Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[zahinn]

Originally Posted by Rizor

I'm not sure if the lines were dubbed originally, or if the two actors had to re-record their lines for the 1989 restoration because the dialogue was lost. Either way, it's the most notable scene where the dialogue sounds out of place (taken from two different sources) and it's not in perfect sync.

how much of dialogue was actually lost prior to the 89 restoration ? i didnt know that until very recently.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

True ... But trust me its not about the Battle ...it's an inner journey, discovery and transformation film rolled inside of an epic unlikely adventure.

All of my favorite epics are, in part, inner journeys. In The Structure of Literature, Paul Goodman argues that one difference between an epic and a historical romance is that in epics the main character, or an important character, turns the page of history -- rather than the characters just interacting against a historical background. Something causes the character to turn that page, and it is often the changes occurring in their inner world.

Goodman also stresses the larger context in a way that relates not only to ideational and emotional changes not developing in a vacuum, but (in my mind) to the experience of epics filmed in wide screen: "... by the object of sight, Aristotle meant the oval of vision."

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by garyrc

All of my favorite epics are, in part, inner journeys. In The Structure of Literature, Paul Goodman argues that one difference between an epic and a historical romance is that in epics the main character, or an important character, turns the page of history -- rather than the characters just interacting against a historical background. Something causes the character to turn that page, and it is often the changes occurring in their inner world.

Goodman also stresses the larger context in a way that relates not only to ideational and emotional changes not developing in a vacuum, but (in my mind) to the experience of epics filmed in wide screen: "... by the object of sight, Aristotle meant the oval of vision."

Nice ... I'm a literature major ... love this insight.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

True ... But trust me its not about the Battle ...it's an inner journey, discovery and transformation film rolled inside of an epic unlikely adventure.

I would hope so. Just can't help but acknowledge the scope of it, but it isn't my main draw.

[mike m]

Since this is scanned in 8k and mastered in 4k why is it not on the list for 4k
movies to be viewed on new 4k tv ?

thanks anybody Mike

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by mike m

Since this is scanned in 8k and mastered in 4k why is it not on the list for 4k
movies to be viewed on new 4k tv ?

Where is this list? Can you provide a link? Is Baraka on the list?

I assume that for anything to be viewed in 4K itself, it must use a medium better than Blu-ray. Of course, BD up scaled to 4K on a 4K display should look better than BD that is not.

Perhaps they left it off because they, like many of the uninformed, assume that older movies are lower resolution than 4K or worse ... as you say, Lawrence, and many other 70 mm films have the equivalent of about 8K native resolution on the negative. Some might have even higher resolution if they were filmed on finer gained film in later years. Optics on the 65 mm cameras used in 70 mm varied, but by the time of Lawrence (1962) they were PDG. Most, or all, should look good if mastered in 4K from an 8K scan.

When both DVD and BD were introduced, there were advertisements that trumpeted "Better than you've ever seen it!" BDs and DVDs of films I saw in theaters in 70 mm with carbon arc projection, etc., etc. were quite regularly worse than I'd seen them previously.

[mike m]

thanks ..if you type in 4k at the top of the page it comes up with a list of 4k
remastered movies..I rather expected to see lawrence there.. Mike

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by mike m

thanks ..if you type in 4k at the top of the page it comes up with a list of 4k
remastered movies..I rather expected to see lawrence there.. Mike

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.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by mike m

Since this is scanned in 8k and mastered in 4k why is it not on the list for 4k
movies to be viewed on new 4k tv ?

thanks anybody Mike

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=218262

its on the list

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=218262

its on the list

Did you perhaps post the wrong link - it doesn't go to any list?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Did you perhaps post the wrong link - it doesn't go to any list?

It goes to a list of 4K films on BD, but "mike m" seems to be referring to something else.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It goes to a list of 4K films on BD, but "mike m" seems to be referring to something else.

Okay, I see now that it goes to the thread - but a link to the first post (List) might've been better.

[thebard]

While this film was mastered in 4k, it was not encoded to take advantage of Sony's new process for 4k displays, e.g. increased bit rate, color depth, etc.

I think Mike M is thinking of the r4k rereleases of Spiderman, Taxi Driver, Ghostbusters, et al:
https://www.blu-ray.com/search/?quic...n=bluraymovies

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

If they do, that's just bollocks since the best version won't be a part of the big box set, which is supposed to be the definitive release

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

If they do, that's just bollocks since the best version won't be a part of the big box set, which is supposed to be the definitive release

The whole "Mastered in 4k" thing really doesn't impress me. IMO It's completely unnecessary for titles that have already received a release sourced from a 4k scan. Sony should focus on new catalog releases as opposed to this enterprise which I'm sure is producing a lot less profit than new-to-BD catalog titles would.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by bluknight1

The whole "Mastered in 4k" thing really doesn't impress me. IMO It's completely unnecessary for titles that have already received a release sourced from a 4k scan. Sony should focus on new catalog releases as opposed to this enterprise which I'm sure is producing a lot less profit than new-to-BD catalog titles would.

Their SuperBit DVD cash grab died an ignominious death. Their internal memos refer to "Mastered in 4K" as similar to SuperBit. I suppose they intend to repeat history.

[Early Memphis]

Do any of these "kinda 4K" releases really matter? I just assumed that until we have 4K players, TVs and new types of discs - any improvement will be strictly minimal. Besides, aren't decent 4K TVs, alone, still $5-10,000? How many of us here have been able dive in so far? My understanding is that - at typical TV sizes - quadrupling the pixels makes almost no difference in picture quality and is simply not worth the extra expense. Charts I've seen suggest that, in most cases, you've got to have a giant screen and sit really far away to see even minimal improvement - which is great for theaters, but ... What am I missing here?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Do any of these "kinda 4K" releases really matter? I just assumed that until we have 4K players, TVs and new types of discs - any improvement will be strictly minimal. Besides, aren't decent 4K TVs, alone, still $5-10,000? How many of us here have been able dive in so far? My understanding is that - at typical TV sizes - quadrupling the pixels makes almost no difference in picture quality and is simply not worth the extra expense. Charts I've seen suggest that, in most cases, you've got to have a giant screen and sit really far away to see even minimal improvement - which is great for theaters, but ... What am I missing here?

Nothing. These are still 1080p Blu-rays, not actual 4K encodes.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Do any of these "kinda 4K" releases really matter? I just assumed that until we have 4K players, TVs and new types of discs - any improvement will be strictly minimal. Besides, aren't decent 4K TVs, alone, still $5-10,000? How many of us here have been able dive in so far? My understanding is that - at typical TV sizes - quadrupling the pixels makes almost no difference in picture quality and is simply not worth the extra expense. Charts I've seen suggest that, in most cases, you've got to have a giant screen and sit really far away to see even minimal improvement - which is great for theaters, but ... What am I missing here?

Hmmmm...

Yes, 1080 is still 1080, but:

.The primary purpose for scanning Lawrence, Baraka, and others in 8K was probably to capture everything on the 65 mm negative, in case it degrades, or is lost in the future. I think Harris and his team did some experimenting and found that 8K was the minimum that would get everything off of a 65 mm negative of that vintage and emulsion type. Those with 8K scans are often mastered at 6 or 4K, to minimize loss, even though consumers are stuck with lower resolution Blu-rays. A nice side effect of scanning in 8K is that when they finally get a home medium that is 8K or better, transfers from the 8K master may actually look better (be higher resolution and acutance) than the 70 mm prints from the 65 mm neg, and intermediate (safety) generations did.

.TV displays will -- and should -- get bigger. In our home theater we have an 130" wide (not diagonal) 2.35:1 front projected image viewed from about 12 feet, which is about the max with the current technology. The thing is, the size of the image on the retina is still a little smaller than the retinal size of the image in the 70 mm showings of Lawrence in a theater we saw it in, as seen from the 11th row from the screen (we measured both with a viewfinder device). Either of those images would approximately equal the size of the original 70 mm projections in the first 70 mm theaters from the 20th row (70 mm Todd-AO, Magna, United Artists like the Coronet in San Francisco). This was back when the image at those theaters filled almost the entire curtain area, with the smallest black masks. Today, such an image may still be available in any surviving Century 70 mm equipped or D150 theaters, but since the rows are more widely spaced than in the Coronet, that size would be seen from about the 15 th row (just guessing here). BTW, the huge images were sharp, with minimal grain, from the aforementioned rows, and held up even closer. Many film buffs sat in about the 10 to 15 row for 70 mm, with many who sat closer (casual observation).

. It is just barely conceivable that 8, 6, or 4K may appear to yield higher resolution on Blu-ray than 1) The typical Blu-ray, or 2) The BD medium in general. Photographers noticed a similar phenomenon back when lenses varied much more than now. With a low resolution lens, higher resolution films still seemed to look better than low ones, even when both films were higher in resolution than the lens.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

If they do, that's just bollocks since the best version won't be a part of the big box set, which is supposed to be the definitive release

Are you posting from the UK?