Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

... there is a not SINGLE woman in this film is there? No female extras er anything...or did my eyes deceive me?

It's Arabia. You know, where they value/valued their women less than their horses. That's not a criticism, it's an accurate, if generalized, assessment of the culture being depicted (I don't believe the Brits had women serving overseas at the time, either).

Arab women, like many women in the West, were there to care for the children and keep the home fires burning - not to be involved in the affairs of men. Which is why - when Anthony Quinn and his "army" are leaving to raid Aqaba, the women are the ones on the hills cheering/yodeling (I don't know the correct word for the sound the women are making). Those are all women, unless a few children are also involved (I can't check the film right now). It is what it is/was, not what it should be.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Of course, every film is shot differently, but Lawrence was shot on 70mm, so it should look much better than even the best 35mm films, otherwise, what's the point of shooting in that format?

As I'm sure you know, 70 mm quality varied in the theater, as observed by people who tried to sit where the image was approximately the same size on the retina every time. Our group did so. Several of us were photographers, including one professional. The irony here is that Lawrence of Arabia was one of the ones with near perfect PQ. I have never seen the high PQ of Lawrence approached on a BD, but friends who saw the restoration in a 70 mm print several years ago told me Lawrence still had it.

Here is a short list of my ratings of the theatrical PQ of 70 mm prints (some from 65 mm negs, some not) that we happened to see in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Near perfect: Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Sleeping Beauty.

Damn Good, but not quite as good as the above: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Around the World in 80 Days (1956; outstanding sense of depth), Oklahoma!

Down a bit, but still better than most 35 mm: West Side Story (a little grainy), It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

Inferior: Outland, Quest for Fire

[dmollenauer]

Originally Posted by shovelware69

The minor EE is the only thing that bothers me, especially after the amount of comments and reviewers giving Sony the reach-a-round on the transfer.

I'm not even watching it on a large screen and it's fairly obvious. Much like the DNR in Jaws, that people seem reluctant to admit.

I agree on both points. It may not be an apples-to-apples comparision, but IMO Ben Hur and Bridge on the River Kwai look better than LOA.

Universals E.T. was one of their best efforts ever, and I think they are getting better overall.

[Rizor]

While they're all technically great, I prefer LOA's transfer to those of Ben-Hur of Bridge on the River Kwai, but it's more to do with aesthetics and cinematography. To quote Lawrence, "It's clean." Those other films have those muddy brownish looks to them. The desert and the clear blue skies are beautiful. LOA might just be the best photographed film ever. Every shot is breathtaking.

[*PREACHER*]

Originally Posted by Rizor

While they're all technically great, I prefer LOA's transfer to those of Ben-Hur of Bridge on the River Kwai, but it's more to do with aesthetics and cinematography. To quote Lawrence, "It's clean." Those other films have those muddy brownish looks to them. The desert and the clear blue skies are beautiful. LOA might just be the best photographed film ever. Every shot is breathtaking.

Have to agree with you after finally finishing the film tonight...such a beautiful film from start to finish...so much to take in and the acting was superb!!!

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by shovelware69

The minor EE is the only thing that bothers me, especially after the amount of comments and reviewers giving Sony the reach-a-round on the transfer.

I'm not even watching it on a large screen and it's fairly obvious. Much like the DNR in Jaws, that people seem reluctant to admit.

Yeah, it's quite obvious indeed.

Originally Posted by garyrc

As I'm sure you know, 70 mm quality varied in the theater, as observed by people who tried to sit where the image was approximately the same size on the retina every time. Our group did so. Several of us were photographers, including one professional. The irony here is that Lawrence of Arabia was one of the ones with near perfect PQ. I have never seen the high PQ of Lawrence approached on a BD, but friends who saw the restoration in a 70 mm print several years ago told me Lawrence still had it.

Here is a short list of my ratings of the theatrical PQ of 70 mm prints (some from 65 mm negs, some not) that we happened to see in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Near perfect: Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Sleeping Beauty.

Damn Good, but not quite as good as the above: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Around the World in 80 Days (1956; outstanding sense of depth), Oklahoma!

Down a bit, but still better than most 35 mm: West Side Story (a little grainy), It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

Inferior: Outland, Quest for Fire

Of course, it fluctuates from theater to theater, even if it's projected digitally, due to the equipment used, but then it wouldn't be a 70mm presentation anymore anyways.

I thought "It's Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" was superior looking to LOA's transfer.
It's much more consistent, and there are only 1-2 anomalies that I could observe, besides the obvious opticals (effects shots).

I need to watch it again though. Great BD, and great film.

I saw Ben Hur on BD a while ago, and was quite impressed, but it's not a film close to me, so I may have been more forgiving. Found it too be very good looking, but certainly not perfect. Don't remember specifics though.

2001 has too many problems to list, so it's clearly inferior to LOA IMO. However, most of those issues are more related to the compression used.

EIDT: To me Bridge On The River Kwai looks way too processed.

Doctor Zhivago and A Passage To India both look great, with a few minor exceptions, of course.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by shovelware69

The minor EE is the only thing that bothers me, especially after the amount of comments and reviewers giving Sony the reach-a-round on the transfer.

I'm not even watching it on a large screen and it's fairly obvious. Much like the DNR in Jaws, that people seem reluctant to admit.

+1. I thought it looked fantastic but Im sure I noticed a bit of EE from time to time too. Some people think its the best PQ on blu and although its certainly up there (especially for such an old film), its not the best.

Ben Hur is another one. Yes, it looks amazing for such an old film (again) but this one is not perfect at all. No way. I noticed issues with blacks and it was rather soft too in places I think. I doubt it could look any better though.

[CinemaScope]

Well one thing's for sure. Lawrence Of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Jaws look 100% better than most new movies do

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by shovelware69

The minor EE is the only thing that bothers me, especially after the amount of comments and reviewers giving Sony the reach-a-round on the transfer.

I'm not even watching it on a large screen and it's fairly obvious. Much like the DNR in Jaws, that people seem reluctant to admit.

But I can confirm that Jaws actually had no DNR, I recently resaw an 8mm print of it a friend collected back in the mid 80's and the soft looking shots which people blamed with DNR actually looked out of Focus on the print. And though Jaws was never a grainy film it was a film with really shit colors from the first VHS to the last DVD, and the 8mm print looked similar. After all I saw I'm sure that the Universal Jaws Blu-ray is actually one of the damn perfect restorations.

And Lawrence of Arabia is a fully different thing. Though I didn't see any EE I did feel that it was not as good looking as it could be, but then again I realise that actually thats the best it can look. LOA had a very painstaking optical restoration back then which actually even then did not 100 percent match the look it originally had. With the 8K Restoration one could go closer but I'm sure it will never be as good looking in terms of Resolution as films with relatively pristine original 70mm negatives like Sound of Music, Patton or Cleopatra.

The detail is there but what Lawrence will always lack is the sterile grainless look it must have had originally in it's very first 70mm Prints. And though I have to say that Lawrence looks better to me than say Sound of Music, it's actually as one noted due to LOA's superior Cinematography. In terms of resolution and color depth though it will never look as good as Sound of Music due to source limitations. And what people might see as EE in some scenes is actually some scenes shot with slit focus for more depth of field, the phenomena is also there in Ben-Hur and is part of the original negative. Though I didn't find the effect visible in LOA as in Ben-Hur people might have seen it as Lawrence of Arabia had scenes with slit focus.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Rizor

While they're all technically great, I prefer LOA's transfer to those of Ben-Hur of Bridge on the River Kwai, but it's more to do with aesthetics and cinematography. To quote Lawrence, "It's clean." Those other films have those muddy brownish looks to them ...

The 35 mm print I saw of Bridge on the River Kwai in about 1958 did have a rather muddy brownish look to it. But the two 70 mm prints I saw of Ben-Hur did not. They were probably the best prints I've ever seen in all ways: color, resolution, acutance, etc. These Ben-Hur prints had a reach-out-and-touch-it quality. The BD is O.K., but not nearly as good.

[QUOTE=Scholer;7126991

The detail is there but what Lawrence will always lack is the sterile grainless look it must have had originally in it's very first 70mm Prints..[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what it had in the 70 mm print I saw in 1962, during its first run.

I believe that Robert A. Harris found that he needed 8K to get all of the detail off of the negative. Of course, there is no way to get that on a Blu-ray ... but maybe someday, when there is a better medium than Blu ....

[bdmartin134]

Lineup for Cinemark's Classic Series for the spring is up.. Go to their site to check out films and dates, but Lawrence of Arabia is playing on March 20th at 2pm and 7pm.
Other films include, Forrest Gump, West Side Story, Godfather, American Beauty, and of course same time as last year, Casablanca.

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Arab women, like many women in the West, were there to care for the children and keep the home fires burning - not to be involved in the affairs of men. Which is why - when Anthony Quinn and his "army" are leaving to raid Aqaba, the women are the ones on the hills cheering/yodeling (I don't know the correct word for the sound the women are making).

The word is "ululating."

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by dougotte

The word is "ululating."

Sounds provocative!

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

It's Arabia. You know, where they value/valued their women less than their horses. That's not a criticism, it's an accurate, if generalized, assessment of the culture being depicted (I don't believe the Brits had women serving overseas at the time, either).

Arab women, like many women in the West, were there to care for the children and keep the home fires burning - not to be involved in the affairs of men. Which is why - when Anthony Quinn and his "army" are leaving to raid Aqaba, the women are the ones on the hills cheering/yodeling (I don't know the correct word for the sound the women are making). Those are all women, unless a few children are also involved (I can't check the film right now). It is what it is/was, not what it should be.

Thats cool I wasn't mentioning the lack of women in the film as a mis-step or a "problem" but just an observation on something I may or may have not missed when watching it. I didnt really even think about it until after the credits rolled and being a 3 hour and 47 minute movie...I wasn't about to just re-watch it to find out.

Anyway, I understand what youre saying given the cirucumstances in the story of the film.

Just to note, I thought LoA looked FANTASTIC!

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by garyrc

As I'm sure you know, 70 mm quality varied in the theater, as observed by people who tried to sit where the image was approximately the same size on the retina every time. Our group did so. Several of us were photographers, including one professional. The irony here is that Lawrence of Arabia was one of the ones with near perfect PQ. I have never seen the high PQ of Lawrence approached on a BD, but friends who saw the restoration in a 70 mm print several years ago told me Lawrence still had it.

Here is a short list of my ratings of the theatrical PQ of 70 mm prints (some from 65 mm negs, some not) that we happened to see in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Near perfect: Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Sleeping Beauty.

Damn Good, but not quite as good as the above: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Around the World in 80 Days (1956; outstanding sense of depth), Oklahoma!

Down a bit, but still better than most 35 mm: West Side Story (a little grainy), It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

Inferior: Outland, Quest for Fire

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World looks VERY good to me here:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1163#auswahl

Certainly better than 2001.

[Cortiz]

Never seen this movie before. Is it worth a blind buy?

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

Never seen this movie before. Is it worth a blind buy?

I've only watched it once so my opinion may not carry as much weight as others but I would say yes. It sounds fantastic, looks fantastic, and the story is epic and it also helps that T.E. Lawrence is, IMO, one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen in a film. He's a hard character to peg and thats makes him very intriguing.

Its also beautifully shot with gorgeous cinematography.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Well one thing's for sure. Lawrence Of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Jaws look 100% better than most new movies do

You mean cinematography wise, or PQ wise? Slightly confused here.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World looks VERY good to me here:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1163#auswahl

Certainly better than 2001.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. It's nearly perfect in the PQ department, at least from what I remember. I gave it 4,5/5 in my review here.

Originally Posted by Cortiz

Never seen this movie before. Is it worth a blind buy?

Well, have you seen any other David Lean films, such as Doctor Zhivago, Bridge on the River Kwai, or my personal favorite, A Passage to India?

Do you like old-fashioned epics, with very character-driven story?

That's David Lean. LOA is the epic of all epics. The vistas are endless.
The spectacle enormous, and all life action, but it's all about the characters.
That was David Lean's biggest strength IMO.
This is basically a must-own BD if you call yourself a film buff.
I won't watch it every week, but once a year probably.

A really great film. Even though, I'd recommend APTI more, but that's just my odd taste, I guess. Lol

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

You mean cinematography wise, or PQ wise? Slightly confused here.

Please don't be confused. I suppose I meant PQ, but it's hard to seperate that from cinematography, so I'd say both. Freddy Young's photography on Lawerence Of Arabia is a thing of wonder, whereas a lot of new films look like they were shot on an old VHS camera. All my best looking Blu's are older movies.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by retablo

And the original Patton got 5 for PQ as well, but that means nothing. It was an older time, and we know better now.

Did they finally re-do Patton? I was cautioned that they would be selling the old overprocessed version in a new box. If they created a new transfer, who did it, and how is it?