Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[DetroitSquirreL]

Originally Posted by Col.Klink

you and me both! I'm waiting for the UCE in November.

For those of you who have the UK version already...how's it look?

simply BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

simply BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

That's the word I wanted to express!

[punisher]

Originally Posted by HylianBowcaster

Did anyone else notice a slight aspect ratio shift during the movie? Specifically I saw it happen during the scene when Lawrence is questioned by the Turks, it looks like it changes from 2.20:1, to something more like 2.35:1. Just wondering if anyone else noticed this.

there are a few slight changes here and there that result in a slight video and audio change that appears to be either something added or fixed because of some severe damage to source.I noticed it during a scene with the King /Alec Guiness

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

Lol!

We think we are so advanced with these digital presentations but the truth is digital can't match a good 70mm print on a huge screen.

Oh, truer words were never written!! As a college freshman theatre major I saw "West Side Story" 12 times in 70-mmm!! And such mammoths as "Cheyenne Autumn," "Fall of the Roman Empire" and the (needs-to-be-restored!) gigantic 1968 multi-film Russian "War and Peace."
Those indeed WERE the days!!!

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

simply BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

I've got my UK "Lawrence" too!! It is indeed glorious!!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by punisher

there are a few slight changes here and there that result in a slight video and audio change that appears to be either something added or fixed because of some severe damage to source.I noticed it during a scene with the King /Alec Guiness

Re: the King /Alec Guiness
Roger Harris Post #3261 @ HTF

Originally Posted by HylianBowcaster

Did anyone else notice a slight aspect ratio shift during the movie? Specifically I saw it happen during the scene when Lawrence is questioned by the Turks, it looks like it changes from 2.20:1, to something more like 2.35:1. Just wondering if anyone else noticed this.

Re: Lawrence is questioned by the Turks:
The same question was asked a week ago on post#3232 @ HTFs Lawrence thread. To my knowledge no explanation given to date.

Paul

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

Lol!

We think we are so advanced with these digital presentations but the truth is digital can't match a good 70mm print on a huge screen.

word from Japan is that Fujifilm will stop making movie film early next year due to a general lack of demand

And another source = HTF Roger Harris post #3220.

[Col.Klink]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

simply BEAUTIFUL!!!!!

Originally Posted by Paul H

That's the word I wanted to express!

Originally Posted by ilovenola2

I've got my UK "Lawrence" too!! It is indeed glorious!!

Awesome! Can't wait to see it!!!

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

the 70mm print of 'South Pacific' I saw last Sunday, the magnetic sound in a THX auditorium was just gorgeous sounding.

speaking of Peter O'Toole, I just recently saw 'Lord Jim' in 70mm last month, that was by far one of the most pristine 70mm prints I've seen of an older title film (probably since it's rarely screened) Sony could make my day and give that a bluray release too

Where are you getting to see these 70 mm prints? Seattle? LA?

When South Pacific played in San Francisco in 1958, the 70 mm equipped theater had a poster out front listing the ways Todd-AO sound was better than the best home Hi Fi systems (practical stereo Lp records were still a year away). I've searched for that poster online and failed. It mentioned the superiority of 6 channel stereophonic sound to "Hi Fi" (i.e., mono with good equipment), of course, but I'm not sure what the other qualities were. Dynamic range? In any case, the sound for South Pacific was huge ... enormous ... and I may never have heard reproduction better than the sound of Around the World in 80 Days (1956) in a 70 mm Todd-AO equipped theater..

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by Col.Klink

you and me both! I'm waiting for the UCE in November.

For those of you who have the UK version already...how's it look?

Sampled a few scenes this morning. Absolutely beautiful.

By the way, the US disc will be using this exact same disc as this UK edition. With the FBI warning, etc.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Where are you getting to see these 70 mm prints? Seattle? LA?

When South Pacific played in San Francisco in 1958, the 70 mm equipped theater had a poster out front listing the ways Todd-AO sound was better than the best home Hi Fi systems (practical stereo Lp records were still a year away). I've searched for that poster online and failed. It mentioned the superiority of 6 channel stereophonic sound to "Hi Fi" (i.e., mono with good equipment), of course, but I'm not sure what the other qualities were. Dynamic range? In any case, the sound for South Pacific was huge ... enormous ... and I may never have heard reproduction better than the sound of Around the World in 80 Days (1956) in a 70 mm Todd-AO equipped theater..

at the AFI Silver in Silver Spring Maryland

I agree the five across-stage channel TODD-AO sound was truly gorgeous, something that the bluray can't obviously replicate. Of the four films of the festival I saw, it was by far the best sounding (although 'Khartoum' came a very close second)

back to 'Lawrence' - it's interesting and suitable that the 2012 restoration/transfer team is credited on the end title crawl.

oh and since I'm getting the deluxe edition, I'm now selling off my UK edition for $20 (US addresses only)

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Agreed. And one reason we think we are so advanced is that the corporations keep implying (in their advertizing) that each digital step is somehow better than film. They did that when they introduced DVDs, when they introduced Blu-ray, when 4K digital projection hit the theaters, etc. Fine grain, high resolution 65/70 mm film of 50 years ago was "better" than any digital format the public sees today, providing that the prints were in good condition, the projectionists were doing a good job, and that the theater was equipped for bright projection (e.g., with carbon arcs) on a big screen -- the film-buff seats were often about one screen height away, at least with my friends, once we caught on -- with multichannel magnetic sound. Perhaps they will be able to say that digital is better when theaters start projecting 8K, brightly, with warmer sound.

Warmer sound? The old 6 channel magnetic tracks used for 70 mm features had at least the capacity of sounding "warmer" and less harsh than today's digital. That was not realized in every magnetic soundtrack, and, in 70 mm in San Francisco, the overture for Lawrence was a bit borderline in that respect, but the rest of the soundtrack was beautiful. It is true that the speaker systems in even the best road show theaters began to roll off below 40 Hz, but they cranked out a huge amount of bass just above that, and the rest of the audio range was precise, clean and spacious.

A perfect post and everyone here should read it and understand it. I mourn for carbon arcs - it's why when you watch a dye transfer print today it doesn't look the same - the color isn't what it should be because today's bulbs put out an entirely different kind of light - color movies, until the demise of carbon arcs, were TIMED for that light. When you show them today, that timing goes right into the toilet. As to digital projection, I have hated it when it first came in and I hate it now. I saw the 4K presentation of Lawrence at the Academy. It looked okay - but flat and a little color drained, same as when I saw the 4K Bye Bye Birdie screening. Both Lawrence and Birdie Blu-rays look so much better than those screenings.

I recently saw The Master in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome, but their projection sucks - and it didn't even look like 70 should. Anyone who was around in the Golden Age of 70mm right through to the end of the 1960s, knows what an experience seeing properly projected 70mm was. There was nothing like it - the film had such clarity and life and brilliance and oh those colors. Not with today's projection and not with today's light.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

A perfect post and everyone here should read it and understand it. I mourn for carbon arcs - it's why when you watch a dye transfer print today it doesn't look the same - the color isn't what it should be because today's bulbs put out an entirely different kind of light - color movies, until the demise of carbon arcs, were TIMED for that light. When you show them today, that timing goes right into the toilet. As to digital projection, I have hated it when it first came in and I hate it now. I saw the 4K presentation of Lawrence at the Academy. It looked okay - but flat and a little color drained, same as when I saw the 4K Bye Bye Birdie screening. Both Lawrence and Birdie Blu-rays look so much better than those screenings.

I recently saw The Master in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome, but their projection sucks - and it didn't even look like 70 should. Anyone who was around in the Golden Age of 70mm right through to the end of the 1960s, knows what an experience seeing properly projected 70mm was. There was nothing like it - the film had such clarity and life and brilliance and oh those colors. Not with today's projection and not with today's light.

Not to toot AFI Silver's horn but their setup/projector is no slouch in the light department (it's also THX approved). Playtime looked like a window into the movie. The scene where Dolly makes her entrance down the restaurant stairs from Hello, Dolly! it nearly looked like she was also going to step out of the screen. In terms of sound, the original 6-track mix of West Side Story was jaw dropping - it made me miss the 8-channel SDDS mixed film that took advantage of five speakers behind the screen.

[CinemaScope]

Yep, we've reached the point I never thought we would, where films can look better at home than in the cinema! A decent telly or projector & Blu-ray, & you can watch the movies in just your underpants & with a glass of wine

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Yep, we've reached the point I never thought we would, where films can look better at home than in the cinema! A decent telly or projector & Blu-ray, & you can watch the movies in just your underpants & with a glass of wine

I think they are better in some ways in a theater, and better at home in other ways. Neither home nor theater can match the old 70 mm quality of the past, if you equalize image size on your retinas, and make that size what you would get somewhere between, say, one image height to two+ image heights away (approx the 5th row from the screen, to the 15th row from the screen in my favorite 70 mm theater).

So here is how the qualities stack up -- eye filling image size, as described above, assumed -- IMO:

BEST

1. Careful 70 mm projection with carbon arc light and 6 channel magnetic sound
2. Careful 35 mm projection with carbon arc light and 4 channel magnetic sound
3. Modern (dark) theatrical projection with digital sound
4. Blu-ray with an excellent home theater set-up. Better hope that the audio dynamic range was not compressed to save inadequate speakers, and that the original music elements were mixed maintaining the same ratio of music SPL to dialog SPL as was true in the original movie, reflecting the filmmakers' intentions
5. DVD, as above
6. VHS Hi FI, as above

WORST

Where does 4K theatrical presentation fit in? Providing they do an excellent job, it depends on where you sit, and other factors. If you sit far away, it may look a lot like Blu-ray. If you sit close up, it should be more detailed than Blu-ray of equal retinal size, but worse than 70 mm projection. And it will often be darker than the old standard, and darker than Blu-ray at home.

Any of the top three configurations could be further improved by watching in just your underpants, with a glass of wine -- at least until the police arrive.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by garyrc

I think they are better in some ways in a theater, and better at home in other ways. Neither home nor theater can match the old 70 mm quality of the past, if you equalize image size on your retinas, and make that size what you would get somewhere between, say, one image height to two+ image heights away (approx the 5th row from the screen, to the 15th row from the screen in my favorite 70 mm theater).

So here is how the qualities stack up -- eye filling image size, as described above, assumed -- IMO:

BEST

1. Careful 70 mm projection with carbon arc light and 6 channel magnetic sound
2. Careful 35 mm projection with carbon arc light and 4 channel magnetic sound
3. Modern (dark) theatrical projection with digital sound
4. Blu-ray with an excellent home theater set-up. Better hope that the audio dynamic range was not compressed to save inadequate speakers, and that the original music elements were mixed maintaining the same ratio of music SPL to dialog SPL as was true in the original movie, reflecting the filmmakers' intentions
5. DVD, as above
6. VHS Hi FI, as above

WORST

Any of the top three configurations could be further improved by watching in just your underpants, with a glass of wine -- at least until the police arrive.

so what's your opinion of non-mag sound (DTS) on 70mm prints. To me, it's the analogy of the difference between CD and vinyl - the latter has a warmth, that digital somehow is lacking.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

so what's your opinion of non-mag sound (DTS) on 70mm prints. To me, it's the analogy of the difference between CD and vinyl - the latter has a warmth, that digital somehow is lacking.

Exactly.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Exactly.

Digital can replace analog, but it's not quite there yet. For music, I thought they had a great start in improving digital with two channel/multichannel DVD-A and SACD, but the format war between the two killed it. Blu-ray audio for music is pretty much nowhere to be seen, so it seems sadly digital high-def will have to continue improving on the movie front, which compared to what I heard on DVD-A and SACD is still far behind.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Digital can replace analog, but it's not quite there yet. For music, I thought they had a great start in improving digital with two channel/multichannel DVD-A and SACD, but the format war between the two killed it. Blu-ray audio for music is pretty much nowhere to be seen, so it seems sadly digital high-def will have to continue improving on the movie front, which compared to what I heard on DVD-A and SACD is still far behind.

• SACD may become more popular because as people replace their broken DVD or Blu-ray players they will often go to universal players that do SACD as well as CD, BD, DVD, and more.
• One reason SACD did not catch fire is a lack of public awareness, due to an amazing lack of advertising. I can't imagine anyone who uses the same amps/speakers for movies and music not wanting glorious 5.1 for their music as well. Even for those SACDs that are not 5.1 or 5.0, the 3 channel and 2 channel SACDs often sound better than CDs, either because of the superior technology, or perhaps because the engineers and producers are motivated to do a better job when working in a better medium.
• Hopefully, the movie sound technology and music disk technology will synergistically help both improve.

[metal134]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Yep, we've reached the point I never thought we would, where films can look better at home than in the cinema! A decent telly or projector & Blu-ray, & you can watch the movies in just your underpants & with a glass of wine

Well, yes and no. I think the quality of the picture itself is reaching that point. But still, even with the best quality picture imaginable and the best TV or projector imaginable, nothing beats seeing a movie on a 400 inch screen. Unless you are rich beyond imagination, you'll never be able to achieve THAT in your home.