Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

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.

Disagreeing and being wrong are 2 different things. I've seen nobody else say the JP14k was "washed out". Seems most don't like the DNR or that the CGI looks bad (big surprise there). Or the color timing. But washed out and dull it is definitely not, looking washed out is a serious accusation and if it were, we'd see just about everyone complaining that the picture is washed out. Curious if you put the BD in to compare.

"The real meat, though, comes with WCG and HDR which both add significant punch to the image. Colours are that much richer, the greens of the fauna, the yellows of the jeeps and the blues of the skies are that much more vivid, while skin tones are clean and realistic. Black levels are strong and push the frame further than it has been before, the first Tyrannosaur attack, or Nedry’s escape showcase some excellent depth with shadow detail when needed.*"

https://www.avforums.com/review/Jura...y-Review.14965

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Screenshots are not in HDR and wide color gamut. I've seen the pinkish Blu-ray, and I've seen 4K HDR version which doesn't have any weird tint.

Then explain to me since when color grading says something was shot on digital or film? It's a matter of creeator's intention done in post and has nothing to do with shooting method.

So you know better than Steven Spielberg how his movie suppose to look?

I believe prints were warmer than UHD version, but the problem with 3D version is not that it's warm, but completely overdone with warmness, teal and orange to the point it doesn't fit the movie at all.

You clearly mistook me for someone else. My judgement of remaster's color grading is based only about one thing: my own eyes. Does it look good? Does it fit the movie? Does it work?

When it comes to Jurassic Park's color grading, UHD version is in my opinion the best one. That's all.

Are you sure Spielberg spent his valuable time in the home video department of Universal studios, advising them on each scene?
I don't think he has any interest on home video, only theatrical. He has never talked about the home video of any of his films to my knowledge.
This is why he was hands on for the 3D conversion process and StereoD was able to get the prints and colour grade the 2013 4K master accordingly. Remember, the new 4K version did not get a theatrical release, but the 3D version did.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Funny how they've removed the positive density artefacts from the 2011 transfer but added plenty of negative density ones in the process that weren't visible on the BD. The new JP is also vastly more stable than the old transfer, if the UHD was simply the old one stabilised then it would lose picture area in comparison.

The likelier explanation is that they ARE different transfers from different elements, one from positive and one from negative (ditto for Lost World). That it doesn't look like an amazing Sony-style upgrade is because it's NOT some amazing Sony-style upgrade and has had some significant grain management applied. Can't win 'em all.

I can't wait for more Lost World caps to appear though, those grabs of the heavily in-camera filtered shots of Malcolm and Hammond at the beginning are not definitive examples of what that UHD can and does look like. Unfortunately JPIII has been "managed" just like JP1.

Yes. I think each JP disc (old 2D, 3D, UHD BD) comes from a different transfer. I always felt like the 3D came from the original negative as you could sense A LOT of detail had been there but obviously wiped away with DNR. But it has other aspects or hints of it coming from the ON. The UHD BD does not have the feel of coming from the original negative to me, but from an IP. I'm assuming the old BD was as well.

From what it's worth, last summer I saw a 2K DCP viewing and it looked remarkably like the old BD source.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

There's no evidence Spielberg had anything to do with the UHDs. Universal have been keeping the filmmakers out of the loop when it comes to the UHDs of their films for some reason. I guess they'd prefer just to do their own thing.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not giving them a "pass", just underlining how this UHD set has been handled: if anything it's MORE disappointing, given that they have - IMO - done new film transfers but still ended up with two out of three looking like overly "managed" masters from yesteryear. Oh, sweet irony.

Well this is Universal being Universal. They just don't do stellar catalog titles, with exceptions like Jaws when Spielberg supervised the whole thing himself.

I'm fully expecting Back to the Future to come out the same way when those eventually come out-- probably a lot better than the Blu-Ray transfers, but still with some of that magical Universal "management" as you put it.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

I don't get why people are trying to give Universal a pass for another disappointing Jurassic Park release....

My 1.85 diagonal is roughly 92", there's 45" of screen height and I sit about 11' away. I should feel at least as disappointed as anyone with a panel. I suppose I'll swing back around to these posts and realize how uncritical I've been.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

There's no evidence Spielberg had anything to do with the UHDs. Universal have been keeping the filmmakers out of the loop when it comes to the UHDs of their films for some reason. I guess they'd prefer just to do their own thing.

And that's why their catalog titles generally suck....

When Spielberg was involved with E.T, Schindler's List, Jaws etc. the results were reference quality

[HeavyHitter]

Jaws BD had more filtering than I preferred and a few crawly artifacts as a result, but otherwise was very good.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

I don't think Speilbergo had anything to do with these discs TBF.

In lieu of his involvement it really does look like they've used the 2011 transfer as reference for both the colour and the framing of the new one. I know that might sound too much like coincidence as to it just being the same master but for me there's too much evidence to the contrary (different print damage, no telecine wobble, reduction in sharpening haloes) and there really IS a decent improvement in the finest spatial detail no matter how hard the grain management tries to smudge it out. Add in a decent enough HDR pass and it's good but nowhere near great.

[y2jman]

I got digibook last night from Walmart going to fire up the 4k's time for a marathon

[UberMensch]

Is there any info if they’re going to be released separately? I just want the first one.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

In lieu of his involvement it really does look like they've used the 2011 transfer as reference for both the colour and the framing of the new one...

I wanted to say the same thing. I am quite particular about these things and have compared a few frames and they are EXACT match between the 4K and the 2011 BD, in framing terms.

The fact that the colour is also almost the same shows this was completely done by the Universal home video editors. Their work reveals that they are more like trained technicians than colour artists. WB and Sony most likely hire people who understand colour correction, while Universal doesn't give a damn. They seem proud of their ugly video-looking masters and want to stick to it, despite evidence in the contrary.

The only reason why the 3D version looks so different and warm is because StereoD scanned the negative and assisted EFILM in grading the 2013 version. Had Universal been in charge, it'd have looked as pink and magenta as it does now.

The 3D version despite the DNR, had more details than the UHD caps show. The UHD looks remarkably soft and texture-less in comparison. it definitely feels like it's not from the negative.

[Geoff D]

The 3D version is like watching it with Vaseline over your eyes. The UHD version is like watching it with slightly less Vaseline over your eyes.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Had Universal been in charge, it'd have looked as pink and magenta as it does now.

The 3D version despite the DNR, had more details than the UHD caps show.

Oh, and the lamp above raptor's eggs is pretty warm.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Disagreeing and being wrong are 2 different things. I've seen nobody else say the JP14k was "washed out". Seems most don't like the DNR or that the CGI looks bad (big surprise there). Or the color timing. But washed out and dull it is definitely not, looking washed out is a serious accusation and if it were, we'd see just about everyone complaining that the picture is washed out. Curious if you put the BD in to compare.

"The real meat, though, comes with WCG and HDR which both add significant punch to the image. Colours are that much richer, the greens of the fauna, the yellows of the jeeps and the blues of the skies are that much more vivid, while skin tones are clean and realistic. Black levels are strong and push the frame further than it has been before, the first Tyrannosaur attack, or Nedry’s escape showcase some excellent depth with shadow detail when needed.*"

https://www.avforums.com/review/Jura...y-Review.14965

Yeah uh I think you’re being a bit overly dramatic here. “Serious accusation?” Nah, I just don’t think the color grading choices made on this transfer do Dean Cundey’s photography justice at all. This isn’t new - this movie has always looked drab on home video. Sure, the colors on the 4K disc are a little better than the BD, but that’s a pretty low bar.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The 3D version is like watching it with Vaseline over your eyes. The UHD version is like watching it with slightly less Vaseline over your eyes.

Not really. I enjoyed the 3D a lot in the cinema. I saw it six times in the format. I can obviously see the DNR at home but I can also see a lot more detail that just wasn't there in the previous home videos.

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Again, not really! I am speaking from my own perception. I see the 3D image being better overall in terms of image quality, to the UHD. Colour, contrast and detail is better in the 3D version to my eyes. I am not interested in fine detail if it sacrifices the original look/colours of the film.

[LordoftheRings]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Jy...ature=youtu.be

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I'm fully expecting Back to the Future to come out the same way when those eventually come out -- probably a lot better than the Blu-Ray transfers, but still with some of that magical Universal "management" as you put it.

With that title I would lay the blame at Zemeckis (not universal) for putting the supervising solely in the hands of Bob Gale. The one guy in all of hollywood who takes "milking a property my kids will retire on" to a science. The way he shilled the Blu-rays like they were of a stellar quality is art. He knew without a shadow of a doubt they were holding back a reference image on that release.

The amazing thing about all this UHD business from Universal is how we got The Mummy (1999). Whoever was the primary driver behind the standards on that needs to be; a) paid double, and b) assigned to oversee every single catalog. Stat!

[barty22]

Any final word on 4k extras? Present in any region? Was a marketing claim from some time ago

[RemingtonSteele]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

I don't get why people are trying to give Universal a pass for another disappointing Jurassic Park release....

This look would have been fine for the Blu-ray 7 years ago, not for a UHD disc from a 4K OCN master

People have complained about the 2011 colors for 7 years, now they are good, all of a sudden?

Summed up perfectly.

Maybe people are so amazed by an " Jurassic Park UHD" announcement they don't really care if the effective resolution is rather close to Full HD.

I'm happy I don't have an UHD player.