain into coarse-ground stuff, it makes the HDR transfer look more like a 35mm reduction while the 4K SDR stream has that extra touch of precision which gives a proper 65mm vibe.

Sounds like the filtering could be because of the HDR then. There's been a few cases recently where UHDs of SDR masters with an HDR pass show less grain or even noise compared to UHDs (some seem to think this noise is "authentic" to the look of film but this isn't true) which just stick with presenting them in SDR. If they're insistent on giving something an HDR pass then they can either choose to leave in the extra noise and exacerbated grain, or they can use noise reduction tools to mitigate/remove it.

Some thought that the grain in Criterion's UHD of Seven Samurai was fake for example because it wasn't present in areas of BFI's HDR disc. Outside of sequences where extensive repair work was probably needed, the grain on the Criterion disc is some of the most organic-looking grain I've seen on home video. Then there was the situation with Arrow's UHD of The Great Escape where the grain was being labeled "monochromatic" by some because they removed noise in the chroma channels (which I imagine would have been exacerbated greatly with HDR).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Sounds like the filtering could be because of the HDR then. There's been a few cases recently where UHDs of SDR masters with an HDR pass show less grain or even noise compared to UHDs (some seem to think this noise is "authentic" to the look of film but this isn't true) which just stick with presenting them in SDR. If they're insistent on giving something an HDR pass then they can either choose to leave in the extra noise and exacerbated grain, or they can use noise reduction tools to mitigate/remove it.

Some thought that the grain in Criterion's UHD of Seven Samurai was fake for example because it wasn't present in areas of BFI's HDR disc. Outside of sequences where extensive repair work was probably needed, the grain on the Criterion disc is some of the most organic-looking grain I've seen on home video. Then there was the situation with Arrow's UHD of The Great Escape where the grain was being labeled "monochromatic" by some because they removed noise in the chroma channels (which I imagine would have been exacerbated greatly with HDR).

Pity they didn't do that (per Great Escape) with Lawrence. I'd rather have the dye clouds boiled off than a blanket low pass filter.

[Caprica_U-87]

anybody got info on another printing run of this? I want one

I'm close to sending ebay offers for 50-70$ to those scalpers.