Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Ben_UK]

My initial excitement turned a little to disappointment as that first screenshot of the body in the desert looked really good. It does look better than the old release but it could look so much better surely even with the existing scan!?

I’m still buying it as this film holds a special place in my memory as a kid and it’s not very often I’ve literally had my jaw on the floor in the cinema whilst looking at visual effects but this film made that happen for me.

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

My initial excitement turned a little to disappointment as that first screenshot of the body in the desert looked really good. It does look better than the old release but it could look so much better surely even with the existing scan!?

I’m still buying it as this film holds a special place in my memory as a kid and it’s not very often I’ve literally had my jaw on the floor in the cinema whilst looking at visual effects but this film made that happen for me.

So what’s the issue the color grade?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Cvalda

Now if only you could apply this magnanimous attitude to the Blade Runner 4K

The "look" is okay, super-sharpening aside. It's the shitty compression that wigs me out the mostest, and I don't budge when it comes to that.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

We don't always see eye to eye, yadda yadda, but right now? I got you.

Studios in "taking shortcuts" shocker

[Kyle15]

What's that?

[Midnight_Hour]

For anyone looking for comparison pics between the older 4k release vs the new DV release of JP, see here: https://slow.pics/c/92bwAlwg

[jpilla415]

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

New UHD (Base Layer) vs New UHD (Base Layer + FEL) vs HDR10 Only UHD

https://slow.pics/c/nMTpcwKB

Tone mapped to SDR @ 125 nits. Colors and luminance are not representative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jurassic Park comparisons from yesterday are here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=6532

[maverick22]

^Kobe, is that you (new user name)?

[VickPS]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The complaints I'm seeing on here and elsewhere are to do with the grade, not the scan. A few here (including myself) have recently explained that a new scan should not be necessary in order to create a grade that is at least in the same ballpark as the theatrical, or even the imperfect Spielberg-approved 3D grade which is still perfectly enjoyable and retains the "feel" of the prints even if there are discrepancies (how's that for nuance?)

Is it really asking too much for a film that has received countless problematic releases over the years to finally be done with care and some reverence?

I can see the improvements, but I highly disagree that it's some big upgrade in most of those comparisons. I've seen plenty of prints over the years and they outclass the old Blu-ray and similar-looking UHD when it comes to color by a considerable margin. Some adjustments here and there is not going to bring back the splendor that I'm accustomed to seeing since 35mm is mainly how I've experienced this film.

I'm sure there's plenty of people that have never seen how good this film can look and also those who can't remember what it looked like over three decades ago. It's those people who I'm disappointed for the most, since I'm fine with the 3D Blu-ray and catching a 35mm screening until it finally gets the care and attention it deserves. A two-man show like Celluloid Dreams can locate prints in archives for obscure genre films and produce film-like and faithful-looking grades, yet a massive studio can't do the same for one of their biggest and most marketable films when we know they are in possession of archival prints which blow away the home video releases?

I'm glad some are happy with the improvements, and if this set selling well increases the change of a proper remaster instead of a "reformat" or whatever this upgrade was described as, then I hope it sells just like those incomplete UHD box sets for franchises which were inevitably going to be succeeded by more complete sets.

And with faith in regards to the closing sentence, I would recommend people dissatisfied with this movie's current presentation to give JP3D a shot in the meantime, especially on a good VR set but even the first PSVR. There's just no going back.

[jpilla415]

Originally Posted by maverick22

^Kobe, is that you (new user name)?

Nope, though I really miss Kobe. Just trying to help out in Kobe's stead.

[jpanimation]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I'm sure there's plenty of people that have never seen how good this film can look and also those who can't remember what it looked like over three decades ago. It's those people who I'm disappointed for the most, since I'm fine with the 3D Blu-ray and catching a 35mm screening until it finally gets the care and attention it deserves.

That's me. I was very young when it came out and don't remember what it looked like. I'm also not as lucky as some who have access to 35mm screenings, as any re-release where I am is whatever DCP they're currently using. So it is a little disappointing that I'm not afforded a cinematic frame of reference but also a blessing that I don't have that spoiling my enjoyment during this format journey. That said, I'll purchase the best version being offered to me, and I'll keep doing it until we get nigh perfection.

Originally Posted by The Rider

In this demo video you can see how detailed the CGI was back then. Universal really did a lot to make these scenes look bad in home entertainment.

Jurassic Park - ILM Visual Effects | Original 35mm Presentation - YouTube

Wow

Originally Posted by Evanos

Did some experimenting with the iconic T-rex shot at the end, actually turned out pretty decent. I just upscaled the blu-ray with Topaz, regraded it and added some grain. Not perfect by any means, but if I can get a decent result like this... surely universal could come with something better, preferably without using AI. Baffling honestly.

https://slow.pics/c/0OXLtdYY

I'm surprised by how good that turned out

[jpilla415]

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

DV is confirmed FEL.

DISC INFO:

Disc Title:     LOSTWORLDJURASSICPARK_UPK75
Disc Size:      94,330,812,416 bytes
Protection:     AACS2
Extras:         Ultra HD, BD-Java
BDInfo:         0.7.6.1

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name:                   00800.MPLS  
Length:                 2:08:39.169 (h:m:s.ms)
Size:                   70,172,375,040 bytes
Total Bitrate:          72.73 Mbps

(*) Indicates included stream hidden by this playlist.

VIDEO:

Codec                   Bitrate             Description     
-----                   -------             -----------     
MPEG-H HEVC Video       57071 kbps          2160p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 4:2:0 / 10 bits / 1000nits / HDR10 / BT.2020
* MPEG-H HEVC Video     6439 kbps (10.14%)  1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 4:2:0 / 10 bits / 1000nits / Dolby Vision FEL / BT.2020

AUDIO:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
Dolby TrueHD/Atmos Audio        English         3532 kbps       7.1+11 objects / 48 kHz / 3084 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)
DTS Audio                       Spanish         768 kbps        5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio                       French          768 kbps        5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit

SUBTITLES:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
Presentation Graphics           English         32.659 kbps                     
Presentation Graphics           Spanish         22.841 kbps                     
Presentation Graphics           French          26.624 kbps                     
Presentation Graphics           Spanish         0.14 kbps                       
Presentation Graphics           French          0.333 kbps                      

FILES:

Name            Time In         Length          Size            Total Bitrate   
----            -------         ------          ----            -------------   
00065.M2TS      0:00:00.000     2:08:39.169     70,172,375,040  72,725 kbps     

CHAPTERS:

Number          Time In         Length          Avg Video Rate  Max 1-Sec Rate  Max 1-Sec Time  Max 5-Sec Rate  Max 5-Sec Time  Max 10Sec Rate  Max 10Sec Time  Avg Frame Size  Max Frame Size  Max Frame Time  
------          -------         ------          --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  
1               0:00:00.000     0:04:13.253     56,239 kbps     106,500 kbps    0:02:03.581     92,004 kbps     0:02:07.961     86,791 kbps     0:02:12.632     293,208 bytes   970,396 bytes   0:02:06.292     
2               0:04:13.253     0:04:24.722     56,144 kbps     90,300 kbps     0:08:21.250     80,110 kbps     0:08:22.627     71,490 kbps     0:08:22.627     292,713 bytes   706,410 bytes   0:08:21.000     
3               0:08:37.975     0:07:33.619     56,453 kbps     97,189 kbps     0:15:56.830     90,844 kbps     0:15:58.791     85,837 kbps     0:12:44.847     294,321 bytes   1,058,319 bytes 0:15:58.749     
4               0:16:11.595     0:05:31.205     57,039 kbps     94,162 kbps     0:19:20.242     87,432 kbps     0:19:23.787     86,575 kbps     0:19:28.792     297,377 bytes   709,958 bytes   0:21:42.301     
5               0:21:42.801     0:11:39.323     56,606 kbps     91,971 kbps     0:33:11.322     87,118 kbps     0:28:03.848     85,339 kbps     0:28:09.604     295,119 bytes   822,466 bytes   0:28:19.406     
6               0:33:22.125     0:08:26.339     56,532 kbps     95,845 kbps     0:40:14.328     86,929 kbps     0:40:18.332     82,853 kbps     0:40:22.128     294,734 bytes   803,135 bytes   0:39:29.825     
7               0:41:48.464     0:06:09.202     56,626 kbps     88,661 kbps     0:43:44.246     84,871 kbps     0:43:45.914     84,120 kbps     0:43:45.914     295,226 bytes   658,627 bytes   0:45:02.533     
8               0:47:57.666     0:05:42.592     56,530 kbps     107,392 kbps    0:53:26.661     88,335 kbps     0:53:40.175     81,259 kbps     0:49:34.137     294,726 bytes   797,344 bytes   0:53:37.130     
9               0:53:40.258     0:11:06.082     56,635 kbps     105,289 kbps    0:57:23.314     87,656 kbps     0:55:09.973     85,650 kbps     0:55:40.003     295,271 bytes   784,617 bytes   1:00:30.668     
10              1:04:46.340     0:08:13.034     56,531 kbps     94,813 kbps     1:11:18.315     87,792 kbps     1:10:54.083     85,815 kbps     1:10:58.837     294,726 bytes   726,104 bytes   1:08:30.272     
11              1:12:59.375     0:07:48.176     56,496 kbps     97,669 kbps     1:20:42.546     87,396 kbps     1:20:46.550     83,254 kbps     1:13:53.512     294,544 bytes   761,549 bytes   1:20:41.670     
12              1:20:47.551     0:05:31.080     56,393 kbps     94,824 kbps     1:22:10.008     88,084 kbps     1:22:13.053     84,335 kbps     1:22:34.324     294,009 bytes   649,707 bytes   1:25:49.102     
13              1:26:18.631     0:05:34.417     56,403 kbps     95,903 kbps     1:29:55.223     87,351 kbps     1:31:47.668     85,817 kbps     1:30:03.064     294,063 bytes   712,368 bytes   1:31:47.627     
14              1:31:53.049     0:10:30.254     56,616 kbps     99,043 kbps     1:36:34.413     87,520 kbps     1:36:14.059     85,116 kbps     1:41:21.950     295,170 bytes   799,072 bytes   1:40:45.956     
15              1:42:23.303     0:08:28.633     56,534 kbps     102,173 kbps    1:50:47.432     89,338 kbps     1:50:51.436     84,968 kbps     1:50:44.596     294,743 bytes   939,834 bytes   1:49:39.739     
16              1:50:51.936     0:01:21.664     55,150 kbps     79,139 kbps     1:51:04.783     75,014 kbps     1:51:04.991     71,518 kbps     1:51:04.991     287,527 bytes   612,453 bytes   1:51:04.491     
17              1:52:13.601     0:05:56.939     56,881 kbps     99,086 kbps     1:57:53.274     87,755 kbps     1:57:39.218     85,060 kbps     1:57:14.694     296,556 bytes   704,595 bytes   1:52:13.601     
18              1:58:10.541     0:01:40.725     56,506 kbps     88,028 kbps     1:59:04.262     83,646 kbps     1:58:50.748     81,638 kbps     1:58:55.753     294,597 bytes   637,593 bytes   1:59:50.850     
19              1:59:51.267     0:02:04.833     56,523 kbps     87,675 kbps     2:01:54.640     74,438 kbps     2:00:02.069     72,098 kbps     2:00:02.069     294,685 bytes   727,961 bytes   2:01:54.348     
20              2:01:56.100     0:06:43.069     66,671 kbps     102,160 kbps    2:08:32.121     91,129 kbps     2:08:36.125     85,595 kbps     2:05:36.320     347,848 bytes   904,700 bytes   2:08:31.328

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by VickPS

I believe just as many people are tired of the, already small, crowd keeping the Home Video industry alive gobbling up ancient and flawed masters like these, already available on VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, BD and two UHD, reducing incentives to do better and indirectly hampering others attempts to get a good looking version of this movie.
Good looking full stop, regardless of whether it's the "original timing".

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Is it really asking too much for a film that has received countless problematic releases over the years to finally be done with care and some reverence?

You're smart guys but you just really don't get it, and like I said before it really just comes down to personality.

No one is saying this shouldn't be better. No one is saying we wouldn't prefer a totally new scan (or just grade) referencing a print or whatever else. However I love this movie and want the best version on disc, and am happy we got at least some improvement. "How dare you support this when it could be better" is just a life philosophy I don't share or understand, and apparently you'll never understand mine, and it is what it is.

If you have the opportunity, patience, energy, free time, and desire to view this movie solely through theater exhibitions then that's cool. More power to ya. I don't.

[Rayjg]

So no googly-eyed dinosaurs like in Robocop? Good. Might grab this set when it’s around $20.

[dallywhitty]

[Zack83]

[Jack Smith]

Does the new Lost World UHD fix the audio pitch distortion on the 1997 Universal logo fanfare?

[Ant1010]

The newer disc is only available if you buy the collection, correct? I see the site has a listing for the steelbooks but no preorder for Tuesdays release so I'm guessing its an error?

[jpilla415]

Originally Posted by Ant1010

The newer disc is only available if you buy the collection, correct? I see the site has a listing for the steelbooks but no preorder for Tuesdays release so I'm guessing its an error?

New discs are only available in the steelbook sets.

https://www.gruv.com/product/jurassi...hd_digital_uhd

[The Rider]

Originally Posted by Evanos

Did some experimenting with the iconic T-rex shot at the end, actually turned out pretty decent. I just upscaled the blu-ray with Topaz, regraded it and added some grain. Not perfect by any means, but if I can get a decent result like this... surely universal could come with something better, preferably without using AI. Baffling honestly.

https://slow.pics/c/0OXLtdYY

Great work, looks very filmic overall. It's shameful that collectors with AI get better results than corporations with all imaginable resources.

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

Oh goodness. As someone who has worked in color timing these last 5-6 years, statements like this are always a bit disheartening to read. I understand grading doesn’t really register with a lot of people but we do pour our hearts (and countless days) into it. Film is a moving target, as you often say, but even so there is almost always an objective threshold in terms of general accuracy.

When Technicolor here in Hollywood filed for bankruptcy a few months ago it was a historic shock and genuinely heartbreaking. An entire generation of experts have now either been forced into retirement or simply moved on to greener pastures, including many with vast amounts knowledge from the analog era.

I think many care about this aspect more than they realize.

I always find it terrible how some users here display their ignorance.

1. The color grading of Jurassic Park is wrong. That's a simple fact. Criticising collectors who criticise Universal's releases is unbelievable.
2. Universal still hasn't corrected the errors. What signals are you sending to the market when people continue to buy flawed products?
3. We are talking about a masterpiece that deserves the best possible release.

I hope the specialists who worked at Technicolor will be helped, for example by restoration companies. How did Technicolor go bankrupt in the first place?