Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[Pirate King]

Originally Posted by rickah88

It's definitely the crown jewel of my collection. I could only dream that some other classics got this type of treatment, all the way through. Just amazing!

I absolutely agree.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Farge-TV

I will report back - I'm watching it on the 24th. It will probably be difficult to provide an accurate comparison, but I'll try my best!

I'm not following your 4K argument, by the way. As a rule of thumb, a 4K scan of a 35 mm negative is required to capture all the detail (including the grain), so I would suppose that a 15-16K scan would be required to capture all detail on a 70 mm (in reality: 65 mm) film. (And I'm guessing that they used very low film speed for many of the scenes in Lawrence of Arabia.) But I'm no expert.

I'm certainly no expert either! All I know is that I got in the habit of reporting that R. A. Harris said (somewhere on Blu-ray.com??), that it took 8K to get all the detail off of the 65 mm Lawrence negative. His post was several years ago, and well before the BD. I concluded that the native resolution of the 65 mm negative, using the Eastmancolor and lenses of 1962, was therefore 8K, but I may have been wrong. Later a cinematographer on the Cinematography forum told me that to copy all of the detail on something, the Nyquist formula requires that you use a copying medium of twice the resolution of what you are copying, which would mean that the 65 mm [U]Lawrence[U] negative would have been about 4K or so. Otherwise, I'm in the dark (no pun intended).

[Illy Scorsese]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

If your life is changed by merely watching a film, especially one you’ve seen before, there’s something wrong with your life.

Seeing it on the big screen had a profound impact on me...

I walked out of the theater seriously considering if it was in fact the greatest single thing that the medium has ever produced.

Seeing it on that huge canvas really is a special experience.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Later a cinematographer on the Cinematography forum told me that to copy all of the detail on something, the Nyquist formula requires that you use a copying medium of twice the resolution of what you are copying, which would mean that the 65 mm [U]Lawrence[U] negative would have been about 4K or so. Otherwise, I'm in the dark (no pun intended).

IMO, that's a misinterpretation of the Nyquist theorem. The Nyquist theory simply states that the sampling frequency must be at least twice the highest frequency you wish to record.

In CD audio, since the range of human hearing is no more than 22KHz, a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz was chosen (the .1 is there for a margin of error). Obviously, there are many people who feel that's not enough and some audiophiles claim you really need a sampling rate of 96 KHz (although many of those same audiophiles, don't understand the physics behind it).

In analog to digital image storage (and although I know a lot less about that), the idea is to sample high enough so that you avoid aliasing (the stair step effect on edges).

I've read many different opinions on what it takes to properly capture a 65mm image, although the size of the frame is certainly not the only factor. The sharpness of the original captured image also plays a role as does whether you're trying to capture from the original negative, an interpositive or a print.

But one thing to take into consideration is that the projected area of a 70mm frame is about 2.8x that of a 35mm anamorphic frame (not including the unsqueezing). So if one thinks that you need 2K for the 35mm frame, you would need 5.6K for a 70mm frame. If you think you need 4K for the 35mm frame, you would need 11.2K for the 70mm frame.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Illy Scorsese

Seeing it on the big screen had a profound impact on me...

I walked out of the theater seriously considering if it was in fact the greatest single thing that the medium has ever produced.

Seeing it on that huge canvas really is a special experience.

We're gettin' closer, pardner : "profound impact" is a lot less than life changing (by the way, I assumed you were joking in a hyperbolic sense and I'm not busting yer chops, just tryin' to get a conversation goin' if anyone puts in their two bits ). Anyway, getting a new job, getting married/divorced/fired, having kids, the death of a loved one, meeting aliens (from outer space) ... these are life-changing events. If I saw "the greatest show on Earth" - on acid - and I have - I'd still wake up the next day having to make a living and looking for the next great moment - every single day until I died. Mega hit or golden nugget, they're still just movies. "I have … seen things you people wouldn't believe ... attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears ... in rain. Time … to die." Now that was a moment - a moving, memorable moment. But it was only a movie.

"Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever."
Please pardon or ignore my rambling, as you see fit ...

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

In CD audio, since the range of human hearing is no more than 22KHz, a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz was chosen (the .1 is there for a margin of error). Obviously, there are many people who feel that's not enough and some audiophiles claim you really need a sampling rate of 96 KHz (although many of those same audiophiles, don't understand the physics behind it).

I have a question about sounds and how the ears work. I can hear the ring tone of a cellphone going off on the second floor of my house, when other people on the first floor standing right next to me can't hear it. Yet, I can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless, they sound the same to me. Why can I hear one but not the other?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

We're gettin' closer, pardner : "profound impact" is a lot less than life changing (by the way, I assumed you were joking in a hyperbolic sense and I'm not busting yer chops, just tryin' to get a conversation goin' if anyone puts in their two bits ). Anyway, getting a new job, getting married/divorced/fired, having kids, meeting aliens (from outer space) ... these are life-changing events. If I saw "the greatest show on Earth" - on acid - and I have - I'd still wake up the next day having to make a living and looking for the next great moment - every single day until I died. Mega hit or golden nugget, they're still just movies.

Fair point, but even "just" a movie can be a life-changing experience. A person might be inspired to become a surgeon or a lawyer or a policeman or an astronaut because of a particular movie they saw.

But it doesn't have to be that profound. While I've seen Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen several times, it wasn't a life-changing experience for me. But what was a life-changing experience for me was seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey -- twice -- at the Cinerama Theater in Boston back in 1968, at the tender age of 15. It was the first time I ever saw movies as art, and completely changed the way I viewed them.

If it wasn't for that, I doubt that my life would've taken quite the same path as it did. The things you do in life have a cumulative effect, and I suspect that if I hadn't seen 2001 when I did, I might not have ended up with the woman I married 10 years ago.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

We're gettin' closer, pardner : "profound impact" is a lot less than life changing (by the way, I assumed you were joking in a hyperbolic sense and I'm not busting yer chops, just tryin' to get a conversation goin' if anyone puts in their two bits ). Anyway, getting a new job, getting married/divorced/fired, having kids, meeting aliens (from outer space) ... these are life-changing events. If I saw "the greatest show on Earth" - on acid - and I have - I'd still wake up the next day having to make a living and looking for the next great moment - every single day until I died. Mega hit or golden nugget, they're still just movies. "I have … seen things you people wouldn't believe ... attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears ... in rain. Time … to die." Now that was a moment - a moving, memorable moment. But it was only a movie.

"Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever."
Please pardon or ignore my rambling, as you see fit ...

I'm not sure what that says about me, but I've have had individual films alter my life much more profoundly in the long run than many jobs and women and whatever-else-have-you. Certain films fundamentally changed my relationship with the artform and art in general, and things like that send ripples through your entire life: your hobbies, your friends, your career path, not to mention the considerable portion of your life you spend in front of movie screens instead of doing other things...

As far as the resolution of 70mm goes: trying to assign a hard number to a slow analog frequency response roll-off is a bit of a fool's errand. LoA might be 4K by some reasonable measures, 8K by other reasonable measures. Personally I suspect 4K captures close to all of the recorded image detail on a circa-1962 negative, but not all the nuance of grain structure.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Fair point, but even "just" a movie can be a life-changing experience. A person might be inspired to become a surgeon or a lawyer or a policeman or an astronaut because of a particular movie they saw.

But it doesn't have to be that profound. While I've seen Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen several times, it wasn't a life-changing experience for me. But what was a life-changing experience for me was seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey -- twice -- at the Cinerama Theater in Boston back in 1968, at the tender age of 15. It was the first time I ever saw movies as art, and completely changed the way I viewed them.

If it wasn't for that, I doubt that my life would've taken quite the same path as it did. The things you do in life have a cumulative effect, and I suspect that if I hadn't seen 2001 when I did, I might not have ended up with the woman I married 10 years ago.

Now that is a life-changing event! Congrats! But it's the woman, not the movie. All great art has the power to motivate, to inspire ... but it's the reaction, the action one takes, which changes life. May you and your lady always inspire each other to live life to the fullest.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

... But one thing to take into consideration is that the projected area of a 70mm frame is about 2.8x that of a 35mm anamorphic frame (not including the unsqueezing). So if one thinks that you need 2K for the 35mm frame, you would need 5.6K for a 70mm frame. If you think you need 4K for the 35mm frame, you would need 11.2K for the 70mm frame.

Originally Posted by 42041

... LoA might be 4K by some reasonable measures, 8K by other reasonable measures. Personally I suspect 4K captures close to all of the recorded image detail on a circa-1962 negative, but not all the nuance of grain structure.

Points well taken. Perhaps the highest resolution and acutance combination of 35 mm negative film stock (of a practical speed) and lenses of the 21 century might be about the same PQ as a 65 mm Eastmancolor negative of 1962?

[Farge-TV]

Originally Posted by garyrc

I'm certainly no expert either! All I know is that I got in the habit of reporting that R. A. Harris said (somewhere on Blu-ray.com??), that it took 8K to get all the detail off of the 65 mm Lawrence negative. His post was several years ago, and well before the BD. I concluded that the native resolution of the 65 mm negative, using the Eastmancolor and lenses of 1962, was therefore 8K, but I may have been wrong. Later a cinematographer on the Cinematography forum told me that to copy all of the detail on something, the Nyquist formula requires that you use a copying medium of twice the resolution of what you are copying, which would mean that the 65 mm [U]Lawrence[U] negative would have been about 4K or so. Otherwise, I'm in the dark (no pun intended).

Well, I'm guessing that he refered to having to use an 8K scan, as that was the highest available. But I don't know.

I'm also guessing that the principle of needing a medium of twice the size to do copying might not be directly applicable to the digital world, but it was certainly valid for film.

However, as someone pointed out here, there is no 1:1 relation between an analogue medium and a digital medium, so opinions are bound to be divided on these topics.

[Norbie]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I have a question about sounds and how the ears work. I can hear the ring tone of a cellphone going off on the second floor of my house, when other people on the first floor standing right next to me can't hear it. Yet, I can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless, they sound the same to me. Why can I hear one but not the other?

Crust want to add that I too can't tell the difference between lossy and lossless.

[Norbie]

*Just* and not "crust".

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Norbie

*Just* and not "crust".

Sir, please allow me to introduce the Edit Button.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Points well taken. Perhaps the highest resolution and acutance combination of 35 mm negative film stock (of a practical speed) and lenses of the 21 century might be about the same PQ as a 65 mm Eastmancolor negative of 1962?

Maybe someone can invite Robert Harris to this conversation as he, after all, oversaw the restoration efforts --- and maybe the Blu-ray release to some extent? I do find it interested this is a "Mastered in 4K" title in Japan if I recall and split over two discs. I noticed the color also looked a tad different compared to the U.S. version based on screencaps. Hmmmm.

[Farge-TV]

I watched the movie yesterday in 70mm, and it looked specatcular! The print was in really good condition, except from som mild vertical scratch lines at times, and something that looked almost like heat damage or shrinkage in two vertical bars that were only somewhat visible in some of the shots of the sky.

The colours were brilliant and beautiful, and I was really impressed by the overall look. 70 mm is fantastic, and I couldn't see any grain, even in the darker scenes.

I started up the Blu-Ray disc today as a comparison. I know that it is impossible to compare the image from yesterday with the image today, but I'll try, anyway.

My first impression was that the Blu-Ray-version is faithful to the source, and I do believe that the overall characteristics of the 70mm movie are well kept in the Blu-Ray. There are, however, two things that struck me:

1) The Blu-Ray looks a little too sharp. Not a lot, but it does seem somewhat artificially sharpened. I tried to find examples on this site, and this is the closest I could get:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...492&position=7

It is not a big issue, though.

2) The colours were simply more vibrant and impressive in the 70mm print. The Blu-Ray looks almost pale by comparison. My guess is that the limited colour space of Blu-Ray is to blame, and that it is especially visible in a film like this, with strong coulours and lots of beautiful gradients. It will be interesting to see how the colour space in 4K Blu-Rays improves this.

Overall, the Blu-Ray is great!

By the way, I watched The Master earlier in the day, and that movie looked nothing short of fantastic in 70mm!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Maybe someone can invite Robert Harris to this conversation as he, after all, oversaw the restoration efforts --- and maybe the Blu-ray release to some extent? I do find it interested this is a "Mastered in 4K" title in Japan if I recall and split over two discs. I noticed the color also looked a tad different compared to the U.S. version based on screencaps. Hmmmm.

You can read his thoughts on the Blu-ray here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ia-in-blu-ray/

and the Mi4K Blu-ray here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ray/?p=4089303

As for the Blu-ray looking sharpened occasionally, bear in mind that some of it is from dupe neg material (which was slugged in during the physical restoration undertaken by RAH) which builds up contrast and results in that slight 'halo' effect seen in Farge's screenshot above.

[Farge-TV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As for the Blu-ray looking sharpened occasionally, bear in mind that some of it is from dupe neg material (which was slugged in during the physical restoration undertaken by RAH) which builds up contrast and results in that slight 'halo' effect seen in Farge's screenshot above.

Actually, I wasn't thinking about the halos, but the wrinkles on Lawrence's forehead. That might be part of the same issue, though, but I didn't see that in the 70mm. There were one or two scenes in the 70mm print that had visible halos around characters, though.

[Geoff D]

His desert-hardened wrinkles look fine to me in that shot.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Farge-TV

I watched the movie yesterday in 70mm, and it looked specatcular! ...

The colours were brilliant and beautiful, and I was really impressed by the overall look. 70 mm is fantastic, and I couldn't see any grain, even in the darker scenes. ...

1) The Blu-Ray looks a little too sharp. Not a lot, but it does seem somewhat artificially sharpened. I tried to find examples on this site, and this is the closest I could get:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...492&position=7

Thanks for your report!

How far from the screen did you sit (in rows???)? Can you estimate the width of the screen?

I've noticed that sometimes grain shows more in Blu-ray than it does in a theatrical 70 mm print, even up close.

To me, 70 mm, in its various configurations, is the best medium ever.

How was the sound? My Blu-ray sounds a little brighter than both LoA in the theater (6 track magnetic), and most other Blu-rays. I play at about 5 dB or so below Reference level; I imagine that is about the SPL you heard in the theater, unless US standards are different.

Thanks again!