Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Scottishguy]

So basically the resolution bump is nerfed because of compression and filtering? But the HDR grade is fantastic?

I mean I don't care if I miss out on some fine detail. The HDR is the main thing.

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

So basically the resolution bump is nerfed because of compression and filtering? But the HDR grade is fantastic?

I mean I don't care if I miss out on some fine detail. The HDR is the main thing.

The Dolby Vision (and I’m assuming the HDR10 base layer) on this title is truly splendid. Viewing this in a completely dark room from about 6 feet away on my 65” Sony the other night was a transportive experience. Can only imagine how much more stunning it must look on a high end OLED.

I switched back and forth between the SD blu and the UHD to compare and the increase in fine detail and color depth was readily apparent. I also compared the SDR 4K version that I’ve had for ages, and while it was sharper than the blu, certainly didn’t best the UHD in the least to my eyes.

Now, I’m not saying this is the end-of-the-road perfect archival-quality release. There are other people in this very thread chiming in whom I trust deeply and have a far more acute sense of knowledge than I (and really many industry professionals) do when it comes to analyzing encodes under a microscope.

This is just a case where I don’t see what they see and remain in respectful disagreement. 99% of everyone should be downright over the moon with this release IMO. Cannot imagine anyone watching this disc on a decent display and not coming away stunned unless they’ve first spent time pouring over nuances of the HDR-SDR converted screencaps that are interspersed among the dissenting opinions inside this thread.

Will do some additional evaluation on my 4K projector tonight. Who knows, maybe I’ll see things Geoff and others are talking about on a 110” screen that, try as I might, aren’t discernible in motion on my television.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

[Show spoiler]The Dolby Vision (and I’m assuming the HDR10 base layer) on this title is truly splendid. Viewing this in a completely dark room from about 6 feet away on my 65” Sony the other night was a transportive experience. Can only imagine how much more stunning it must look on a high end OLED.

I switched back and forth between the SD blu and the UHD to compare and the increase in fine detail and color depth was readily apparent. I also compared the SDR 4K version that I’ve had for ages, and while it was sharper than the blu, certainly didn’t best the UHD in the least to my eyes.

Now, I’m not saying this is the end-of-the-road perfect archival-quality release. There are other people in this very thread chiming in whom I trust deeply and have a far more acute sense of knowledge than I (and really many industry professionals) do when it comes to analyzing encodes under a microscope.

This is just a case where I don’t see what they see and remain in respectful disagreement. 99% of everyone should be downright over the moon with this release IMO. Cannot imagine anyone watching this disc on a decent display and not coming away stunned unless they’ve first spent time pouring over nuances of the HDR-SDR converted screencaps that are interspersed among the dissenting opinions inside this thread.

Will do some additional evaluation on my 4K projector tonight. Who knows, maybe I’ll see things Geoff and others are talking about on a 110” screen that, try as I might, aren’t discernible in motion on my television.

Thank you. I'm glad my post served as good bouncy bouncy for this sort of thing. Kind of felt things needed reigned in. The tec lads were getting on the obfuscated side lol.

[Geoff D]

I think the point with Lawrence - and I said this before - is that you'd have to work damned hard to make it look like shit, given the extensive 4K restoration that it got. So of course it's still going to wow people on UHD disc, but I'm of the opinion that corners were cut regarding the compression to disc, in spite of the two-disc arrangement, and even without directly comparing it to anything the fine detail just seems to stop short of what 65mm can do, even for 65mm of this vintage off of such an extensively rejiggered source.

Meanwhile the HDR isn't enough to mollify those aspects for me, and I say that as one of the biggest fans of HDR you're going to encounter on this or any other planet. Instead of there being a perceptual boost in sharpness (as with the HDR on Dr Stranamore, which is amazing IMO) it's almost the opposite, that the HDR exposes the chunkiness of the grain and when combined with the more visible restoration artefacts and slightly whiffy compression it looks clunkier and untidier than it should do.

When people have levelled their usual fusillade of "Nitpickers who demand perfection" at no-one in particular I like to reply with "I don't aks for perfection, just competence" but you know what? This is Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest films ever made (even if I don't enjoy it, I won't deny its magnificence as a piece of filmmaking) that underwent two massive restorations in the photochemical and digital space respectively, so I was expecting as close to perfection as possible for all aspects of this UHD. I did not get it.

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the point with Lawrence - and I said this before - is that you'd have to work damned hard to make it look like shit, given the extensive 4K restoration that it got. So of course it's still going to wow people on UHD disc, but I'm of the opinion that corners were cut regarding the compression to disc, in spite of the two-disc arrangement, and even without directly comparing it to anything the fine detail just seems to stop short of what 65mm can do, even for 65mm of this vintage off of such an extensively rejiggered source.

Meanwhile the HDR isn't enough to mollify those aspects for me, and I say that as one of the biggest fans of HDR you're going to encounter on this or any other planet. Instead of there being a perceptual boost in sharpness (as with the HDR on Dr Stranamore, which is amazing IMO) it's almost the opposite, that the HDR exposes the chunkiness of the grain and when combined with the more visible restoration artefacts and slightly whiffy compression it looks clunkier and untidier than it should do.

When people have levelled their usual fusillade of "Nitpickers who demand perfection" at no-one in particular I like to reply with "I don't aks for perfection, just competence" but you know what? This is Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest films ever made (even if I don't enjoy it, I won't deny its magnificence as a piece of filmmaking) that underwent two massive restorations in the photochemical and digital space respectively, so I was expecting as close to perfection as possible for all aspects of this UHD. I did not get it.

Why must you always be so damn eloquent, balanced and reasonable?!

[Lee A Stewart]

I was lucky enough to see the restored version of LOA at the Ziegfeld theater in NYC. Saw it the third day after opening night so the print was still pristine. Waited 2 hours in line so I could pick whatever seat I wanted; 1/3 back from the screen in the middle. What an experience. LOA is my second favorite movie of all time (Blade Runner is first). Had it on LD and DVD, now on BD. It's a 228 minute movie but it never seems that long.

[Bn43]

Thought it was a pretty good presentation. As usual, much better colored and detailed than the Blu-ray.

Why do all or most of Robert Harris's restorations add their own credits with the theme music repeated to the end. Most companies that restore movies don't do this, and even those that do usually just add a silent slide or two. I don't really like it. Bless you for restoring it, but it's not your movie. When the movie is over, no more music!

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Thought it was a pretty good presentation. As usual, much better colored and detailed than the Blu-ray.

Why do all or most of Robert Harris's restorations add their own credits with the theme music repeated to the end. Most companies that restore movies don't do this, and even those that do usually just add a silent slide or two. I don't really like it. Bless you for restoring it, but it's not your movie. When the movie is over, no more music!

He’s well known as an egomaniac.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I was lucky enough to see the restored version of LOA at the Ziegfeld theater in NYC. Saw it the third day after opening night so the print was still pristine. Waited 2 hours in line so I could pick whatever seat I wanted; 1/3 back from the screen in the middle. What an experience. LOA is my second favorite movie of all time (Blade Runner is first). Had it on LD and DVD, now on BD. It's a 228 minute movie but it never seems that long.

Those two are excellent films to have in a top 5 list. I do not have a fixed favorites list but in terms of film making, films such as City Lights (and other such Chaplin films), LoA, 2001, etc., are in a league of their own!

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

I smell mistake.

Looks like an upscale, but not 4K, to me at any rate. Took a look at caps only now and the detail increase is so minor (or non-existent at times) that it really looks more like an upscale, but not native 4K.

So they either dumbed it down or made a mistake. Both being frustrating, since I don't see Sony doing another one - maybe a "Superbit" release 5 years from now...

re. the defensive comments: No one says it looks bad. It just doen't have 4K detail. If anything, it proves one more time that many people can't actually see the actual 4K detail, which is therefore often overrated.

[1924]

Why would Sony of all companies release a fake 4k disc? Hard to believe. They also seem like the type to recall it if they do. Again, this disc is called a revelation almost everywhere e

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by 1924

Why would Sony of all companies release a fake 4k disc? Hard to believe. They also seem like the type to recall it if they do. Again, this disc is called a revelation almost everywhere e

Yeah, like they recalled factual mistakes like "Fury" or "My Girl" - I had to wait 5 years for a fixed "My Girl" BD.

IMO there's no way they'll replace Lawrence. Especially since many don't even see the problem. I'm just being realistic here.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Looks like an upscale, but not 4K, to me at any rate. Took a look at caps only now and the detail increase is so minor (or non-existent at times) that it really looks more like an upscale, but not native 4K.

So they either dumbed it down or made a mistake. Both being frustratíng, since I don't see Sony doing another one - maybe a "Superbit" release 5 years from now...

re. the defensive comments: No one says it looks bad. It just doen't have 4K detail. If anything, it proves one more time that many people can't actually see the actual 4K detail, which is therefore often overrated.

...what complete and utter nonsense.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

...what complete and utter nonsense.

Did you like, look at the screenshots? Look at my converted to 1080p then back to 4k screenshot. It's the same. Then compare that to the iTunes 4k. There has very, very, very clearly been a mistake on the UHD.

The HDR is lovely and gives the image a beautiful depth, yes. Nobody is arguing against that.
But the fine, high frequency detail that clearly exists, is not on the UHD, and is on the digital version.

Originally Posted by 1924

Why would Sony of all companies release a fake 4k disc? Hard to believe. They also seem like the type to recall it if they do. Again, this disc is called a revelation almost everywhere e

This is fully speculation, I am not an expert by any means, but I doubt this was on purpose. I just feel like something went wrong in the long chain of producing this disc.

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Yeah, like they recalled factual mistakes like "Fury" or "My Girl" - I had to wait 5 years for a fixed "My Girl" BD.

IMO there's no way they'll replace Lawrence. Especially since many doen't even see the problem. I'm just being realistic here.

My hope is that with the actual 4k master being around, which clearly got used for the digital version, it might appear on a different region's version of the disc.
It's a slim chance because afaik all the discs will be identical since UHD is region free.

Originally Posted by punisher

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Thought it was a pretty good presentation. As usual, much better colored and detailed than the Blu-ray.

Why do all or most of Robert Harris's restorations add their own credits with the theme music repeated to the end. Most companies that restore movies don't do this, and even those that do usually just add a silent slide or two. I don't really like it. Bless you for restoring it, but it's not your movie. When the movie is over, no more music!

Really? They spent millions of dollars and those particular restorations can take years. Credit where credit is due.

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

He’s well known as an egomaniac.

Give me a break here.

[koberulz]

What streaming version is this exactly? A genuine stream, or the Kaleidescape (or whatever it is) version?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]I think the point with Lawrence - and I said this before - is that you'd have to work damned hard to make it look like shit, given the extensive 4K restoration that it got. So of course it's still going to wow people on UHD disc, but I'm of the opinion that corners were cut regarding the compression to disc, in spite of the two-disc arrangement, and even without directly comparing it to anything the fine detail just seems to stop short of what 65mm can do, even for 65mm of this vintage off of such an extensively rejiggered source.

Meanwhile the HDR isn't enough to mollify those aspects for me, and I say that as one of the biggest fans of HDR you're going to encounter on this or any other planet. Instead of there being a perceptual boost in sharpness (as with the HDR on Dr Stranamore, which is amazing IMO) it's almost the opposite, that the HDR exposes the chunkiness of the grain and when combined with the more visible restoration artefacts and slightly whiffy compression it looks clunkier and untidier than it should do.

When people have levelled their usual fusillade of "Nitpickers who demand perfection" at no-one in particular I like to reply with "I don't aks for perfection, just competence" but you know what? This is Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest films ever made (even if I don't enjoy it, I won't deny its magnificence as a piece of filmmaking) that underwent two massive restorations in the photochemical and digital space respectively, so I was expecting as close to perfection as possible for all aspects of this UHD. I did not get it.

While you do come across as a dude who'd even open his window and notice compression and, other video nasties in the sky. I don't think there's any danger of people dismissing the validity of your insight into these matters. Just that it's less likely to detract from their viewing experience vs yours.

But we'd all be much poorer not knowing they exist thanks to you, and others.

[lgans316]

Looking at the dark side, maybe this is a good excuse for Sony to go 8K and start glorifying it with a remastered 8K of LoA in their promo booths lol.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Looks like an upscale, but not 4K, to me at any rate. Took a look at caps only now and the detail increase is so minor (or non-existent at times) that it really looks more like an upscale, but not native 4K.

So they either dumbed it down or made a mistake. Both being frustratíng, since I don't see Sony doing another one - maybe a "Superbit" release 5 years from now...

re. the defensive comments: No one says it looks bad. It just doen't have 4K detail. If anything, it proves one more time that many people can't actually see the actual 4K detail, which is therefore often overrated.

It is interesting re: the detail thing, isn't it? But then that's why so many upscales look as good as they do on UHD, the underlying 'prettiness' of the original photography and expansive HDR are big factors while "real 4K" finishes/transfers like Solo and Last Jedi and Gremlins will be at the bottom of several "professional reviewer" reference lists because they were never designed to "pop" with super sharpness and colour.

If Lawrence is indeed an upscale it's also interesting that it still has more fine detail than the actual 1080p discs, which speaks to what I've said before about upscales being able to bypass whatever filtering was done to the 1080p version. That the 4x increase in chroma resolution shows as big an improvement as the spatial resolution may also be another red flag that this is an upscale.

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

Why must you always be so damn eloquent, balanced and reasonable?!

I've got an entirely deserved reputation as the nitpicker's nitpicker (which has led to me getting paid work to do just that) but it's all borne out of trying to understand why things look like they do, all the way through from initial capture to display in the home. People wonder why someone would bother to learn so much about these industries despite having no professional connection to them, but I'm equally puzzled as to when learning became such a dirty word, and what someone does on their own time is up to them. It's not important or essential in the grand scheme of things, and those same people probably have more pressing needs in their lives, especially now, but it's what I do.

[Blu Cider]

AH. I see we're firmly into "I bought and paid for the disc so it must be great" territory that these threads usually steer into when people start asking questions and comes up with valid criticism. Something is clearly not right with these discs when a low bitrate stream rip reveals far far more fine detail than the discs themselves.

Does Lawrence on UHD look good? Sure it does, even majestic at times. Could it have been even better? Obviously yes it could. Some people are dissappointed and rightly so.