Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by The Duke

From the Home Theater article Dubstar quoted, the LoA was scanned at 8k and saved for future technology able to take advantage of it, but then it was taken down to 4k for a working copy. Since the theatrical re-release will use 4k digital projectors (I want one!) and the Blu-ray will only be in 2k, a 4k working copy makes sense.

Thanks, Duke!

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by The Duke

From the Home Theater article Dubstar quoted, the LoA was scanned at 8k to capture all the detail of the 65mm negative and saved, but then it was taken down to 4k for a working copy. Since the theatrical re-release will use 4k digital projectors (I want one!) and the Blu-ray will only be in 2k, a 4k working copy makes sense.

Honestly, how many Ks is do we really need?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Petyr_Baelish

Honestly, how many Ks is do we really need?

You should retain the full quality of the source material if you are doing a restoration. For 35mm 4k is perfect, 8k captures the "resolution" of a 70mm negative. In that spirit they should ideally keep an 8k workflow, although I'm not sure if that's possible.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Petyr_Baelish

Honestly, how many Ks is do we really need?

After 8K you have Special K

[rickah88]

Ok! :d

[wvl]

Bout time... got this on high bit DVD, but blu should look way better, although high bit DVD isn't bad.

[BigNickUK]

Originally Posted by wvl

Bout time... got this on high bit DVD, but blu should look way better, although high bit DVD isn't bad.

Waaaaay better, plus it will be split across 2 blu's no doubt

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by 24framesasecond

I'm confused about the comments regarding the supposedly dismal condition of the negative when this restoration began. Wouldn't the exhaustive reconstruction/restoration that Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz performed on the film in the 1980s have yielded a reference master on safety film that the current restoration team could have worked from?

Full-quality BD restorations should always start with the original camera negative (OCN) where available. Though it's a good reference, the RAH/Katz master isn't the OCN.

Also, the RAH/Katz restoration did NOT restore ALL the missing footage from its original roadshow version--about 6 minutes' worth per my research. Without overtures, intermissions, etc. (the way they counted movie time in the old days), the original LoA print was just over 222 minutes--one minute longer than GWTW by the same standard, and thus the longest original theatrical version ever of any Best Picture winner. (LOTR:ROTK EE is considerably longer, but its TE is only 200 minutes--still a tie with Godfather II as the longest Best Picture winner since LoA.) If Sony can find the missing footage and incorporate it into the BD, they should.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by 24framesasecond

By the way, those of you who don't want all the trinkets etc. that the box set is sure to be loaded down with might consider buying the UK release. The transfer will be identical (that is to say, gorgeous), it'll be cheaper (probably a lot cheaper), and you won't have to put up with a lot of useless extra crap. And as a bonus, you'll get it earlier--June 4 is the scheduled release in the UK.

Though I preordered it while Amazon UK was still taking orders, they stopped taking them and pulled down the June 4 release date. Consider the June 4 date unreliable.

Edit: Not to mention that as a Sony release its U.S. version will likely be no more than a thick digibook, like Bridge on the River Kwai & Taxi Driver--and almost certainly more affordable than the typical WB box'o'swag. (Even Fox offers decent swag-free options alongside its boxes'o'swag.)

[wvl]

Originally Posted by BigNickUK

Waaaaay better, plus it will be split across 2 blu's no doubt

Kewl... can't wait..

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

Full-quality BD restorations should always start with the original camera negative (OCN) where available. Though it's a good reference, the RAH/Katz master isn't the OCN.

Also, the RAH/Katz restoration did NOT restore ALL the missing footage from its original roadshow version--about 6 minutes' worth per my research. Without overtures, intermissions, etc. (the way they counted movie time in the old days), the original LoA print was just over 222 minutes--one minute longer than GWTW by the same standard, and thus the longest original theatrical version ever of any Best Picture winner. (LOTR:ROTK EE is considerably longer, but its TE is only 200 minutes--still a tie with Godfather II as the longest Best Picture winner since LoA.) If Sony can find the missing footage and incorporate it into the BD, they should.

If I recall correctly - the missing footage is a terrace scene with Hawkins and O'Toole. The reason it hadn't been included was because the audio was totally unusable. I seem to recall hearing something about them getting an actor who sounds a lot like Hawkins to dub the scene. This was a 2 years ago or so...


The main thing is we are in for a treat:

1. Restoration print on the big screen
2. High quality blu

All indications are Mr. Crisp and company have knocked this one out of the park. I cannot wait...

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

If I recall correctly - the missing footage is a terrace scene with Hawkins and O'Toole. The reason it hadn't been included was because the audio was totally unusable. I seem to recall hearing something about them getting an actor who sounds a lot like Hawkins to dub the scene. This was a 2 years ago or so...


The main thing is we are in for a treat:

1. Restoration print on the big screen
2. High quality blu

All indications are Mr. Crisp and company have knocked this one out of the park. I cannot wait...

it's up in the air if actual prints will be struck, but it'd be ideal if new 35mm and 70mm prints were culled from the restoration/new transfer - but it's a definite guarantee that a 4K digital release is going to happen.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by The Duke

From the Home Theater article Dubstar quoted, the LoA was scanned at 8k and saved for future technology able to take advantage of it….

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Thanks, Duke!

That’s not really correct. The article in no way implies or reveals that the 8K scan was “saved for future technology”, I think The Duke probably read that here…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...aw#post5673213

but it does bring up an important and perhaps unrecognized point in that as far as the general scanning of motion pictures goes, it is not necessarily standard procedure for all studios or content providers to keep the raw scans of all their film assets. It requires insight as to what may play-out in the future as well as, of course, the continued absorption of archival storage costs over the course of time.

To give you some perspective of the numbers involved, just for a 65mm. motion picture (that is, 65mm/5 perf) which say, had a runtime of only 1½ hr., you’ll need over 30 terabytes of data storage, be it either dpx or cineon files and “Lawrence” is a lot longer than 1½ hr.

Plus, if you don’t reuse the raw scan in several years, just to be safe, you’re compelled to copy and migrate the data(movie) every several years in order to protect the asset….which incurs additional cost. It is by no means a *store-and-ignore* procedure. The whole process of saving a raw scan requires careful thought and investment, which is why it is not uncommon for some content providers only to save the DSM (Digital Source Master).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by The Duke

...Since the theatrical re-release will use 4k digital projectors (I want one!)

There ya go!
This is a video of a past demo with post viewing analysis provided by several attendees…

Sony VW1000 4K Projector AVForums event - YouTube

If not published yet, there should be coming soon some projector reviews from individuals who were also supplied native 4K source material (trailers for The Arrival, ASM, etc.) fed via a server to look at.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

You should retain the full quality of the source material if you are doing a restoration. For 35mm 4k is perfect, 8k captures the "resolution" of a 70mm negative. In that spirit they should ideally keep an 8k workflow, although I'm not sure if that's possible.

Hey singhcr

For workflows, see -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ce#post5810166

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by BigNickUK

Waaaaay better, plus it will be split across 2 blu's no doubt

Really? I hope that's not true.

Here it is 2012 and we're still waiting for this damn thing. I'll believe it when i see it in Wal Mart. I'm getting tired head from reading all this restoration nonsense and speculation.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

There's no reason for it to NOT be on 2 discs to maximize quality. There's an Intermission, for crying out loud. You're meant to get up and stretch your legs anyway. So you might as well change a disc while your up.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Really? I hope that's not true.

Here it is 2012 and we're still waiting for this damn thing. I'll believe it when i see it in Wal Mart. I'm getting tired head from reading all this restoration nonsense and speculation.

Would you rather have a rush job based on an old master that everyone could further complain about?

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

There's no reason for it to NOT be on 2 discs to maximize quality. There's an Intermission, for crying out loud. You're meant to get up and stretch your legs anyway. So you might as well change a disc while your up.

True, but i'm not sure how relevant that it these days. Intermissions were meant for long ass movies being shown in the theater. With a bluray i can pause it any time i want and stretch my legs, get a drink, hit the toilet, etc.

The quality thing sounds good to me, although i'm pretty sure it would look fine on a single BD50.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by retablo

Would you rather have a rush job based on an old master that everyone could further complain about?

obviously not. I've been waiting 5 years like everyone else. Just saw the thread, got my hopes up as usual, then proceeded to wade through 4 pages of techno babble and speculation. Wake me up when it's OUT already.