Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[emailking]

Originally Posted by RdCrestdBreegull

In the above comparison shots you can see the colors are very off and unnatural. The scene with the girl in the car at night is realistic in the film picture while in the Blu-ray screenshot it is kinda hideous in comparison -- imagine if you were in that car at night, which of the two comparison shots would it look like in real life? Same with the comparison shots of the T-rex in the building -- in real life the colors of the room would be naturally lit by sunlight and not super crazy red -- once again proving the Blu-ray's colors are extremely off. Bright flashy colors does not mean "natural" or that it's correct/good.

I don't know which is right but all of them seem to be physically possible lighting scenarios I don't know how you can tell which are right just by looking them.

[nick4Knight]

These people never quit.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by emailking

I don't know which is right but all of them seem to be physically possible lighting scenarios I don't know how you can tell which are right just by looking them.

You would know which lighting is right if you know the basics of white balance and cinematography; and also purely by instinct, if you study the natural world and the way our eyes pick up light and colours.

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

I wanna put VickPS and Riddhi2011 in a room and watch the lovemaking.
This thread is dying for it.

Tasteless and ugly joke; but go on, I guess.

[Kyle15]

Jurassic Park

[Law212]

Originally Posted by RdCrestdBreegull

I hope you understand that those theater shots are very low-resolution pictures and not an HD scan of a 35mm print. Of course the images themselves look terrible, that's not the point.


In the above comparison shots you can see the colors are very off and unnatural. The scene with the girl in the car at night is realistic in the film picture while in the Blu-ray screenshot it is kinda hideous in comparison -- imagine if you were in that car at night, which of the two comparison shots would it look like in real life? Same with the comparison shots of the T-rex in the building -- in real life the colors of the room would be naturally lit by sunlight and not super crazy red -- once again proving the Blu-ray's colors are extremely off. Bright flashy colors does not mean "natural" or that it's correct/good.

I disagree, just going by the pictures, the red colour looks like a room full of light from the sun going down

Id need to actually re watch the movie though and not go by some screens here. I think the colours look great in the pictures. And yes at night, depending on the lighting around, the second picture looks great.

[nick4Knight]

Ultimately that user is just making assertions and when challenged the line is "if you know anything about cinematography", "using instinct it looks unnatural", "clear when compared to 35mm" pictures of frames though???

That's called doubling down on assertions. It's all subjective speak cloaked in (unproven) authority. No one is buying. They are just speaking and no one has agreed. Their retort to that is "I disagree with you" and then makes another set of re-assertions. Lol

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Tasteless and ugly joke; but go on, I guess.

Not remotely.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Ultimately that user is just making assertions and when challenged the line is "if you know anything about cinematography", "using instinct it looks unnatural", "clear when compared to 35mm" pictures of frames though???

That's called doubling down on assertions. It's all subjective speak cloaked in (unproven) authority. No one is buying. They are just speaking and no one has agreed. Their retort to that is "I disagree with you" and then makes another set of re-assertions. Lol

Yeah that’s just what he does, he’s harmless though.

[Kyle15]

I'm gonna double down on Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Ultimately that user is just making assertions and when challenged the line is "if you know anything about cinematography", "using instinct it looks unnatural", "clear when compared to 35mm" pictures of frames though???

That's called doubling down on assertions. It's all subjective speak cloaked in (unproven) authority. No one is buying. They are just speaking and no one has agreed. Their retort to that is "I disagree with you" and then makes another set of re-assertions. Lol

So, tell me what part of my arguments you found unacceptable, or are you bothered more about your analysis of the aspects of my personality that you, GeoffD and others find problematic; and love to pass judgements on through such sweeping statements that are, behold, ALSO said with an air of assumed authority.

You accusing me of pretending to be authoritative, whilst doing the same thing yourself. Reading your statement, it was pretty clear that your sole intent was to show me in a poor light and dismiss my arguments as mere ramblings; thereby, automatically lifting yourself on a higher pedestal as a person who is "better" and "smarter" than me by comparison.

Geoff coming to your defense tells a lot about him too. His addition of the suffix "not harmless" was meant to convey the same message that I should just be ignored and my words have zero value. Perhaps Geoff was also trying to sugarcoat things by using the word "harmless."

I never make any argument to earn followers here or to have people praise me. My intention was only to point out certain issues through as much data I could find. My arguments are not infallible. No one's is. But when I make any point, I try to be objective and provide reasoning to back up my thoughts, which the other poster, who replied to me, did not. I explained why the 35mm has proper white balance and why the Blu-ray does not. Also, I did learn cinematography for six months where I was taught this basic truth that white balance is the key to good colour. It was not my attempt to insult someone, but to offer reasoning for my points.

Anyway, if my posts ruffle feathers of others in a bad way, maybe it's best that someone ask the admin of this page to ban me from the forum, permanently. At the end of the day, I don't harbour ill feelings towards anybody. My posts are only a reflection of my passions for the related content. Have a good day, all of you.

[dallywhitty]

The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

[Geoff D]

You mean well Riddhi, that’s more than I can say for some followers of the Gospel of LaserDisc and the Church of Latter Day 35mm Printed Saints™️, but it’s the same schtick over and over with the same rigidly intractable viewpoint behind it. No-one’s saying you can’t have an opinion, just don’t get upset if it elicits yawns rather than gushing praise.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You mean well Riddhi, that’s more than I can say for some followers of the Gospel of LaserDisc and the Church of Latter Day 35mm Printed Saints™️, but it’s the same schtick over and over with the same rigidly intractable viewpoint behind it. No-one’s saying you can’t have an opinion, just don’t get upset if it elicits yawns rather than gushing praise.

Yawns are fine with me, absolutely . I wish I yawned more, myself. I wound not want gushing praise at all, believe me. Anything "gushing" sounds extreme, innit? The problem is not me looking for a free toffee around the corner. The problem is others refuting whatever arguments I put forward in a dismissive manner; like a slight, rather than offer a counter logic with their own points. That's what I took away from Law212's response towards my post, anyway.

It is clear as night and day that the "Blue" rays lack proper white balance or tone curve which can highlight the differences between darker and lighter areas in a frame. The 35mm examples have those differences and look gorgeous to me, while the Blu-ray looks "BLUE" and washed out. Other than the vertical height cropping, which is also very apparent, that was all I wanted to say. Again, I reiterate, I believe I am not a self-centred ba****d, hopefully () and didn't make the posts to seek validation for myself here.

[motorheadache95]

I think it’s generally agreed on that Blu-ray and 4K transfers of the first three films are all lacking to some degree. I don’t hate the 4K versions, they’re… okay? But at this point I’m assuming they were rushed out by Universal to get ahead of the theatrical release of Fallen Kingdom, and they took older 4K transfers they were sitting on and just put them out. Didn’t even use the Spielberg-supervised remaster which got converted to 3D or it would have had that warmer, “earthier” color timing.

[Geoff D]

The trouble is, I get the impression that Señor Spielbergo just doesn't give a shit about JP and so while the crusades of people like Vick and Riddhi come from a good place I'm not sure they'll ever see their dream come to fruition.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The trouble is, I get the impression that Señor Spielbergo just doesn't give a shit about JP and so while the crusades of people like Vick and Riddhi come from a good place I'm not sure they'll ever see their dream come to fruition.

Unfortunately, this is most likely the truth. I read/heard that Spielberg only filmed Jurassic Park so that Universal would fund his passion project, Schindler's List. Why would his other films look so good on home video while the JP films are consistently treated like step children? The 3D version was the only time he approved the colour timing for a theatre and home release outside the original 35mm prints and maybe even the original VHS releases (not the VHS re-releases), since they also have the 35mm timing.

[Brucaliffo]

Does single editions still have slipcover?

[emailking]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You would know which lighting is right if you know the basics of white balance and cinematography; and also purely by instinct, if you study the natural world and the way our eyes pick up light and colours.

Actually as I was thinking about it this week, why can't any of them just be artistic choice? E.g. black and white is never the way our eyes pick up colours, yet I've seen B&W fervently defended before as an artistic choice. So for the Jurassic Park comparison pics, why can't any of them be right if the director preferred them that way, and how do we know which he preferred without asking him? Maybe he thinks the lighting looks better one way even if it's not natural?

[RdCrestdBreegull]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

That's called doubling down on assertions. It's all subjective speak cloaked in (unproven) authority. No one is buying. They are just speaking and no one has agreed. Their retort to that is "I disagree with you" and then makes another set of re-assertions. Lol

There is such thing as comparing the Blu-ray/4K versions to real-world colors though. Jurassic Park is not 300 where there is a clear and intentional forced color filter, so in certain comparison screenshots especially with the BD/4K versus the 35mm it is very clear that the BD/4K has significantly unnatural color grading. It's far from the worst transfer I've even seen, and isn't extremely odd like the magenta shift of the Star Wars BDs, but it's still apparent that it's been graded incorrectly.

Not that it will necessarily mean much, but I do personally have an eye for minute subtleties with color since I do archival work / color adjustments for old/rare music releases (scanning the artwork and then spending hours doing adjustments using a white LED light and a photo editing program to get the scanned image to match the exact colors of the real-world object) and am a very trusted mushroom identifier (some days identifying hundreds of mushrooms for people online based on photos, which are required to be taken in sunlight or under white LED light since typical indoor lighting does not show correct colors; often the identifications given depend on extremely minute color differences that 90% of people cannot really see).

In my opinion, based on what I personally know about film, my personal experience with color subtlety, and then seeing the comparison screenshots of for example the final T-rex scene in the building and the scene with Lex in the car, it's quite clear to me what is off in those frames. I'm not saying the pictures of the 35mm print are showing 100% accurate colors either (they are a bit faded), but the things I've pointed out (the building lighting not being possible from sunlight / being too red, the interior of the car at night not being physically possible) to me are just very obvious.

I know these words will not necessarily convince anyone, but it's just my way of saying that I'm not talking out of my ass!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by emailking

Actually as I was thinking about it this week, why can't any of them just be artistic choice? E.g. black and white is never the way our eyes pick up colours, yet I've seen B&W fervently defended before as an artistic choice. So for the Jurassic Park comparison pics, why can't any of them be right if the director preferred them that way, and how do we know which he preferred without asking him? Maybe he thinks the lighting looks better one way even if it's not natural?

Jurassic park was a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster in 1993 and was colour timed like most mainstream Summer Hollywood blockbusters were in that era. It was not some arthouse indie film with heavy stylisation where the director might intentionally ruin the natural white balance or natural colours to create a grey-blue washed out, dull and dead looking film. If you would have seen JP on 35mm you'd know that unlike the DVd, Blu-ray and 4K, the 35mm prints, which Spielberg actually approved, had proper white-balanced, natural looking colours with a "tropical" Hawaiian summer look, or an "earthy" look with ample well saturated yellows, greens, browns and reds. A cinematographer like Dean Cundey and an experienced director like Steven Spielberg would know that JP is a film primarily meant for mass entertainment - a crowd pleaser. It is no Citizen Kane. Crowd pleasers should look great on the big screen. The blockbuster summer movie look back then was this warm, richly saturated look. The JP projected image has those colours but the home video versions don't have it.