Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Titanic, Terminator 2, Wizard of Oz, and Jurassic Park are all proof that even films that didn't originally have 3D in mind can turn out stunning. Seriously.

I can re-edit a movie in ways that'll blow your mind, too. However, I like to watch movies the way they were originally designed to be presented. It's not dogma; just my own personal preference.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Did you actually pop in the old BD and compare? It's completely unwatchable both because of the sharpening and bad contrast. I guess we'll just have to disagree but I get the feeling some people pass off anything that's not perfect as a "minor upgrade." Not sure what you mean by "problematic source."

A previous garbage edition is no excuse for a new garbage edition, but going from garbage to serviceable is an OK upgrade in my book.

But again, this sounds like you’re excusing a mediocre (at best) UHD presentation because previous versions have been outright garbage. That doesn’t make this release any more satisfying, IMO. I will call it an “amazing upgrade” when it can stand on its own merits, not just by comparison to abject crap.

[buckeye1]

My order finally went to the preparing stage. So I stil might get it by Friday after all.

[guitarguy316]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I've been trying to tell people for months that LG sets, at least the 2016 model I own, require dynamic contrast on to display HDR properly. There are articles and discussion out there about this, and I even created a thread about it. HDR and dynamic contrast are tied together with at least some, if not all, LG UHD sets, both LCD and OLED. But nobody wants to listen, Whatever. I try to help.

Dynamic contrast does not work the same in HDR as it does in SDR for LG sets. People need to start learning that HDR is a different beast that requires different settings.

i have a 2016 OLED...so what are your HDR10 settings?

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by guitarguy316

i have a 2016 OLED...so what are your HDR10 settings?

I thought it was crazy when I first read it, but after following what's posted in this thread (

[Show spoiler]http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2919120-best-settings-hdr10-lg-oled-2016-series.html

) I saw a vast improvement in PQ for both gaming and movies on my OLED65B6. I know it seems weird to use HDR Game for everything, but there's something going on with the 2016 OLEDs (or at least the B series) that results in this being the best solution. HDR looks stunning now.

[RalphoR]

[Show spoiler][quote=DJR662;15093399]






And one more of the whole JP family for good measure:

[/quote

Oh, my goodness...my OCD is about to make my head explode

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

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.

I think I worded it wrong. I wouldn't say amazing upgrade either, but it's solid for what it is. The bad cgi will always hold it back. The smoothing over/DNR in spots don't help either. Perhaps most people won't see it, but I could see the UHD depth
/saturation without having to compare. The only true negative I could see (besides for the CGI which can't be fixed), was the overly heavy DNR in some shots. The 1st shot of the dinosaurs getting out of the lake at the beginning was particularly bad, and was confirmed via a nice screen capture posted in the screen shot thread.

Anybody expecting Jurassic Park 1 to look like Jurassic World is going to be greatly disappointed.

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

That's what I'm trying to say:

- 2011 Blu-ray looks like a DVD
- 2018 UHD Blu-ray looks like a Blu-ray

Maybe I have to wait 2030 to watch a true UHD Jurassic Park?

Universal is always a format late....

JP1 transfer on BD was bad, but not that bad (DVD like :P)
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1...97&i=0&l=0&a=0
But all of you guys are mentioning very interesting observations in regards to 4K and BD format. BD format was made with 1080p resolution in mind, yet many movies were sourced from DVD era masters that looked just a little bit better than DVD. The same with UHD format, we can see many 2K upscales, and very few movies looks like true 4K resolution should, for example Lucky. Compared to Lucky even Matrix and SPR looks soft :P. Of course I would want to see every UHD movies scanned the best way possible, but sometimes I think only new movies shot on new cameras can really take advantage of 4K UHD format.

[SynViks]

The hubris in this forum is amazing. To think that every movie released in UHD has to have...

-The same level of resolved detail no matter the camera, process, stock, artistic intent used
-The same appearance of grain regardless of stock used, exposure done, regardless of perceptual tricks that make grain harder to see in the frame (uniform gray fields show it the most), or artistic intent
-The same intensity of grain regardless if that's what the DP and director saw whilst screening their prints (maybe they would rather it look theatrical?)
-The same balance of color regardless of the above factors as well, especially artistic intent

Else it's just up-rezzed, DNRed, revisionist trash.

Have any of you seen DP Steve Yedlin's video on resolution, pixel count, and perceived detail? Sure it's good to scan at a high resolution and display at 4K isn't bad, but that in no way means there is going to be 4Ks worth of "detail" to be resolved in the picture. And even if there are places where the detail cannot be properly represented with a HD picture, that doesn't mean all parts of the frame are going to be like that all the time.

[Vertizontal]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

Yes EE alone is big upgrade and if you add to that noticeable resolution increase, HDR and better colors you end up with really big upgrade overall over very bad BD. JP1 is not reference transfer, but it looks amazing compared to BD.

Agreed. It's not perfect, don't see anyone making that claim...what it is however, is the current king of the hill and the best we gots (RE: JP1 home releases), so heh, love it or hate it, buy it or pass, but for now, this is it, and for seemingly the majority of folks, they're quite pleased with it (I'm on that list).

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

But again, this sounds like you’re excusing a mediocre (at best) UHD presentation because previous versions have been outright garbage. That doesn’t make this release any more satisfying, IMO. I will call it an “amazing upgrade” when it can stand on its own merits, not just by comparison to abject crap.

At this point we're just waxing semantics but I consider it a "great upgrade" just not all that "great". I wish it were better too, but sometimes you have to take the situation and reality into account, and for me the JP UHD passes all things considered.

Like I said had it been crap I wouldn't have bothered (never even entertained the thought of getting T2 for example), and similarly had there already been a remastered BD using this master I would not have upgraded, but the situation is neither of those. I have no issues if people don't consider it good enough to be on UHD, just the implications that it's not a significant improvement, because it absolutely is.

[Alfred E. Neumann]

Old Blu-ray vs 4k UHD
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...116777&i=5&l=1

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I can re-edit a movie in ways that'll blow your mind, too. However, I like to watch movies the way they were originally designed to be presented. It's not dogma; just my own personal preference.

Not the same thing. At all.

Cameron and Spielberg worked closely on their 3D conversions.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by guitarguy316

i have a 2016 OLED...so what are your HDR10 settings?

Mine is a 2016 LCD - UH8500. So my settings wouldn't transfer well for you. I do use dynamic contrast on low - only for HDR though. Without it, HDR images are dark and shadow detail is completely swallowed up, with very dim highlights. It's clear to me it needs to be on.

[solid12345]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

But again, this sounds like you’re excusing a mediocre (at best) UHD presentation because previous versions have been outright garbage. That doesn’t make this release any more satisfying, IMO. I will call it an “amazing upgrade” when it can stand on its own merits, not just by comparison to abject crap.

I've poured alot of money into my blu-ray collection over the years, and only now upgraded to a 4K TV. It's becoming harder to justify re-buying the movies I love because the difference isn't as drastic as it was from DVD to Blu-ray. It has to be a REALLY good transfer to get me to plug money down and from what i'm reading and seeing in the comparison shots, this isn't it.

If you don't own the movies already then yeah this set is killer, but it's not enough to make me plop down 60 dollars and throw away my old movies.

When will these studios learn if they really want this format to survive they have to go all out on the presentation? The format is risking becoming another SACD. It doesn't help with the cost of some of these discs like almost $40 for the Matrix, are you kidding me, I can buy a videogame for that.

[Johnzilla2179]

Originally Posted by ray0414

There's no bigger JP fan in the world than me (the original changed my life when I was 7 years old and it's the reason I'm a film critic) but I think I'm going to stick with my iTunes 4K copies for now. Will probably wait for the inevitable 6-film set in 2021. :/

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.

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.

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).

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Alfred E. Neumann

Old Blu-ray vs 4k UHD
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...116777&i=5&l=1

Yikes.

The UHD looks like what the old blu-ray should have looked like. That's not a compliment to either one.

Like I said, if I'm going to bother with a film with this much DNR, I might as well watch the 3D and at least get a stunning 3D experience out of it. It might even appear sharper. This UHD looks flat in those screenshots - and I don't mean lack of 3D. I mean just flat. I know there's HDR to consider, but I'm guessing it won't help much with this one.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Well, the original negative would look drastically different from any home video version since it's not color timed at all and will show more shadow and highlight information than any other element derived from it.

Also, not really worth arguing which is more accurate as it's clear that neither the Blu-ray or UHD are trying to replicate the original look of the film. It's more about which one is the most pleasing to you personally in regards to colors, contrast and the like.

As flawed as it is, the 3D looks to be the only release which tries to replicate the warm push, but it's really not worth watching it converted to 2D for the same reasons as T2.

[ndtechie05]

Any reports on the PQ on VUDU 4k?

[gnj1958]

Originally Posted by solid12345

I've poured alot of money into my blu-ray collection over the years, and only now upgraded to a 4K TV. It's becoming harder to justify re-buying the movies I love because the difference isn't as drastic as it was from DVD to Blu-ray. It has to be a REALLY good transfer to get me to plug money down and from what i'm reading and seeing in the comparison shots, this isn't it.

If you don't own the movies already then yeah this set is killer, but it's not enough to make me plop down 60 dollars and throw away my old movies.

When will these studios learn if they really want this format to survive they have to go all out on the presentation? The format is risking becoming another SACD. It doesn't help with the cost of some of these discs like almost $40 for the Matrix, are you kidding me, I can buy a videogame for that.

I'm with you. There is some upgrade in most 4K's but is it worth $20-$40 worth of an upgrade? If they were selling these catalog titles for $10-$15 then it would be easier to justify. I'm mostly going to stick to buying new movies on 4K. Even then the movie needs to be good enough to justify $30 for a blind buy.

I was going to buy Black Panther but the price and some reviews put me off so I rented the BD for $2. Now I'm glad I didn't bite on the 4K.