Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, I think there's something decidedly off about j72's experience of the disc but even so, it's not a stunner and it's not unreasonable to have expected more for such an iconic film (regardless of the studio). It's not a disaster either as I've repeatedly said but it walks a very fine line between the two. A dab more grain and less filtering in the daylight exteriors and it'd be truly marvellous, but take out any more grain and it'd become an outright trainwreck.

What really stings is when you put in Lost World and from the very first scene you can instantly see how much more genuinely filmic texture it's got, optically generated titles and all, and that translates into a much keener sense of acuity once the opticals are over with.

They are different movies shot on different stocks by different DPs, all true, and yet they share the same director so why has one been so overtly "managed" with regards to the grain and the other has not? Purely an aesthetic choice in the grading suite from Señor Spielbergo, keeping JP1 as something a bit cleaner and more pop-bubblegum whilst TLW is more stylised? Hmmmm.

I'm nervous as f*** about what Universal is going to do with the Back to the Future movies when they eventually hit UHD. I foresee a similar 'managed grain' approach. I'd love to be wrong but certain movies never seem to catch a break on home video.

[iEddiez]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

I'm nervous as f*** about what Universal is going to do with the Back to the Future movies when they eventually hit UHD. I foresee a similar 'managed grain' approach. I'd love to be wrong but certain movies never seem to catch a break on home video.

Interesting you say this. I was thinking that BTTF was lacking from a UHD release. I would welcome it as the 30th Anniversary Blu Rays weren't too bad... but still

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

I'm nervous as f*** about what Universal is going to do with the Back to the Future movies when they eventually hit UHD. I foresee a similar 'managed grain' approach. I'd love to be wrong but certain movies never seem to catch a break on home video.

Agreed. Sometimes these kinds of decisions keep haunting certain movies, like DNR on T2, and given that Bob Gale signed off on the BTTF Blu transfers and loved what they looked like I'm not overly optimistic that we'll get something truly special for those in 4K. Or maybe it'll end up like the first three JPs, 1 and 3 will be "managed" while 2 is largely untouched for some reason.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by jh901

Oh Wow!

Few moments into JP1. Sound! Image! 92" diag of glory.

Is this 1.85 achieved by blowing up top/bottom blocked 35mm 4:3 frame?

And the 7.1. Disney. Shame on you. Seriously.

All five Jurassic movies have been shot in 4:3 for the live action/dialogue stuff (yes, even Jurassic World II). As for the VFX plates, the first three employed Vistavision (16:10) and JW1 used 65mm 5 perf (2.28:1). JW2 used ALexa65 (2.11:1).

[Shimshuta]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Agreed. Sometimes these kinds of decisions keep haunting certain movies, like DNR on T2, and given that Bob Gale signed off on the BTTF Blu transfers and loved what they looked like I'm not overly optimistic that we'll get something truly special for those in 4K. Or maybe it'll end up like the first three JPs, 1 and 3 will be "managed" while 2 is largely untouched for some reason.

Absolutely. Part of me wishes Universal would just outsource their remastering and home video department to Sony and be done with it. Even if it means delays in releasing discs.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I didn't see any crush on JP1 though mate. Your experience is not uncommon to 4K newbies because HDR - high dynamic range - isn't the same thing as SDR and it can react quite differently from one TV to another, as it's a system that is essentially at the mercy of how well your TV can display it. It's also not really what some people think it is, e.g. some super aggressive torch mode, and it often has the effect of appearing to lower the overall brightness vs its SDR counterpart so even on a 'premium' ultra super duper spec TV it's not always suited for daytime viewing.

So I had a similar experience when I got my TV. The HDR marketing team really needs to take a step back and think about how they do things. It just means it’s going to look natural, like you are looking out a window at the image, not watching it on TV. Not super bright or it’s gonna pop off the screen. Sure the HDR demo reels do that, and on super rare occasions it will happen, Planet Earth 2 and Blue Planet I’m looking at you. But 99.9% of the time, it will just make it feel like you are standing there with the film crew, in the same lighting conditions as the movie, watching them film it. Which means you gotta simulate the theater watching experience as much as possible, E.G. a dark room.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by ray0414

In no way does JP1 looked washed out. You either got a bad disc or it's your TV. You sure didn't accidently put the Blu Ray in? I compared the BD and the 4k tonight and the BD was super washed out with no color. Blacks were also way better on the 4k version and it wasn't even close.

[Show spoiler]
BD:



4k BD:



BD is top, 4k is bottom.

The colours of the JP1 2DBD and the UHD look almost the same. The original film was timed to be warm and contrasty, like being in a tropical jungle. The 3D version was graded to resemble the original theatrical timing, as StereoD's William Sherak had revealed.
But so many Blu-ray "aficionados" whined about the warm grading, saying they preferred the ugly-a** pink-magenta tinted 2DBD, that Universal decided to go back to that horrible timing.
Congrats guys! This 4K does not feel an inch like a 1990s photochemical timed film. It looks like a modern 4K VIDEO shot movie.
The Mummy 1999 looks absolutely and irrefutably like a 1990s FILM, not VIDEO like this trash.
Compared to this, I thought the VUDU 4K version had better colour grading and didn't feel as flat and pinkish.

Originally Posted by aphid

What's your opinion on the 4k remaster done for the 3d release? I had high hopes for this UHD thinking that they would go back to that master.

I stole the UHD screenshot from Pyoko's post in the Screenshot Comparison thread
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=773

The 3D version looks far more filmic due to the warm original grading, while the UHD has that same cheap pink, blue grading of the DVD/BD.
Glad I bought the 3D BD. The lab is supposed to have warm lights to help with the incubation. Even the novel says the lab was bathed in a reddish glow.

[Egghaus]

Have to make my first post here as JP1 is one of my favorites and I anxiously awaited this release. As others have said I feel this is a definite upgrade over the BD, but it did not WOW me like some other releases. Good detail in most scenes, I could read the "Members Only" tag off Nedrys jacket in one scene. The DTS:X track did not disappoint, the best this film has ever sounded. At $49.99 CAD it is a heck of a deal IMO. I would rate JP1 as an 8.5/10 in the AV department.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by ray0414

In no way does JP1 looked washed out. You either got a bad disc or it's your TV. You sure didn't accidently put the Blu Ray in? I compared the BD and the 4k tonight and the BD was super washed out with no color. Blacks were also way better on the 4k version and it wasn't even close.

lol no I did not put the BD in. I’m not an idiot. It’s not a bad disc and it’s not my TV. I’ve watched a lot of 4K discs on my setup. I even checked the 4K HDR Vudu stream to see if it looked any better, and nope, same thing. I just disagree with you.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, I think there's something decidedly off about j72's experience of the disc but even so, it's not a stunner and it's not unreasonable to have expected more for such an iconic film (regardless of the studio). It's not a disaster either as I've repeatedly said but it walks a very fine line between the two. A dab more grain and less filtering in the daylight exteriors and it'd be truly marvellous, but take out any more grain and it'd become an outright trainwreck.

What really stings is when you put in Lost World and from the very first scene you can instantly see how much more genuinely filmic texture it's got, optically generated titles and all, and that translates into a much keener sense of acuity once the opticals are over with.

They are different movies shot on different stocks by different DPs, all true, and yet they share the same director so why has one been so overtly "managed" with regards to the grain and the other has not? Purely an aesthetic choice in the grading suite from Señor Spielbergo, keeping JP1 as something a bit cleaner and more pop-bubblegum whilst TLW is more stylised? Hmmmm.

I don’t think my experience is “off” - I’m just a lot less forgiving than others when it comes to this stuff.

[MerrickG]

while it looks great and im not seeing any obvious signs of blur or sharpen i am bothered by how high the gamma seems.

[TheSweetieMan]

I watched JURASSIC WORLD last night.

Mother of God, what a transfer. It’s so damn good and filmic, you’d have thought Sony put this one out.

[B-52 Bass]

On page 106
I was looking at the AQ Bitrate for each movie and I'm a bit confused

Bitrates:
JP - 5224
JP2 - 6168
JP3 - 5345
JW - 3052

While JP2 seems pretty LOUD. JW looks to be pretty low, is this a miss print that doesn't look right. I think the Blu is set louder then that. I hope this is wrong.

I'll be watching these tomr on my day off anyway

[jh901]

Originally Posted by kyloren

IDK what people were talking about before, but i just finished watching JP1 and it's DEFINITELY worth the upgrade! Looking forward to the next ones now!

I'm lost as well with respect to JP1. Nearly all of the many close ups are amazing. The dark scenes are fantastic. The bright scenes are fantastic. HDR is very well done.

No one says much about the 7.1 (or DTS:X, which I don't have). It is glorious in my set-up.

The overall experience, I'll repeat, is among the best I've had in my front projection home theater.

[nickpap7]

Based on these screencaps http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/114137 UHD does look better than the artificially sharpened BD and it's a fine upgrade, but WTF happened to #4? DNRed to death.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

I don’t think my experience is “off” - I’m just a lot less forgiving than others when it comes to this stuff.

Please elaborate on "this stuff".

I have a hard time relating to other opinions here because I'm watching on a pro-calibrated front projection display with a Stewart screen rather than a panel display. Also, I've never sat down with a videophile to learn about the various flaws which I should appreciated. I've screened my share of 1080P and 4K.

Anyhow, I'll get around to the 2nd movie before too long.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

[/SPOILER]
But so many Blu-ray "aficionados" whined about the warm grading, saying they preferred the ugly-a** pink-magenta tinted 2DBD, that Universal decided to go back to that horrible timing.
Congrats guys! This 4K does not feel an inch like a 1990s photochemical timed film. It looks like a modern 4K VIDEO shot movie.

Unfortunately, I can see this becoming a trend when it comes to newer 4K remasters of catalog titles. It seems like some of the most vocal UHD supporters don't want "tints" or warm/cool pushes on these discs (even if they were there originally and have a good reason for being there) and want a more "natural" image. Same applies to Blu-ray too, there are actually people that are happy when companies dial out stylish lighting caused by color gels because it's "unnatural" and takes them out of the film.

More and more companies seem to be caving in to please the "natural" crowd that wants completely neutral color timing on everything. That's what I like about Warner's recent mentality so much, they actually use reference prints when possible and consult with the filmmakers. They aren't budging despite the complaints from a vocal minority like with The Matrix.

While a lot of these new remasters look good even with the more neutral color palletes, it's just disappointing seeing them knowing how beautiful the original prints looked. It's boring when everything looks the same and films have been robbed of their unique identity. Luckily, there are a lot of revival theaters around that still show prints so if I want to see something like Saving Private Ryan in its full bleach-bypassed glory with a blue push then I can. For home viewing, I'll have to settle for a noticeably different but still technically great presentation.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by oubukibun

So sorry to bog this thread with this question, but doing a thread search didn't pull up anything...

The Blu-rays in this set are identical to the old counterparts, yes? Because I'm not transitioning to UHD anytime soon, so I figured I'd get the old Digibook set if these are just the same transfers.

Thanks, all!

Has been brought up a few times but yes the BDs are still the same old discs from 2011.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by buckeye1

Is the DTS-X only on the 4K and not the BD?

The BDs are the same old discs from 2011.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

While a lot of these new remasters look good even with the more neutral color palletes, it's just disappointing seeing them knowing how beautiful the original prints looked. It's boring when everything looks the same and films have been robbed of their unique identity. Luckily, there are a lot of revival theaters around that still show prints so if I want to see something like Saving Private Ryan in its full bleach-bypassed glory with a blue push then I can. For home viewing, I'll have to settle for a noticeably different but still technically great presentation.

Is it generally accepted that many 4K releases have been robbed of their unique identity? Boring due to looking the same?

Separately, I've come to wonder about members seeing prints at "revival theaters" and using that experience as a reference. Prints can vary in quality. A theater's projector may not be set up properly. The lamp will vary due to age. The screen fabric in most theaters isn't going to touch a top tier fabric, such as Stewart ST100, for example, when it comes to image purity.

Finally, what display are you using?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I watched JURASSIC WORLD last night.

Mother of God, what a transfer. It’s so damn good and filmic, you’d have thought Sony put this one out.

Yeah I loved it. One of my new favorite discs.