Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[sleeman]

Just finished watching JW, what a beautiful transfer. Just wished DTS:X had a little more dynamics and LFE. With the exception of the disappointing JP3 I don't mind owning this set. Could have been a lot better, a missed opportunity.

[buckeye1]

Originally Posted by coaster

So with PQ we got (Out of 5):

JW: 5.0
TLW:JP: 4.0
JP: 3.5
JW3: 3.0

An average of about 3.9 or 7.8 out of 10. Not Bad. Factor in 4.5 on average for AQ and it's a decent set for $50.

So what's the next catalog title being released from Universal? Jaws, Back to the Future Trilogy, Fast and the Furious 1-5?

I really really hope that they decide to remaster BTTF Trilogy in 4K UHD. That's my all time favorite movies. I'll triple dip for those.

[RemingtonSteele]

Originally Posted by Synchg

lets start our own crowdfundraising project and git done ourselves, now is the time
https://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-Featur...3/253612512631

Wow... impressive. What I don't get though the screenshots the seller provided aren't convincing at all (except for nice red on the jeep). If it is really that low resolution (I'm very curious if it really is), it isn't worth it I guess.

[RemingtonSteele]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I think the set is worth it a cheaper price.

I agree with the set not being perfect, but how much cheaper than 49 $ can a 4 movie UHD set get?

In Germany for example, the set costs 70-93 US $ to give you an idea... and the single titles cost around 30 US $.

[s_har]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

The 3 to 5 star scale for video rating is pretty pointless when nothing scores below a 3.

Yeah. Makes me wonder just how bad a UHD will have to look to score 1 on this site. Probably would have to look like a VHS tape for that to happen.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It *is* a new scan. Just not a very good one.
https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?g...17164&i=11&l=0


Too many differences in geometry and framing. If they used the previous scan and just did an HDR grade it would be identical.

Once again - they did go back to the source of the BD master, not to the final master. That's why there are small differences in framing here and there, there's no sharpening etc.

If you've seen how modern scan with HDR grade looks than you should know what Universal did has nothing to do with it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by RemingtonSteele

Wow... impressive. What I don't get though the screenshots the seller provided aren't convincing at all (except for nice red on the jeep). If it is really that low resolution (I'm very curious if it really is), it isn't worth it I guess.

The photos don't do it justice. A 35mm projected looks very detailed. I saw Interstellar on 35mm on March 30 this year. It looked as detailed and gorgeous as the UHD disc. I liked it even more because the image had a slight softness which I found soothing for my eyes.

Do a 4K scan of that JP 35mm print and you'll see how richly detailed it looks. I've seen a few scans from 35mm prints, like the Star Wars OT and they look far, far gorgeous than any home video version yet.

As for 'Jurassic World' UHD -

JW 4KUHD Main Street lowrez.jpg

The above frame looks beautifully warm and detailed. It's a good upgrade over the BD. However, I saw JW five times in the cinema. I distinctly remember the colour grading to be colder. It was never this warm. I prefer the UHD warmer grade with deeper contrast because now JW looks closer to JP1's own warm photochemical timing. They've added slight green tint on the colours and it looks more cinematic. This is a job well done.

[menelfirimaner]

Originally Posted by Nagamura

Yes! I can finally own the first movie and Lost World! The blu-ray transfers were so bad I just couldn't do it. Here's to hoping they don't mess it up.

I wouldn't be so optimistic about that, if I were you :-( . Even by just reading the review here on blu-ray.com it appears JP1 is suffering from a sub-par transfer, plus that seems to be the general opinion around the Internet, too.
Which is shame, the results could've and should've been better. By properly remastering, rescanning and all that the movie from scratch or maybe just using the 4k scan used 3D version a few years ago would've led to better results (it's said that 4k scan was quite good and only in later production stages marred by all sorts of "tinkering"). Basically they did the same mistakes they did with the release of JP1 on blu-ray all over again and perhaps to an even greater extent (maybe it just shows more because it's 4k and HDR).
Let's hope they back track on it like they did with Gladiator, the first release was crap and they immediately released the so-called 10th anniversary edition (or was it 15th?).
They really could learn from other companies, the release of The Matrix by Warner is the stuff of legend, they remastered the movie properly, they tweaked (for the better) the color balance, they even added the new master on a standard blu-ray and included it in the 4k package.
As for your hopes there are already observations about whether the changes in the 4k edition justify the purchase, in the sense that if you couldn't get to watch the blu-ray version this is hardly going to be love at first sight, I'm afraid.
I guess it's as the reviewer on blu-ray.com put it, that it seems most decisions during the production process for this 4k edition were made by bean counters. I'm surprised Spielberg allowed it though.
Speaking of which, I'd say the blu-ray edition of Jaws, considering it indeed runs on blu-ray and is about a movie that's more than 20 years older fares much better than the 4k conversion of JP1, no doubt :-( .

[s_har]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The photos don't do it justice. A 35mm projected looks very detailed. I saw Interstellar on 35mm on March 30 this year. It looked as detailed and gorgeous as the UHD disc. I liked it even more because the image had a slight softness which I found soothing for my eyes.

Do a 4K scan of that JP 35mm print and you'll see how richly detailed it looks. I've seen a few scans from 35mm prints, like the Star Wars OT and they look far, far gorgeous than any home video version yet.

What kind of equipment is needed in order to properly scan 35mm film like that I wonder?

[Riddhi2011]

I don't have any experience. The professionals in the industry use an ARRISCAN XT scanner. But those are too expensive for an individual.

http://www.arri.com/archive_technologies/arriscan_xt/

[El Sleezo]

Originally Posted by coaster

So with PQ we got (Out of 5):

JW: 5.0
TLW:JP: 4.0
JP: 3.5
JW3: 3.0

An average of about 3.9 or 7.8 out of 10. Not Bad. Factor in 4.5 on average for AQ and it's a decent set for $50.

So what's the next catalog title being released from Universal? Jaws, Back to the Future Trilogy, Fast and the Furious 1-5?

Deer Hunter, Big Lebowski, and Robin Hood 2010 should be coming soon.

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The photos don't do it justice. A 35mm projected looks very detailed. I saw Interstellar on 35mm on March 30 this year. It looked as detailed and gorgeous as the UHD disc. I liked it even more because the image had a slight softness which I found soothing for my eyes.

35mm prints end at about 3K resolution. And that is show prints only. Standard prints are 2K and below.

Do a 4K scan of that JP 35mm print and you'll see how richly detailed it looks. I've seen a few scans from 35mm prints, like the Star Wars OT and they look far, far gorgeous than any home video version yet.

Prints are not scanned in the professional world unless lower generation masters are not available or have deteriorated too much. Prints have lost too much detail and are too contrasty to serve as master elements for scanning. Comparing scanned prints and some consumer video version is apples and oranges. Any print can be mimicked with the digital version of master elements. If this is intended or desirable is another issue.

[stigdu]

I'm not technically minded, and just happen to love the movies. I bought the trilogy (and Jurassic World separately) yesterday and watched Jurassic Park 1 last night, and looked at a few bits of Jurassic World afterwards.

I thought Jurassic Park looked really good. Striking colours, clear picture, decent shadow detail, and the sound seemed excellent too. Jurassic World was even better.

I am definitely happy with my purchases so far.

[RemingtonSteele]

btw I read today Universal will release the next Bond movie. Maybe they manage to master it in 1K and release it on UHD then.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/57...ahdbluray.html

Just what are you laughing at man? Do you not agree that JP3 comes-

"crashing onto UHD with a beautiful HEVC H.265 encode".

[s_har]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I don't have any experience. The professionals in the industry use an ARRISCAN XT scanner. But those are too expensive for an individual.

http://www.arri.com/archive_technologies/arriscan_xt/

That one is probably priced many times higher than what even a high budget fanmade restoration of JP could ever afford.

I've looked into it and apparently those 'fanmade restorations' of the original theatrical version of Star Wars 'scanned' the print by placing a digital camera right next to the lens of the projector, capturing one frame at a time. Definitely not an ideal way to go about it though.

Originally Posted by benhoppel

35mm prints end at about 3K resolution. And that is show prints only. Standard prints are 2K and below.

So this would also the case with those fanbased projects where the original theatrical Star Wars prints were 'scanned' to 4K then? In reality the actual resolution of those would be approximately 2K or even below?

[Riddhi2011]

I don't agree that release prints have below 2K resolution. As I said earlier, this March 30, I saw Interstellar in 35mm. It looked every-bit as robust and detailed as the UHD. The sound was just out-of-this-world good!
Film does not have pixel-resolution. So, I don't think such notions of 2K, 4K work in the analogue discussion.
The best thing about film projection is you can sit pretty close to the screen and the details get better. It's the opposite with digital. The closer you sit to the screen, the more pixels and screen-door effect you notice and the experience becomes worse. If you move farther back, you lose that sense of immersion.
I just cannot get over the rich textures and the gorgeous colours of Interstellar 35mm. It's the best the film has ever looked to me. I never got to see it in IMAX 15/70.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I don't agree that release prints have below 2K resolution.

35mm theatrical release prints can have substantially lower than 2K resolution. Depending on a (large) number of factors, a given shot can be anywhere between ~700 and ~1200 lines.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

35mm theatrical release prints can have substantially lower than 2K resolution. Depending on a (large) number of factors, a given shot can be anywhere between ~700 and ~1200 lines.

Again, those are technical aspects. To me, the image quality of a projected 35mm film looked far superior than its 2K DCP counterpart. It felt like the difference between a Blu-ray and a UHD.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Again, those are technical aspects. To me, the image quality of a projected 35mm film looked far superior than its 2K DCP counterpart. It felt like the difference between a Blu-ray and a UHD.

Well, you were commenting on resolution, which is very much a "technical aspect". You can certainly prefer the look of a 35mm print to that of a 2K DCP, but that doesn't change the "technical aspect" that a modern commercial 35mm print is pretty much never going to beat a 2K DCP for spatial resolution. And, usually, it won't even be close.