Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Has it been said that the final deliverables were saved in log? Considering Lawrence of Arabia's restoration predates HDR even becoming a standard (and I still don't think such files are commonly saved in log) then I wouldn't be so sure. This was a laborious and serious restoration project so it might have been an exception but I still wouldn't be sure.

None of the schmutz seemed that distracting to me, but plenty other schmutz that I've been observing on a number of these UHDs is actually something that could be revealed by using HDR on an SDR source. I believe I posted my own demonstrations showing how this could even be done in the SDR realm just by simple grading choices in 2018 when Arrow released their Blu-ray of City of the Living Dead. I was one of the people really upset with how the "grain" and noise looked on that disc and noted how it was actually obscuring detail. I was told it was color grain and that modern film scanners didn't pick up any noise. Not even a couple years later, the same scan was used and graded differently where none of the ghastly noise or over-accentuated grain was present; lots of extra fine detail also appeared too. The person who oversaw the newer grade confirmed my speculations and what I had been saying, and it shows in the end product.



I can't say I paid much attention to that re: Gladiator so I'm not sure, but what you've described can also happen with bringing SDR into the HDR realm. There's usually always more detail in the shadows and highlights than you actually see during viewing. Taking that and putting it into the HDR space allows for far greater control over such areas without washing out the entire image or whatever (this can be done in strictly SDR too though not to the same extent). Digital crud or even dirt/damage obscured in shadowy areas in SDR can easily be exposed with the application of HDR for example.



Agreed re: the last sentence. Before anybody gets upset, I must stress that I am happy with the existing UHD of Lawrence but there is certainly room for improvement. Just don't expect to see it any time soon as the existing restoration is still way beyond serviceable and to restore the film yet again would be an incredibly arduous task.

Grading itself can absolutely play a part in how the grain looks on something, but what that has to do with this 'forced HDR' theory of yours I'm not sure. If anything could be affected by anything then what does 'forced HDR' even matter?

But Arrow are doing their own workup of the Dollars movies from the log files so it's not that uncommon. At the master level the work isn't typically stored as "SDR" or "HDR", at least not within the consumer specs thereof, and although final graded versions are kept for reference these decisions aren't baked in to the source masters. The dpx format used for storing the images aren't quite format agnostic but are meant for storing log files. And exhibiting on film was a major concern for DIs back in the day which is why so many of them offer up so much range in HDR, they didn't render them out as linear SDR because it'd look like crap on film, same goes for major restorations from the period.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Grading itself can absolutely play a part in how the grain looks on something, but what that has to do with this 'forced HDR' theory of yours I'm not sure. If anything could be affected by anything then what does 'forced HDR' even matter?

But Arrow are doing their own workup of the Dollars movies from the log files so it's not that uncommon. At the master level the work isn't typically stored as "SDR" or "HDR", at least not within the consumer specs thereof, and although final graded versions are kept for reference these decisions aren't baked in to the source masters. The dpx format used for storing the images aren't quite format agnostic but are meant for storing log files. And exhibiting on film was a major concern for DIs back in the day which is why so many of them offer up so much range in HDR, they didn't render them out as linear SDR because it'd look like crap on film, same goes for major restorations from the period.

The Dollars restorations were done years after Lawrence (and I think work started on that around 2009 or so), and just before HDR started to take off (but was being talked about/anticipated). The difference with the Dollars films is that going back to the log files is pretty much essential because of Ritrovata's disastrous grades. With Lawrence, the grading was meticulous and extremely time-consuming for the 2012 restoration so there's less incentive in going back to the log files and doing the work all over again. Plus, the HDR grade to my eye simply looks like the same base grade albeit enhanced using/for HDR. I've never heard about them going back to the original log files, and if they did then I would have thought that they'd have mentioned so in the Columbia Classics book.

If you look really hard, there's even areas where the Blu-ray retains slightly more highlight detail than the UHD and I doubt that's because of whatever processing was used for the UHD. When you mentioned log masters, I first thought you were talking about a restoration containing the finalized grade data stored in log. With any master that is used for Blu-ray/UHD, then there's usually always going to be something else there that could be squeezed out compared to what ends up on disc; I just have doubts about Lawrence's restoration base files having true HDR's worth of it.

As for the 'forced HDR' thing (I'm not sure if I've used that term to describe what I'm talking about here); the SDR example I gave related to a grade that was overexposed which probably caused a lot of the issues. This isn't something I've seen a lot on SDR content outside of some of Arrow's stuff from a certain time period, but it does seem to be being exposed on SDR-mastered content with HDR passes. I assume this is because of exposure levels introduced with the HDR pass, and some of these older 4K+ scans being scanned on scanners whose sensors picked up noise that may not be distracting in SDR, but really come out with anything resembling consumer-style HDR.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by unsung122212

Sorry, no place (MA, iTunes, FAH, Amazon, GP, Microsoft) lets you download the 4K file, only up to HD (1080p). The studios don’t allow the 4K download. It’s only available via streaming.

Two key words in this (factual) statement, "lets" and "allow".

Just for the record, copying, as in "ripping" streaming files was figured out years ago. A few commercially available software programs even advertise it as a feature. The only streaming/downloadable format that has never been cracked, that I am aware of, is Kaleidescape and the only reason that is likely still the case is pretty much anyone that can afford that system doesn't care about the cost of the movies.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The Dollars restorations were done years after Lawrence (and I think work started on that around 2009 or so), and just before HDR started to take off (but was being talked about/anticipated). The difference with the Dollars films is that going back to the log files is pretty much essential because of Ritrovata's disastrous grades. With Lawrence, the grading was meticulous and extremely time-consuming for the 2012 restoration so there's less incentive in going back to the log files and doing the work all over again. Plus, the HDR grade to my eye simply looks like the same base grade albeit enhanced using/for HDR. I've never heard about them going back to the original log files, and if they did then I would have thought that they'd have mentioned so in the Columbia Classics book.

If you look really hard, there's even areas where the Blu-ray retains slightly more highlight detail than the UHD and I doubt that's because of whatever processing was used for the UHD. When you mentioned log masters, I first thought you were talking about a restoration containing the finalized grade data stored in log. With any master that is used for Blu-ray/UHD, then there's usually always going to be something else there that could be squeezed out compared to what ends up on disc; I just have doubts about Lawrence's restoration base files having true HDR's worth of it.

As for the 'forced HDR' thing (I'm not sure if I've used that term to describe what I'm talking about here); the SDR example I gave related to a grade that was overexposed which probably caused a lot of the issues. This isn't something I've seen a lot on SDR content outside of some of Arrow's stuff from a certain time period, but it does seem to be being exposed on SDR-mastered content with HDR passes. I assume this is because of exposure levels introduced with the HDR pass, and some of these older 4K+ scans being scanned on scanners whose sensors picked up noise that may not be distracting in SDR, but really come out with anything resembling consumer-style HDR.

But, again, the amount of range that's able to be pulled from 20+ year old DIs can go way beyond just an extra tickle of highlight detail that might've been lurking on the master. You may or may not have noticed how filmed out CG VFX in certain transfers has nothing like the range of the OCN around it, this is because they were often done in a linear space (even ILM didn't switch to doing VFX in log until quite late on) and so there's nothing left to give in HDR, they look very clipped and burnt-out. As said, HDR is a very unforgiving system and if all these restorations and DIs from 10-20 years ago were just straight linear SDR then they'd run out of road real quick. Not everything was some huge full range capture, agreed, some didn't have that foresight, but it's more than a few. And they didn't need to know that HDR was coming, film scanning has long been about trying to capture as much of what was on the negative as possible and a 2010-circa scan as per Lawrence was 10-bit log at the minimum.

Edit: yep, they were working in log on the raw scans: https://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t012244.html

What parts of Lawrence actually have less highlight range than the Blu? It's interesting tho that the SDR grade doesn't look like a blown out mess to begin with, the skies are very flat and featureless because that's just what they were like, and there's already a solid amount of range on, say, Lawrence's flowing robes. The HDR ekes out a bit more, and that white horsey of his is dazzling in HDR, but I wonder how much is even left on that negative. That said, we're looking at an extensively processed digital facsimile of it, one that's scrambling to fix a myriad of problems with that negative, so I'd love to see it done one more time (they archived the raw 8K scans). But now I'm repeating myself repeating myself.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But, again, the amount of range that's able to be pulled from 20+ year old DIs can go way beyond just an extra tickle of highlight detail that might've been lurking on the master. You may or may not have noticed how filmed out CG VFX in certain transfers has nothing like the range of the OCN around it, this is because they were often done in a linear space (even ILM didn't switch to doing VFX in log until quite late on) and so there's nothing left to give in HDR, they look very clipped and burnt-out. As said, HDR is a very unforgiving system and if all these restorations and DIs from 10-20 years ago were just straight linear SDR then they'd run out of road real quick. Not everything was some huge full range capture, agreed, some didn't have that foresight, but it's more than a few. And they didn't need to know that HDR was coming, film scanning has long been about trying to capture as much of what was on the negative as possible and a 2010-circa scan as per Lawrence was 10-bit log at the minimum.

Edit: yep, they were working in log on the raw scans: https://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t012244.html

What parts of Lawrence actually have less highlight range than the Blu? It's interesting tho that the SDR grade doesn't look like a blown out mess to begin with, the skies are very flat and featureless because that's just what they were like, and there's already a solid amount of range on, say, Lawrence's flowing robes. The HDR ekes out a bit more, and that white horsey of his is dazzling in HDR, but I wonder how much is even left on that negative. That said, we're looking at an extensively processed digital facsimile of it, one that's scrambling to fix a myriad of problems with that negative, so I'd love to see it done one more time (they archived the raw 8K scans). But now I'm repeating myself repeating myself.

Specular highlights frequently have less detail than what is observable on the Blu-ray of Lawrence. It having less details isn't even my nitpick with it, it's that the Blu-ray has a more natural roll off in those areas whereas the UHD looks clipped (with HDR, you'd usually expect it to be the other way around). If the UHD was the one with less details in those areas, but had a film-like roll off instead of digital-looking clipping then I'd probably be fine with it. My idea of good HDR is these more subtle nuances and extra depth as opposed to more highlight/shadow detail (which itself could be accomplished in SDR anyway) with added brightness. Probably why a lot of my favorite HDR grades are almost virtually SDR anyway. A number of these SDR in HDR container grades can look damn near three dimensional at times on my display; sadly a number of these seem to get complaints for looking too hark or having black crush, so I highly doubt everybody's seeing the same thing in a lot of these cases.

Rereading the last page, I think I understand where I'm getting confused. When you mentioned the Dollars films. I thought you were implying that the grade was redone all over again for Lawrence as I believe that the log file Kino went back to for Fistful was simply the restored scan of basically a "raw" negative. I can't confirm the workflow for Lawrence's UHD and HDR grade but I still wonder about it and find some things peculiar. If they went back to a graded log file (which would be much more likely, especially after looking at your link), then I definitely wouldn't assume that it would have the dynamic range of the negative, raw scan or restored log files. Plus the grading decisions were made with SDR in mind anyway so you're not getting a result like you'd get from something whose entire workflow was done with HDR in mind (like a lot of newer Sony titles which absolutely destroy their earlier work done on the format).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Specular highlights frequently have less detail than what is observable on the Blu-ray of Lawrence. It having less details isn't even my nitpick with it, it's that the Blu-ray has a more natural roll off in those areas whereas the UHD looks clipped (with HDR, you'd usually expect it to be the other way around). If the UHD was the one with less details in those areas, but had a film-like roll off instead of digital-looking clipping then I'd probably be fine with it. My idea of good HDR is these more subtle nuances and extra depth as opposed to more highlight/shadow detail (which itself could be accomplished in SDR anyway) with added brightness. Probably why a lot of my favorite HDR grades are almost virtually SDR anyway. A number of these SDR in HDR container grades can look damn near three dimensional at times on my display; sadly a number of these seem to get complaints for looking too hark or having black crush, so I doubt highly doubt everybody's seeing the same thing in a lot of these cases.

Rereading the last page, I think I understand where I'm getting confused. When you mentioned the Dollars films. I thought you were implying that the grade was redone all over again for Lawrence as I believe that the log file Kino went back to for Fistful was simply the restored scan of basically a "raw" negative. I can't confirm the workflow for Lawrence's UHD and HDR grade but I still wonder about it and find some things peculiar. If they went back to a graded log file (which would be much more likely, especially after looking at your link), then I definitely wouldn't assume that it would have the dynamic range of the negative, raw scan or restored log files. Plus the grading decisions were made with SDR in mind anyway so you're not getting a result like you'd get from something whose entire workflow was done with HDR in mind (like a lot of newer Sony titles which absolutely destroy their earlier work done on the format).

Do you have any examples of where the UHD is clipping the highlights vs the Blu-ray? Would like to observe this for myself, having not noticed it on my prior review comparison thing.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Do you have any examples of where the UHD is clipping the highlights vs the Blu-ray? Would like to observe this for myself, having not noticed it on my prior review comparison thing.

I was wondering if it could have been a shortcoming of my OLED/player that I watched it on last, but I just checked it on my completely new setup and I'm seeing the same things after skimming around. Look at things such as Lawrence's sleeve or the pillars at around 2:08:00 on the first disc and then compare with the Blu-ray.

I just looked on CAH for any examples. While I didn't look at this one in motion when I skimmed through the UHD (so this might be a limitation of CAH's UHD caps), it sort of encapsulates what I'm seeing in such areas:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...&l=0&i=10&go=1

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I was wondering if it could have been a shortcoming of my OLED/player that I watched it on last, but I just checked it on my completely new setup and I'm seeing the same things after skimming around. Look at things such as Lawrence's sleeve or the pillars at around 2:08:00 on the first disc and then compare with the Blu-ray.

I just looked on CAH for any examples. While I didn't look at this one in motion when I skimmed through the UHD (so this might be a limitation of CAH's UHD caps), it sort of encapsulates what I'm seeing in such areas:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=3&x...&l=0&i=10&go=1

Thanks. Alas, I'd trust SDR converted caps as far as I could throw them, but I'll have a look later at the discs on mah own teevee.

[Geoff D]

Had a look at 2:08:00 onwards (when Lawrence is meeting with Allenby, correct?) and the UHD isn't clipping anything vs the Bluray at my end. I wouldn't say it's showing more highlight detail either but then his robes are dry and dusty, they're not gleaming white and nor are the pillars behind them, they're grey at best and half in shadow anyway. That sort of mid range brightness/detail should be meat and drink for all but the worst performing HDR TV, and that's not intended as a slight against whatever you've got. But whatever you have got, it's doing something it shouldn't be doing. Does Dobly and HDR10 clip in the same way?

Different question, same topic: what do the windows in the background at 2:12:57-ish look like to you when they're walking down the stairs? The Blu isn't nuked because they cooked in so much range to begin with, but the UHD has just the tiniest little tickle of extra information. Interesting that the grain is much more prominent in these brighter areas on the UHD despite such a small increase in highlight detail, if at all, not so much for HDR make grain worserer, but when you start seeing heavy grain in the highlights that means they're pretty much tapped out as far as any resolvable range is concerned.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Had a look at 2:08:00 onwards (when Lawrence is meeting with Allenby, correct?) and the UHD isn't clipping anything vs the Bluray at my end. I wouldn't say it's showing more highlight detail either but then his robes are dry and dusty, they're not gleaming white and nor are the pillars behind them, they're grey at best and half in shadow anyway. That sort of mid range brightness/detail should be meat and drink for all but the worst performing HDR TV, and that's not intended as a slight against whatever you've got. But whatever you have got, it's doing something it shouldn't be doing. Does Dobly and HDR10 clip in the same way?

Different question, same topic: what do the windows in the background at 2:12:57-ish look like to you when they're walking down the stairs? The Blu isn't nuked because they cooked in so much range to begin with, but the UHD has just the tiniest little tickle of extra information. Interesting that the grain is much more prominent in these brighter areas on the UHD despite such a small increase in highlight detail, if at all, not so much for HDR make grain worserer, but when you start seeing heavy grain in the highlights that means they're pretty much tapped out as far as any resolvable range is concerned.

Yikes, it wasn't the display (LTV-3500) but rather the old non-DV player I recently hooked up (and had only watched a couple of Blu-rays on) after my current Panasonic started choking around layer changes. Going back to the Panny, the scene looks fine in both HDR and DV. As for the windows in your timestamp, they don't look blown out or anything and I can make out a fine-looking grain field along with the patterns on the windows.

[samuelkhan999]

Reading through a few pages now, is watching LoA 4k blu ray in SDR the better option? Would the Japanese Mastered in 4k be considered the best way of viewing the feature?

[samuelkhan999]

Originally Posted by Leonardo Varotto

I've randomly found this comparison on slowpics. How is the Movies Anywhere encode better than the UHD Blu-ray?
It's literally half the size. Is it possible for it to be that more efficient and better-encoded than one on the Sony UHD Blu-ray Disc?

I've taken a few pictures of the same picture in different settings. TV is Hisense 65u8k (UK model)

1. Dolby Vision dark
2. HDR Filmmaker mode
3. SDR/REQ2020 output
4. SDR/REQ709 output

Whilst playing DV custom (with noise reduction/mpeg noise reduction on) i noticed that the grain was distracting and felt artifical. By going DV dark(DV Filmmaker on newer tvs) last, the grain noise was significant reduced.

[Geoff D]

Still, I need to follow my own advice re: this UHD and how it compares to the Blu. I continually crap on it and whatever I feel about the ultimate quality of the UHD, it is a sizeable improvement over the BD (the regular one, tho I'd like to see the Mi4K release someday). Fine detail is tremendously keen, the HDR does a beautiful job of sculpting the light without much of an extension to highlight detail itself and the colour is less creamy than the BD, with much cleaner whites. It verr naice.

[Caprica_U-87]

The 4k is breathtaking in so many ways. HDR is used all over the place and I loved it.

The landscapes, the cinematography and the wide shots used for dramatic effect were just perfect.

Only down side is that my disc 1 had major scratches on it but I still managed to rip it somehow, miraculously with prayer. I will contact sony about a replacement if they will do that.

[dlb99]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Still, I need to follow my own advice re: this UHD and how it compares to the Blu. I continually crap on it and whatever I feel about the ultimate quality of the UHD, it is a sizeable improvement over the BD (the regular one, tho I'd like to see the Mi4K release someday). Fine detail is tremendously keen, the HDR does a beautiful job of sculpting the light without much of an extension to highlight detail itself and the colour is less creamy than the BD, with much cleaner whites. It verr naice.

Maybe it is me, but I found the whites (such as in the well-dressed men's shirts in the London scenes) quite piercing and torchy. Me no likey those HDR scenes.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dlb99

Maybe it is me, but I found the whites (such as in the well-dressed men's shirts in the London scenes) quite piercing and torchy. Me no likey those HDR scenes.

The highlights are zingy and yet this isn't one of Sony's Light Cannon™️ grades that goes into like 4000 nits. Could still be the perceptual effect of having fairly restrained average brightness and bright highlights tho, yes

[willdude]

Originally Posted by Caprica_U-87

The 4k is breathtaking in so many ways. HDR is used all over the place and I loved it.

The landscapes, the cinematography and the wide shots used for dramatic effect were just perfect.

Only down side is that my disc 1 had major scratches on it but I still managed to rip it somehow, miraculously with prayer. I will contact sony about a replacement if they will do that.

Did you ever contact Sony about a replacement? My copy's disc 1 has a noticeable scratch too. I bought it a while back, and haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but since it's out of print I'm not so sure what chance there is of getting a replacement.

[Caprica_U-87]

Originally Posted by willdude

Did you ever contact Sony about a replacement? My copy's disc 1 has a noticeable scratch too. I bought it a while back, and haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but since it's out of print I'm not so sure what chance there is of getting a replacement.

They denied me because I didn't buy it from an approved retailer.

Such a joke because it's impossible to buy from a retailer and these jokers on ebay have over 100 copies to sell at 200% profit or higher.

[willdude]

Originally Posted by Caprica_U-87

They denied me because I didn't buy it from an approved retailer.

Such a joke because it's impossible to buy from a retailer and these jokers on ebay have over 100 copies to sell at 200% profit or higher.

That's a bummer. Luckily I got mine from Amazon when the reprint went on sale in 2023, so assuming replacement discs actually exists, hopefully that won't be a problem for me.

[Caprica_U-87]

Originally Posted by willdude

That's a bummer. Luckily I got mine from Amazon when the reprint went on sale in 2023, so assuming replacement discs actually exists, hopefully that won't be a problem for me.

They also told me they have no replacements on hand.