Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Dino-Killer 912]

Sorry for being late to the party... I read Blu-ray.com's review of the JP III UHD and didn't quite understand why it was so harsh—I mean, while the UHD of the third installment may not be as stunning as the second, it's still undeniably a significant upgrade over the terrible old Blu-ray right?

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Dino-Killer 912

Sorry for being late to the party... I read Blu-ray.com's review of the JP III UHD and didn't quite understand why it was so harsh—I mean, while the UHD of the third installment may not be as stunning as the second, it's still undeniably a significant upgrade over the terrible old Blu-ray right?

Yeah all three are definitely better than the old Blu-ray transfers.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I'd be curious to see if there are any other framing discrepancies in a similar fashion. I must admit that I've never felt the Blu-rays or UHD were misframed and this is a film I've seen on 35mm many times and compared with home video releases. The UHD just having less image area on all four sides compared to past home video releases is not a cause for concern as older masters would usually show more image area than what was intended to be shown.

Regardless, this finally needs to get a proper remaster and release, and they need to use a valid reference print instead of an old telecine. Spielberg doesn't seem to have much interest in properly remastering this film like he does with a lot of his other films. He had some involvement in the 3D remaster but I've not heard of him being involved on any other releases.

FWIW a photo said to have been taken by someone at a showing in 1993 for comparison:


and then these would be images from 35mm color timed side by side with 35mm print and framed to original theatrical framing (probably showing a trace more equally on all sides than most theaters would manage) well other than for the open matte one:

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by d3nt0n

The colors are more accurate and nicer then the UHD/2D BD. Plus the audio is better (although still a remix)

Yes, but it's a bit too reddish and does not have as good a colour separation as the release prints have. The warm tone looks like a blanket over the original image, lacking nuance. We don't have an optimal version of JP1 (or JP2 & JP3) on home video, yet. JP2 also doesn't look the same as the prints, which are very warm and have a strong green and cyan-blue cast. Many scenes have a warm, yellow glow. The UHD, comparatively, looks more neutral. I prefer the colours on the prints. They are richer.

[Moviefan2k4]

I don't know if this has been asked before, but can anyone tell me whether this 2023 release of the first film's 4K release has a better picture than the initial effort a year ealier? Any help is appreciated; thanks.

[raptors661]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I don't know if this has been asked before, but can anyone tell me whether this 2023 release of the first film's 4K release has a better picture than the initial effort a year ealier? Any help is appreciated; thanks.

Exact same disc as the previous edition.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by raptors661

Exact same disc as the previous edition.

Well, that sucks; did Universal offer any imported 4K versions, with a better video presentation and keeping the English audio track?

[Ben_UK]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Well, that sucks; did Universal offer any imported 4K versions, with a better video presentation and keeping the English audio track?

Nope. It’s the same DNR’d mediocre-ness worldwide.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Nope. It’s the same DNR’d mediocre-ness worldwide.

Hmmm...that's frustrating, to say the least. As much of a perfectionist as Steven Spielberg is known to be, you'd think for a project like this he'd have personally overseen the restoration, making sure it was as flawless as possible.

[I-C-Blue]

I’ve debated with many YouTube comments that don’t understand why this movie has yet to receive a definitive remaster. They keep claiming in comparison videos that the 2011 version is “how it should look” To put it simply, how is it that 1965’s Sound of Music, a MUCH OLDER FILM, received a better restoration than 1993’s Jurassic Park? Looking at these screenshots ...





It's basically how Jurassic Park should look and the 3D version is the closest thing to that. Even if you take out the colour grading aside, the clarity, albeit not as natural as it should be due to DNR, is still far more natural than the oversharpened 2011 image, especially when it comes to hair. Not to mention, the 3D version went as far as fixing that one contrast issue that bugged me for ages, in reference to 19:18 - 19:26 of the movie when Gennaro spoke to John Hammond, the contrast and saturation levels went all over the place. This occurs in both 2011 and 2018 version but NOT the 3D verison.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Hmmm...that's frustrating, to say the least. As much of a perfectionist as Steven Spielberg is known to be, you'd think for a project like this he'd have personally overseen the restoration, making sure it was as flawless as possible.

Which is why to date, the 3D version, albeit DNR, is by far, the MOST faitfhful restoration, involving Spielberg himself with Gary Rydstrom (sound engineering) and Dean Cundey for the 3D conversion along with StereoD. I noticed an IMMEDIATE difference when I saw the 3D trailer back in late 2012 and those short minutes wowed me more than the entire 2011 Blu-Ray. I wish Spielberg would be involved with the home video format but Universal keeps going ahead with their own “third party” (or in house) remastering, which they’re so infamous for. Peter Jackson’s King Kong on 4K is probably the worse offender with the HDR heavily modifying the original film look. Bourne Identity in 4K is also worsened to the same degree, upscaling the 2K DI master used for the DVD and just calling it a day, retraining the oversharpened image but looking worse.

Jurassic Park on the other hand post VHS / DVD release, keeps getting remastered as a trilogy. I wish they’d just treat the first movie alone with the TLC it long deserved. That’s why, albeit the DNR for the 3D version, I consider this to be my go-to format, even if I have to turn off the 3D to watch it in 2D.

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

FWIW a photo said to have been taken by someone at a showing in 1993 for comparison:

[Show spoiler]

and then these would be images from 35mm color timed side by side with 35mm print and framed to original theatrical framing (probably showing a trace more equally on all sides than most theaters would manage) well other than for the open matte one:

[Show spoiler]

Thank you for sharing these. These are beautiful. How I wish the 4K Remaster were based on these.

[Geoff D]

You lost me at The Sound of Music, as comparing a 65mm show to a 35mm one is daft

[I-C-Blue]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You lost me at The Sound of Music, as comparing a 65mm show to a 35mm one is daft

We all know Jurassic Park can look better, even on 35 mm, just as The Karate Kid looked great for its 4K remaster, which SONY is always on point when it comes to remastering their catalog titles. My point was it can still receive a better restoration. No need to be lost at that point.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by I-C-Blue

We all know Jurassic Park can look better

You're right, we all know that... since 2018 There's really no reason to compare to an older film from a different time period, from a different studio, shot on a different format / film stock which DID receive a proper restoration. In other news: water is wet.

[I-C-Blue]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

You're right, we all know that... since 2018 There's really no reason to compare to an older film from a different time period, from a different studio, shot on a different format / film stock which DID receive a proper restoration. In other news: water is wet.

What about it being since 2018? We're all still continually talking about it, even with the recent posts.

There's every right reason to compare with an older film from a different time period. It's to show the extent of how the right restoration team can make or break the final product, even if a film is older. Jurassic Park being far newer should have no excuse to look the way it did, even on 35mm. And the fact it was a different studio that DID receive a proper restoration was my point that Jurassic Park did not but should receive. Not sure why what I said is being confused here.

And it being shot in 65mm is still irrelevant to what I already stated. Look at the 35mm colour timed captures WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW provided earlier.. While obviously not identical to Sound of Music, it still follows in the direction the restoration should have been.

[Geoff D]

Great. Now all I can think of is a Sound of Music x Jurassic Park crossover

The Hills are Alive, with the sound of Screaming

[JohnCarpenterFan]

No need to compare it to how other films look or anything. A proper grade is simply what is required most of all. All Universal needed to do was use a reference print or multiple 35mm prints to assist with that.

Instead it looks like they just referenced a completely unfaithful old telecine, going as far as adding magenta to the UHDs of the original Jurassic Park and the third film too. The magenta we see on older telecines on modern displays wasn't even as noticeable (or sometimes wasn't even visible) while watching on CRT displays which those masters were made to be seen on.

What they did was absolutely dumbfounding, especially since Spielberg was involved in the creation of the newer 3D master which had a much better grade. Sadly color accuracy has historically never been much of a concern on home video. What's even more unfortunate is that people think that this is how the films should look and whenever a remaster comes out that looks different (even if it is confirmed to be more accuate), it is decried for being revisionist or not looking "natural" because we all know that expressive art forms such as film are always supposed to look like real life.

[mpls1981]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

What's even more unfortunate is that people think that this is how the films should look and whenever a remaster comes out that looks different (even if it is confirmed to be more accuate), it is decried for being revisionist or not looking "natural" because we all know that expressive art forms such as film are always supposed to look like real life.

Off topic, but that totally had me thinking Lord of the Rings trilogy. When the blu-rays came out, people on here were angry that a hue was added to the image and the snow was no longer bright white in FOTR and they'd stick to the DVDs. Then the 4Ks came out and people were angry over the look and said they'd stick to their blu-rays and I just laughed.

[I-C-Blue]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

No need to compare it to how other films look or anything. A proper grade is simply what is required most of all. All Universal needed to do was use a reference print or multiple 35mm prints to assist with that.

That's pretty much what I've been saying though ...and I think people are missing the point in my comparison by taking it too literally when my basic point was that it's disappointing that an older film can look much better (not just Sound of Music mind you, let alone other films shot on 35mm as mentioned after) than Jurassic Park. Hence ...

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Instead it looks like they just referenced a completely unfaithful old telecine, going as far as adding magenta to the UHDs of the original Jurassic Park and the third film too. The magenta we see on older telecines on modern displays wasn't even as noticeable (or sometimes wasn't even visible) while watching on CRT displays which those masters were made to be seen on.

What they did was absolutely dumbfounding, especially since Spielberg was involved in the creation of the newer 3D master which had a much better grade. Sadly color accuracy has historically never been much of a concern on home video. What's even more unfortunate is that people think that this is how the films should look and whenever a remaster comes out that looks different (even if it is confirmed to be more accuate), it is decried for being revisionist or not looking "natural" because we all know that expressive art forms such as film are always supposed to look like real life.

... I said what I said and I absolutely agree. I'll never forget seeing the 3D trailer for the first time and the first thing that wowed me was how much better it looked, albeit the necessary DNR for the 3D conversion. Jurassic Park 3D was the only time it involved a faithful restoration team, including those from the original crew, even as far as getting Dean Cundey (DOP) back for the 3D conversion aspect, if not just Gary Rydstrom for the sound. And most importantly as you said, they used the original 35mm film print as a reference, restoring it to how it was meant to be, not the lost-in-translation faulty transfers we've been getting the second it made it to home video. This is the only time Jurassic Park ever had a curated remaster and it took a 3D theatrical re-release for it to happen with StereoD. It just needs extra fine tuning for 2D viewing, especially with the grading looking too warm to the naked eye without 3D glasses.

Just looking at what WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW shared is a harsh reminder of what it could have been, which reminded me how older films like Sound of Music (and again, other folder 35mm films) received a better direction in restoration. One could even argue Universal tried to make the 2011 transfer look like a 65mm presentation when instead, it gave it a false sense of clarity that many people fell for. Even though the 3D is faulty for its DNR, I'd still much rather watch that because at least they're not artificially modified to the degrees of edge halos. 2018 would be my second choice of compromise but never 2011.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You lost me at The Sound of Music, as comparing a 65mm show to a 35mm one is daft

I think he meant in the general sense of color tone and naturalness.

(On a side note, TSOM is a tricky one though in that the release prints were, warm and yellow in a way somewhat like JP can get, but the original director's grading was not like that, the studio forced him to dump his intended look, the most release re-mastering went with the colder, different colors original desired, but nothing at all like how the film was ever seen in theaters or on TV and so on for years and so totally revisionist compared to what anyone ever saw and for nostalgia purposes even if much closer to how the director had originally color timed it).

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by I-C-Blue

We all know Jurassic Park can look better, even on 35 mm, just as The Karate Kid looked great for its 4K remaster, which SONY is always on point when it comes to remastering their catalog titles. My point was it can still receive a better restoration. No need to be lost at that point.

They also seemed to have changed the framing of JP compared to how it was in theatrical.