Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[TheSweetieMan]

I'm a bit disappointed with the transfer for the first film. It's not awful. But just a letdown after the heady transfers for 'The Matrix', and in the case of dinosaur parks, 'Jurassic World'.

I think the most frustrating part is, when the grain is nicely structured, there's an incredible picture on display; but whenever DNR is present, I can't help but be reminded of both T2 and Grease.

It's just so frustratingly uneven.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Production stills arent indicative of how a finished film looks but they can be used to compliment more substabtial evidence.

In this case, the colors on the Jeep match ILM stills and more importantly, the original 1993 theatrical prints. Also given that the 3D version also has the same colors in regards to the Jeep and is the only master where there's evidence Spielberg was involved and the only master where effort was put into attempting to recreate the original pallete, there's pretty much no way of arguing that the UHD or any other home video master is correct.

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Finally someone who understood my point. Thanks for supporting my substantial evidence as you rightly put it. Evidence shows the original colours have been grossly tampered with.

I love the film as anyone here does. I just won't accept a revisionist looking colour grade when I've seen the original thing.

And all the 2D home videos are revisionist from what I've found so far.
There's enough proof for those who willing to open their eyes.
However, if people are in a state of denial, then nothing can be done for them.

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by spidervenom1992

Challenge accepted. JP is the reason you're a film critic, eh? It's the reason I exist. In all seriousness, though, the biggest fan I think I've ever seen is the guy who runs the Jurassic Collectables YouTube channel. He buys EVERYTHING Jurassic Park, even products that aren't a part of the line but have taken obvious inspiration from the franchise. He even somehow owns the original Samuel L. Jackson prop arm and leg from his "death" in the film.



Apologies, I think I was conflating your individual reviews of each movie's picture quality. It's not that I thought it was going to blow my eyes off, moreso that it just appeared very dim to me. These images from earlier in the thread are a good indication of what I mean.



Understand, I'm not claiming that the Blu-ray was more accurate (as is the common debate around here), but I think these frames speak for themselves. In the above image, the helicopter is fully visible and appears to be traveling at midday or in the afternoon. In the 4K image, much of the machine is in shadow and it appears to be traveling at dusk. This is a good indication of the majority of my experience with this transfer. Again, I'm aware that it's more accurate to the original negative and that the older transfer had too much contrast, but I was taken aback that so many details I was used to seeing clearly were obscured by shadow on this new disc. For the record I was watching on a Sony 900E with playback from a UBP-X700. I have almost every setting switched completely off to get the most accurate image, with the backlight at 100 (contrast is at 90 and brightness is at 50, as recommended by a few websites for this model).

UHD SDR screenshot from the same scene and balcks looks not nearly as crushed. People should not base their conclusion on photos or even SDR screenshots, only on HDR HDTV you can see the full picture.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

@Doctorossi, I also provided a freeze frame of a Jeep shot from ILM. That was not a production still. And that freeze-frame from the actual movie also shows the sand-beige tone.

This -

Yes, and that is much more relevant evidence. Again, I'm not questioning your conclusion, just indicating that production stills should not be used as color reference for the movie.

[buckeye1]

Do you really think there is a backorder on these from Best Buy's warehouse? I ordered last Sat. with a Friday 25th delivery date. Well here it is Thursday the 24th and its only in the Preparing stage. No way it will be here by tomorrow. I have to return another movie today I'll check there and see any are in the store..(yeah right), If so I'll get it and return the one I'm getting in the mail. Anyway what's up with the long delay with the shipping of this?

[Riddhi2011]

@Doctorossi, @JohnCarpenterFan, what's even more surprising is that the JP Jeep from Jurassic World closely matches the sand beige tone from the ILM freeze-frame, even if a bit faded after twenty years -

1. JW Jeep -

JW2 JEEP.jpg

2. JP ILM freeze-frame -

JP_Jeep.jpg

See, there is tons of evidence pointing towards the Jeeps always looking sand beige. The home video department couldn't change the colours on JW because it is a recent DI and people remember the look. Also, Ty Simpkins spells it out in JW - "Jeep Wrangler Sahara, sand beige."
There can be no debate now as to how the colours are supposed to look in the final film. Unless people want to argue for arguments' sake.

[Sky_Captain]

This thread's turned beige.

[mzupeman]

The entire UHD section has in general. Complaints of too much grain, pics of stills taken from cameras, people losing their minds over screenshots that have been converted to SDR... it’s all madness.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Finally someone who understood my point. Thanks for supporting my substantial evidence as you rightly put it. Evidence shows the original colours have been grossly tampered with.

I love the film as anyone here does. I just won't accept a revisionist looking colour grade when I've seen the original thing.

And all the 2D home videos are revisionist from what I've found so far.
There's enough proof for those who willing to open their eyes.
However, if people are in a state of denial, then nothing can be done for them.

I've gone back a few pages and maybe I missed it, but I have to ask. Who are you arguing with? At this point it just seems like you're having a heated debate with.........no one.

[s_har]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

This thread's turned beige.

Good. Now that this thread has been reverted back to its original colors it is no longer a revisionist thread then.

[sleeman]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

This thread's turned beige.

Sand-beige, actually

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

This thread's turned beige.

Anything's better than mud brown.

[Torgon]

Originally Posted by gambit64

Double check first if there are any other members of the household that may have put it somewhere else in the house (I'm a USPS letter carrier, and this has happened many times). Then call the Post Office. They can verify exactly where your package was scanned (your place or somewhere else). If that fails to achieve satisfactory results, I truly don't know what BB policy is.

Well, no offense, but the PO is not the most reliable when following it up. A few years ago, I had 7 (yes, SEVEN) packages not reach my door during the Nov/Dec season. Filed a complaint with the PO and they basically said it was lost. They weren't 'lost' or 'misplaced', they were stolen by postal employees. They all were arriving on different days, but if they passed thru the main PO in the next city (last scanning point), they didn't make it to me. If they went straight to my local PO (no scanning point at main PO), I got my packages. They made it sound like my packages were sitting in a corner at the PO and were misplaced. Unreal. As for BB, I've had good luck with them sending a replacement with no issues (same with Amazon). Hopefully it works out for you.

[rashbeep]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

I've gone back a few pages and maybe I missed it, but I have to ask. Who are you arguing with? At this point it just seems like you're having a heated debate with.........no one.

not that i've seen, but i'm not going to pretend like the 3d version looks good or even close to what the print should either.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

P.S. Just to annoy Geoffy

I compared this shot directly because I saw your post earlier today and I gotta say, I see equal detail on both discs on my setup, which shows a LOT more of her face and VERY clearly than either of your shots do. Don't ask me!

With my SDR gamma at 2.3 and HDR correctly lined up with the PQ EOTF curve then the UHD definitely resolved more shadow detail than the BD. Being able to switch between two sources on the exact frame at the same time also helps to make these things more apparent.

[HeavyHitter]

Spielberg approved or not, I would NOT want to live with the 3D color in 2D anymore than I would want to live with the director approved original French Connection disc or Lucas' blue tinted, shadow crushed SE OT. I've actually watched some of the 3D in 2D I would not even think about it - I would take the BD over it any day of the week for 2D.

If you watch the UHD BD on a properly calibrated display or projector with good P3 gamut coverage, I doubt you will find the color an issue.

[Alfred E. Neumann]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Spielberg approved or not, I would NOT want to live with the 3D color in 2D anymore than I would want to live with the director approved original French Connection disc or Lucas' blue tinted, shadow crushed SE OT. I've actually watched some of the 3D in 2D I would not even think about it - I would take the BD over it any day of the week for 2D.

If you watch the UHD BD on a properly calibrated display or projector with good P3 gamut coverage, I doubt you will find the color an issue.

The old VC-1 2D is just nasty looking with the muted and pale colors, the strong EE, the sharpening and very little details. The 3D in 2D looks much better than this.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Alfred E. Neumann

The old VC-1 2D is just nasty looking with the muted and pale colors, the strong EE, the sharpening and very little details. The 3D in 2D looks much better than this.

No it doesn't unless you love everything looking like it was spray tanned.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Alfred E. Neumann

The old VC-1 2D is just nasty looking with the muted and pale colors, the strong EE, the sharpening and very little details. The 3D in 2D looks much better than this.

The 3D in 2D looks incredibly soft, softer than even the UHD, and the ugly-ass mud brown colour and gamma that's much too low make it look so overly warm and thin. Watch it in 3D, with the intended correction from the tint on the glasses and the gamma being raised because 3D's brightness is so low, and it's eminently tolerable. But when viewing in 2D I'd rather have the UHD or even the old BD than the 3D.

[Tok]

I have decided to return my set without opening it. It is apparent that Universal put a minimum amount of effort into this release. I doubt at this point we will ever see a definitive transfer released on disc.