Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I watched this for the first time last night.

Question: although the BD looked very good, I noticed quite a few instances of ringing around objects against brighter backgrounds.

With Robert Harris behind the restoration, I have a hard time believing this is edge enhancement and it wasn't around every object even in the same scene - was this more of less camera/optical defects from filming the movie?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Time code, please.

RAH

[42041]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I watched this for the first time last night.

Question: although the BD looked very good, I noticed quite a few instances of ringing around objects against brighter backgrounds.

With Robert Harris behind the restoration, I have a hard time believing this is edge enhancement and it wasn't around every object even in the same scene - was this more of less camera/optical defects from filming the movie?

I don't recall seeing obvious digital tampering when I saw the new restoration (DCP, haven't seen the disc); but I've noticed that dupe elements in older films sometimes have halos that look not unlike the sharpening artifacts, though without the resultant sharpness. Could be back-lighting of fabric/hair too.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Rizor

Are you talking about Sony's "Mastered in 4K" line? I imagine it'll be released in the future. It's actually probably the reason Sony chose not to split the film between 2 discs for the current release - so they could have a Superbit-style release later.

we dont want a Superbit-style release we want LOA in full 4k the way it was intended to be seen

[Anamorph]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

we dont want a Superbit-style release we want LOA in full 4k the way it was intended to be seen

If you own a projector, viewing a 100" image, 4K can be worthwhile. Anyone with a 65" set or smaller will be wasting their $.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Anamorph

If you own a projector, viewing a 100" image, 4K can be worthwhile. Anyone with a 65" set or smaller will be wasting their $.

And even at 100" diagonal it's a little ridiculous to project a 4K image. At that resolution, an individual pixel would be approximately 1/50th of an inch square. Can the average person even distinguish between pixels that size at a distance from 12 to 7 feet as that graph suggests? Perhaps. This period which is two pixels high on my 97ppi screen is just barely visible at 7 feet:

.

And to echo what Mr. Harris has said before on the subject, 4K rivals the quality of a 70mm print -- even exceeding it in his opinion due to the absence of the analog and mechanical aspects of film prints and film projectors which degrade the image. 4K is really meant for large venues and screens measured in tens of feet, not inches. So, unless one has a room or lawn that can fit about 600 chairs and a area big enough to erect a 50 foot wide screen, I would have to agree. Invest that $24,998 somewhere else.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

And even at 100" diagonal it's a little ridiculous to project a 4K image. At that resolution, an individual pixel would be approximately 1/50th of an inch squared. Can the average person even distinguish between pixels that size at a distance from 12 to 7 feet as that graph suggests? Perhaps. This period which is two pixels high on my 97ppi screen is just barely visible at 7 feet:

.

And to echo what Mr. Harris has said before on the subject, 4K rivals the quality of a 70mm print -- even exceeding it in his opinion due to the absence of the analog and mechanical aspects of film prints and film projectors which degrade the image. 4K is really meant for large venues and screens measured in tens of feet, not inches. So, unless one has a room or lawn that can fit about 600 chairs and a area big enough to erect a 50 foot wide screen, I would have to agree. Invest that $24,998 somewhere else.

what about watching it on a 84inch screen still too small i guess?

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

what about watching it on a 84inch screen still too small i guess?

Well, look at the resolution chart Anamorph provided. You'd have to sit about 5 feet away from a screen that size to get the full benefit of 4K. An 84 inch diagonal screen is 73 inches wide. At 5 feet, your eyes would have to dart back and forth to see all of the image a lot more than, say, a 100 inch wide screen at around 13 feet which is where the full benefit of 1080p becomes visible. Remember that the fovea in the human eye, the area of sharp focus, comprises only 1% of your retina. The fovea sees only the central two degrees of the visual field, (approximately twice the width of your thumbnail at arm's length).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis

[Cinemave]

Awesome chart, man. I'm cutting it out and putting it on my wall. I guess that's why we'll never see portable blu-ray players with built-in screens.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Remember that the fovea in the human eye, the area of sharp focus, comprises only 1% of your retina. The fovea sees only the central two degrees of the visual field, (approximately twice the width of your thumbnail at arm's length).

]

True, but ....

You see a sharp image in the area of the fovea, but the far wider, softer image all around it is mightily important to the esthetics of wide screen cinema. Part of the glorious experience of immersion that came with 70 mm showings in Todd-AO, Super (and Ultra) Panavision 70, and the others on the original large, curved screens with seating that went almost all the way down to the screen, without a pit, organ, or stage in the way was chiefly due to the out of focus part of the image, which came into focus, of course, section by section, if you moved your eyes or turned your head. You had the feeling that you were inside the image, looking around, and finding details within the frame. I say "within the frame," but I often lost consciousness of the frame when watching these movies. The director would point your field of vision at whatever he wanted you to experience, as part of that large field.

We have a 130" wide (not diagonal) front projection screen, which we view from about 12.5 feet, the images are sharp, and the screen just isn't big enough to reproduce the classic 70 mm experience. We estimate we would have to have a screen about twice as wide -- and curved -- at 12.5 feet away to approximate the original* Todd-AO from the 11th row of the old Coronet in San Francisco, or from the moderately close seats at the San Jose Century 21 with Panavision 70. And that might require 4K.

"By the Object of Sight, Aristotle meant the oval of vision." -- Paul Goodman, The Structure of Literature.

*The image size in many of the original Todd-AO theaters was reduced when the screens were replaced with flatter ones to accommodate processes, such as Panavision 70, Technirama 70, or Camera 65, that didn't use Todd-AO's "pre-distortion" to make projection on a deeply curved screen possible. Somehow, Super (and Ultra) Panavision 70 was projected without distortion on very curved screens in the Century 21s, the New Pacific, and some D150 theaters, and those screens were usually BIG.

[slamkeys]

I just picked up this set at Fry's for $29.99. They had 6 or 7 copies in-store and the sale started today. I was surprised how large the set is when you see it in person, but for that low price I had to get it anyway.

I wish blu-ray.com would include Fry's in its price tracker history because they have some great sales over there.

[Blueherring]

Does anyone know how limited this is?
How many copies the Collectors Edition Blu ray set is limited too?
I haven't pulled the trigger on this one still, was waiting for a price drop to around $30-$40 but starting to think it may never happen, plus I don't want to miss out completely if the numbers run out like I did with the Wizard of Oz set couple of years back...

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Blueherring

Does anyone know how limited this is?
How many copies the Collectors Edition Blu ray set is limited too?
I haven't pulled the trigger on this one still, was waiting for a price drop to around $30-$40 but starting to think it may never happen, plus I don't want to miss out completely if the numbers run out like I did with the Wizard of Oz set couple of years back...

In the US, Fry's has priced this at $29.99 three times this year. Amazon has never matched it, though.

[Blueherring]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

In the US, Fry's has priced this at $29.99 three times this year. Amazon has never matched it, though.

Yeah I'm in Aus so has to be Amazon for me, so is the set numbered?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Blueherring

Yeah I'm in Aus so has to be Amazon for me, so is the set numbered?

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lawre...0/#Screenshots

[Blueherring]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lawre...0/#Screenshots

Thanks I can see in those pictures numbers up to 40000 so I'm guessing limited to 50000 or 100000?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Blueherring

Thanks I can see in those pictures numbers up to 40000 so I'm guessing limited to 50000 or 100000?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your guess is as good as any. I regularly see between 10 to 20 copies at the Fry's near me. Amazon lets me add 999 copies to my cart. No shortage, I suppose.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I watched this for the first time last night.

Question: although the BD looked very good, I noticed quite a few instances of ringing around objects against brighter backgrounds.

With Robert Harris behind the restoration, I have a hard time believing this is edge enhancement and it wasn't around every object even in the same scene - was this more of less camera/optical defects from filming the movie?

Originally Posted by garyrc

I absolutely didn't notice it in the theatrical 70 mm showings, and I would have because I was a very involved photography and cinematography hobbyist.

I haven't taken the time to run the Lawrence blue-ray all the way through, but I will soon.
.

Update:
We finally had a chance to run Lawrence on a very large screen with a Panasonic projector. We saw no trace of ringing, or any other anomalies, except that there were a very few shots that seemed grainier than the others. The focus was good (the faces were critically sharp and full of detail), so I think we would have seen any other problems.

Maybe such things show up more on some displays than others. HeavyHitter, is yours LCD, Plasma, LED, front projection or ______? Our projector uses a LCD element, and the screen is a 130" wide Seymour with acoustically transparent Center Stage XD fabric. We can see no fabric texture from where we sit (12 - 13 feet).

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Time code, please.

RAH

Originally Posted by garyrc

Update:
We finally had a chance to run Lawrence on a very large screen with a Panasonic projector. We saw no trace of ringing, or any other anomalies, except that there were a very few shots that seemed grainier than the others. The focus was good (the faces were critically sharp and full of detail), so I think we would have seen any other problems.

Maybe such things show up more on some displays than others. HeavyHitter, is yours LCD, Plasma, LED, front projection or ______? Our projector uses a LCD element, and the screen is a 130" wide Seymour with acoustically transparent Center Stage XD fabric. We can see no fabric texture from where we sit (12 - 13 feet).

Hi Gary

That's interesting. I'm using a pro-calibrated Panasonic 65" VT60 plasma. The display produces a very clean image (no edge enhancement on test patterns) and is basically a reference quality display.

Here are the timestamps of what I am seeing. It's particularly notable in the backgrounds around mountains and the skyline, but also around people at times.

19:49
25:13
34:08
53:18
53:57
1:19:10
3:18:03

It's very slight, but I can make out some sort of ringing effect. I really think this is just some sort of optical effect from the cameras that I am sensitive to.

In many other scenes with mountains in the background, they are absolutely clean.

[garyrc]

Thanks for the time codes, HeavyHitter; I'll take a look.
Gary

[JoeBuck]

For anyone in the Seattle/Washington area, the Cinerama theater in Seattle is going to be showing this off a 70mm print over the next 3 weeks.
They're also showing several other films including How The West Was Won and This Is Cinerama in their original 3 strip format!
I really can't wait to catch these