Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

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.

Look to BDs like Hamlet, Gettysburg, & Gods and Generals for an idea of how lackluster 4 hour films on one disc can be.

As for not needing an intermission, it's not like they just stopped the film half way through and could cut out the gap for BD. There's an artistry to bringing the first half of a film to a close with an intermission. It's like two acts of a play.

[GC13]

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.

And yet there is likely no reason for it to be on two discs. Godfather Part II, at a few minutes longer as far as I can tell, fits on a single blu-ray quite happily, with nobody complaining about any problems with its video quality caused by compression.

[Pirate King]

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.

Lawrence of Arabia is possibly my favorite movie... I keep bouncing back and forth between LOA and Ben-Hur. (Which was wisely spread over two discs). No doubt there are those who would rather have LOA on one disc. For those of us who want the best possible PQ AND AQ, two discs is a must for this masterpiece of film making.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Look to BDs like Hamlet, Gettysburg, & Gods and Generals for an idea of how lackluster 4 hour films on one disc can be.

As for not needing an intermission, it's not like they just stopped the film half way through and could cut out the gap for BD. There's an artistry to bringing the first half of a film to a close with an intermission. It's like two acts of a play.

There's alot of factors that contribute to bad PQ on films. Bit rates and encodes aren't always the be all end all.

Dude, i know what an intermission is. I think they're cool and i hope and assume that the intermissions on old movies will stay intact. Just saying that an intermission isn't your only chance to "move around" when you watch at home.

[BigNickUK]

Originally Posted by GC13

And yet there is likely no reason for it to be on two discs. Godfather Part II, at a few minutes longer as far as I can tell, fits on a single blu-ray quite happily, with nobody complaining about any problems with its video quality caused by compression.

At 216 mins runtime, Lawrence of Arabia is 16 mins longer than Godfather Part II.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by BigNickUK

At 216 mins runtime, Lawrence of Arabia is 16 mins longer than Godfather Part II.

But "Lawrence of Arabia" was filmed in 70mm and so a good hi-def video transfer should have more detail than a movie like "Godfather, Part II", which was filmed in 35mm.

[BigNickUK]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

But "Lawrence of Arabia" was filmed in 70mm and so a good hi-def video transfer should have more detail than a movie like "Godfather, Part II", which was filmed in 35mm.

That wasnt the point I was making

[retablo]

It should be split on 2 discs.

[GC13]

Yeah, for all my knowledge of how many minutes are in an hour, numbers like 216 minutes never fail to confuse me.

If the scans they get require two discs to avoid lossy compression then they should put it on two discs. However, the reviews of the films Aragorn called out do not cite compression as a problem (well, Gettysburg [at just under an hour longer than LoA] is called out as having its "significant" compression issues "kept at bay" while still netting a 3/5 for its video quality which left a "good impression") so, neophyte I am, I am not sure they'd require two discs for a good image.

[FT-86]

Were talking about Sony here folks, Im sure they wont screw this transfer up. They've had a good track record so far, and just look at Taxi Driver, they didnt mess around with that transfer.

[Alexias_dad]

So thats why Ben-hur was two discs?i dont not know that.Then i all for two for Loa, if it means better Pq/Aq

[Egbert Souse]

Disc splits are a non-issue for films with intermissions. The only request is that the 2nd disc automatically starts without the usual FBI warning crap. This is a problem on some DVDs. I loved how the LoA Superbit immediately started.

A second disc is necessary either way since there's no way the entire film plus supplements would fit on just one BD-50.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Disc splits are a non-issue for films with intermissions. The only request is that the 2nd disc automatically starts without the usual FBI warning crap. This is a problem on some DVDs. I loved how the LoA Superbit immediately started.

A second disc is necessary either way since there's no way the entire film plus supplements would fit on just one BD-50.

IF the entire film were to be placed on 1 disc, the supplements would be on another BD, or (gasp) a dvd. The only supplement on the movie disc would be any commentaries.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by GC13

And yet there is likely no reason for it to be on two discs. Godfather Part II, at a few minutes longer as far as I can tell, fits on a single blu-ray quite happily, with nobody complaining about any problems with its video quality caused by compression.

Godfather II wasn't 70mm Super Panavision scanned at 8K, and didn't have Grover Crisp supervising the transfer.

Whenever it finally arrives, this Blu will not be merely adequate, but magnificent.

[Riff Magnum]

I wish my name was Grover Crisp.

[ShellOilJunior]

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.

This probably the best thing you can read about what's going on and why they're taking their time to make sure this restoration is magnificent.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/30...0#post_3898386

[Shanester]

I'm going with the UK (June 4th) release for the time being

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Shanester

I'm going with the UK (June 4th) release for the time being

I thought that release date was removed?

[Shanester]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I thought that release date was removed?

Really?? I was not aware

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

I wish my name was Grover Crisp.

lol, I’ll have to tell Grover that he’s developing his own internet fanboy following.

Grover would be the first to tell you that the true unsung heroes (if people are into that sort of stuff) in the business of restoration are the nameless, or, for the most part, anonymous techs who do the in-the-trench work behind the scenes.....and that includes in the digital domain.