Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Stefan1]

Originally Posted by Phreakuency

Kid gymnastic kicking raptors.

Ok that’s fair, that is lame. A point lost for sure.

[Mierzwiak]

10 seconds that ruined great movie! Gimme a break.

[JD1388]

The Lost World probably got its last upgrade with this, but I think Jurassic Park will get some justice one day. May not be soon enough for some people's taste, but this definitely won't be the last time it's touched. Sucks that it probably won't be for a while and that they didn't hit it out of the park this one time they had a good chance to.

[formula_nebula]

Originally Posted by Stefan1

Ok I’ve gotta say it. After many posts about this.
WHAT is wrong with TLW I just don’t get it. I have tried to see what’s wrong and besides maybe some nitpicks (no it’s not the perfection that JP is) it’s a great fun Dino filled movie and Goldblum is in top form. The trailer scene, San Diego, the hunt of the Dino’s, the raptors, I just can’t grasp what’s so brutal about that film.

There are a few cringe worthy moments in TLW, but man what a fun film. I've always loved it. The cast is great, and like you said, Jeff Goldblum is in top form. I like Sam Neil too, but I really didn't miss seeing him. Jeff Goldblum has a much better screen presence imo. I'm glad he got the spotlight this time.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yes, it's the same color timing as the BD overall.

Interesting. I remember hearing how the blue light filter was added to the 2011 BD transfer meaning it wasn't present in the theaters or any of the prior home video releases, nor was it on the Spielberg approved 2013 3D remastered BD.

[hkpictures]

Anyone else notice the weird matting on JP when Hammond is in the trailer with Grant near the beginning?
Around the 11:54 mark, if you look on the right side of the screen, as Hammond is talking about "having an island", the image has small vertical matte that appears and then almost immediately pulls out revealing the previously missing image.
It's really strange, has this always been there in that scene? I've never noticed it before.

[Pgcmoore]

i picked this up a while back, and just noticed i never opened it, i'm getting the impression i should skip the 4k set. i have always liked the first and 3rd ones, tlw never really kept me interested although the hunting scenes on the island were fun. guess i'll open them tomorrow and give them a look, gonna be a wet / stay indoors kinda day anyway

[coaster]

Originally Posted by Pgcmoore

i picked this up a while back, and just noticed i never opened it, i'm getting the impression i should skip the 4k set.

If you have a 4K TV with HDR these should look better than upscaled blu-rays. If your TV is calibrated properly these all look fine. People around here are just too picky about grain, color timing, etc. You can't satisfy everyone. This isn't Terminator 2 bad! The new JP1 4K UHD version isn't as "cool" and edge enhanced as the first blu-ray release nor is it DNR'ed and warm/brownish as the 3D release. The colors are more natural on the 4K UHD. By the way I think the sound on all of these discs are an upgrade.

[Symus35]

Originally Posted by hkpictures

Anyone else notice the weird matting on JP when Hammond is in the trailer with Grant near the beginning?
Around the 11:54 mark, if you look on the right side of the screen, as Hammond is talking about "having an island", the image has small vertical matte that appears and then almost immediately pulls out revealing the previously missing image.
It's really strange, has this always been there in that scene? I've never noticed it before.

Hi

yes you are right. on the line " They insist on outside opinion"

Not present on 3D or 2D BD. Just checked

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You complain that 28 Days Later doesn't look good? You think it could look better?
It's called limitations of the source. God forbid someone actually complains about something that could have been corrected.

Saw it multiple times in multiple locations, New York and California. Even in the best theaters the picture was murky and bleached looking. Sound was good at least.

Hmmm. Murky and bleached is all fine and dandy Pete, but the UHD absolutely did not need to have that same goddamned "grain management" as JP1 did, that's my main problem with the UHD of JP3 despite my kvetching about the extra black crush & burned highlights on the UHD. Go back to what I just said about Predator: there's the potential for something to still look very much like film if it's handled correctly, even for a source that ain't no pretty boy to begin with in terms of other aesthetic choices, but they just haven't done that with JP3 and it results in a UHD that makes a fugly movie look even fuglier, and not in a good way.

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

That whole transfer is nothing short of immaculate.

Which makes me want to punch walls after seeing how uneven JP1 was--and how outright awful the transfer is for JPIII.

In that case we're dealing with a direct digital capture from a modern DI finish vs 35mm transfers handled by a home video department that doesn't really give a ****, it's not the same thing. Universal's home video releases derived directly from DIs generally looked very good in terms of grain handling/processing over the years (I mean BD as much as UHD, even their DVDs are still pretty decent) and JW is no different, graduating from an excellent BD to a STUNNING UHD. It's the bespoke remastering of x movie from film elements that's tripped them up over the years and sadly it's continuing to do so.

I thought they might've turned a corner but the remaster of American Werewolf was an indication that they were back to their old habits and this JP set is further confirmation. How and why Lost World escaped the "management" is absolutely mystifying to me, although at this point I'll take what I can get. And for what this is worth, I really enjoyed the movie this time around as well!

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hmmm. Murky and bleached is all fine and dandy Pete, but the UHD absolutely did not need to have that same goddamned "grain management" as JP1 did, that's my main problem with the UHD of JP3 despite my kvetching about the extra black crush & burned highlights on the UHD. Go back to what I just said about Predator: there's the potential for something to still look very much like film if it's handled correctly, even for a source that ain't no pretty boy to begin with in terms of other aesthetic choices, but they just haven't done that with JP3 and it results in a UHD that makes a fugly movie look even fuglier, and not in a good way.

I always reference Dark Sky Film's release of 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' in these discussions. One ugly ass movie both in terms of subject matter and the visual aesthetic. Shot on 16mm, 1.33:1 and just all round a pretty grim looking film but it really is a beautifully filmic transfer. One of my absolute favourites for a 1080p catalogue title.

[Show spoiler]

As you say, just because something is as ugly as sin, doesn't mean it can't be filmic.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

I always reference Dark Sky Film's release of 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' in these discussions. One ugly ass movie both in terms of subject matter and the visual aesthetic. Shot on 16mm, 1.33:1 and just all round a pretty grim looking film but it really is a beautifully filmic transfer. One of my absolute favourites for a 1080p catalogue title.

[Show spoiler]

As you say, just because something is as ugly as sin, doesn't mean it can't be filmic.

That is a great big BINGO, sir. [edit] What the movie's underlying visuals look like and how the transfer handles the transition from original source to video are two different things, certainly interrelated but they shouldn't automatically be conflated, no matter how assy x movie might be renowned for looking.

Same deal with Grease as well, e.g. a lot of the people praising that transfer are coming at it from the perspective of the shonky original material being the root cause of its problems but it REALLY isn't, the problem is the varying levels of grain "management" that have been slathered all over that remaster giving it an over-processed 'digital' look that comes and goes throughout the film.

[jimandshane]

Picked this up from Target. Opened it this morning, no digital code.

Took it back up to the store to exchange. Only other copy they have was also missing the digital code slip.

Anyone else have this happen?

Similar thing happened with Rogue One steelbook; was missing actual discs though.

[RalphoR]

Just got through half of JP1 last night and have to say, with the exception of a few scenes, I'm quite pleased with the transfer. It's been a while since I've visited any of the JP movies so that might be why it looks so good to me. Plus, it's the first time I'm watching it on my 4k set up (Z9D & Cambridge CXUHD).

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Pgcmoore

i picked this up a while back, and just noticed i never opened it, i'm getting the impression i should skip the 4k set. i have always liked the first and 3rd ones, tlw never really kept me interested although the hunting scenes on the island were fun. guess i'll open them tomorrow and give them a look, gonna be a wet / stay indoors kinda day anyway

The UHD BDs are still considerably better.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Phreakuency

I disagree with the praise Jurassic World is being given. It’s a bit better than bluray and that’s it.

Some scenes are blurry, soft, the grain is horrible and looks artificial.

There’s not much more detail in the faces and textures.

It looks ‘good’ but far from great.

I watched it last night and was expecting better as well. Detail not what I expected and the grain did look slightly artificial. Whites were pushed sort of giving a harsher look. Colors were very good at least. I need to compare it to the BD.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I watched it last night and was expecting better as well. Detail not what I expected and the grain did look slightly artificial. Whites were pushed sort of giving a harsher look. Colors were very good at least. I need to compare it to the BD.

The grain looked beautiful to me, truly authentic throughout (dare I say, it's virtually Sony-style goodness) with only a couple of very short moments where it looked a bit more managed, probably from the respective shots being reframed or otherwise manipulated in the original DI. The movie was created on a 2.4K DI so I didn't go in expecting a massive amount of extra detail in the 4K (that's presuming it got upscaled from the 2.4K original and not just a straight 2K DCI-spec extraction anyway) but the wide shots look so much tighter and refined than the mushier Blu-ray.

The HDR is decent too, whites don't look "pushed" to my eyes but at first glance the extended range doesn't appear to have a huge amount of highlight detail working for it, which could have the effect of certain HDR curves making it look hotter than it really is (just like your experience with Mummy 3). There IS however a mild improvement in the highlights vs the Blu-ray and the lowlights too, revealing a touch more shadow detail than the extremely deep blacks on the Blu-ray.

So yeah: it may seem like I'm damning it with faint praise with all these seemingly subtle improvements and yet it's more than the sum of its parts, I can't emphasise enough how stunning I think JW looks in 4K.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Random comment time: The 2:1 ratio on JW was AWESOME. Perfect combination of height and width, the borders seemed to melt away in a darkened room and it's like I was looking at a floating frame.

So have you apologized to Storaro yet?

Originally Posted by hkpictures

Anyone else notice the weird matting on JP when Hammond is in the trailer with Grant near the beginning?
Around the 11:54 mark, if you look on the right side of the screen, as Hammond is talking about "having an island", the image has small vertical matte that appears and then almost immediately pulls out revealing the previously missing image.
It's really strange, has this always been there in that scene? I've never noticed it before.

The shot in question has been digitally stabilized, and they forgot to zoom in/crop the dancing right edge.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The grain looked beautiful to me, truly authentic throughout (dare I say, it's virtually Sony-style goodness) with only a couple of very short moments where it looked a bit more managed, probably from the respective shots being reframed or otherwise manipulated in the original DI. The movie was created on a 2.4K DI so I didn't go in expecting a massive amount of extra detail in the 4K (that's presuming it got upscaled from the 2.4K original and not just a straight 2K DCI-spec extraction anyway) but the wide shots look so much tighter and refined than the mushier Blu-ray.

The HDR is decent too, whites don't look "pushed" to my eyes but at first glance the extended range doesn't appear to have a huge amount of highlight detail working for it, which could have the effect of certain HDR curves making it look hotter than it really is (just like your experience with Mummy 3). There IS however a mild improvement in the highlights vs the Blu-ray and the lowlights too, revealing a touch more shadow detail than the extremely deep blacks on the Blu-ray.

So yeah: it may seem like I'm damning it with faint praise with all these seemingly subtle improvements and yet it's more than the sum of its parts, I can't emphasise enough how stunning I think JW looks in 4K.

Overall, I still think it looked good. I guess what I am saying is I came into this one looking to get blown away and wasn't at all, so I think it was more about expectations. (Similarly but in reverse, I expected JP I and III to look rather poor and they weren't to my eyes even though there was room for improvement). I didn't realize this one was filmed on 35mm because it didn't have that look to me - interesting. Something about the image doesn't look as natural to me probably with all of the CG worked into it. I was not seeing anything like The Mummy 3 where highlights looked too hot (but I've resolved that issue since then). More than anything, the image just looked more artificial to me than 'natural' especially having watched the last three movies even with their flaws. Detail in particular I was expecting more as I've seen other 2K finished movies with better detail especially on a large screen, but every movie can be different here with the source. However, I think it was all more about expectations for me and just the movie's inherent/CGish look.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]The grain looked beautiful to me, truly authentic throughout (dare I say, it's virtually Sony-style goodness) with only a couple of very short moments where it looked a bit more managed, probably from the respective shots being reframed or otherwise manipulated in the original DI. The movie was created on a 2.4K DI so I didn't go in expecting a massive amount of extra detail in the 4K (that's presuming it got upscaled from the 2.4K original and not just a straight 2K DCI-spec extraction anyway) but the wide shots look so much tighter and refined than the mushier Blu-ray.

The HDR is decent too, whites don't look "pushed" to my eyes but at first glance the extended range doesn't appear to have a huge amount of highlight detail working for it, which could have the effect of certain HDR curves making it look hotter than it really is (just like your experience with Mummy 3). There IS however a mild improvement in the highlights vs the Blu-ray and the lowlights too, revealing a touch more shadow detail than the extremely deep blacks on the Blu-ray.

So yeah: it may seem like I'm damning it with faint praise with all these seemingly subtle improvements and yet it's more than the sum of its parts, I can't emphasise enough how stunning I think JW looks in 4K.

Exactly my thoughts. The BD was already so good that the improvements on UHD may seem incremental, but taken as a whole it's incredible.