Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's a photo of a screen that's then been embiggened by the person who quoted it. Ignore the noise.

Geoff, you always blame me! I did not embiggen your images at all. I saved them as they were and uploaded them without altering anything. No adjustments!

The noise is what it is and on a 55 or 65 inch 4K TV, that upscale noise would be obvious. By contrast, the Rachel Weisz pic from Mummy 1 you provided a crop of, was utterly beautiful with fine grain and not a hint of the mosquito noise that everyone can see in Mummy 2.

TM99_4KUHD 2 copy.jpg
(This I have reduced the size of. )

By the way, I am currently working on regrading JP2 to match the 35mm print look and damn it looks gorgeous to me (Not because I did it). What say you, Geoff?

DVD Fullscreen regrade -
JP2 35mm regrade.jpg

Widescreen Blu-ray - (not altered)
JP2 BD_Lunch ready .jpg

I think, personally I'd like something similar from the UHDs - gorgeous, rich, warm, photochemical timing with that golden-yellow-green, tropical look and denser contrast; as was characteristic of 35mm prints back in the day. Maybe the green could be a little less in my regrade. But overall, this is how warm and contrasty I remember prints looking. I saw a film projection last year and that too looked about the same, colour-wise.

[MechaGodzilla]

TLW kind of looks Ritrovata'd there, Riddhi.

[Riddhi2011]

^ You mean Retro? Of course the retro look we associate with cinema is the photochemically colour-timed warm, contrasty look, with teal (Yes, it's true!).
All the first three JP films were photochemically timed and all of them look, rich, warm and contrasty in the prints.

JP2 35mm film frame -

JP2 35mm Rex family.jpg
(There would be more detail in the dark areas during an actual film projection, which appear crushed here.)

Now, the BLUE-ray -

JP2 BD Rex family.jpg

Also, everyone, please don't request me to upload the film in 35mm! Such requests have been made in the past.
These are only still photos. I do not have a print.

Another still from my DVD FS 35mm regrade -

JP2 FS Malcolm 35mm regrade.jpg

[Pieter V]

[wesslan]

DTS:X on all four then I guess?

[Geoff D]

Le Parc Jurassique! Mon Dieu!

I see that they're not 100GB discs, but then they're not exactly the longest movies around.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by wesslan

DTS:X on all four then I guess?

Looks like it.

[s_har]

Any chance of Dolby Vision?

[cmcclure16]

Originally Posted by s_har

Any chance of Dolby Vision?

It says "2160p UHD HDR10 Widescreen" on the back, so no.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

^ You mean Retro? Of course the retro look we associate with cinema is the photochemically colour-timed warm, contrasty look, with teal (Yes, it's true!).
All the first three JP films were photochemically timed and all of them look, rich, warm and contrasty in the prints.

Sorry Riddhi I'm not sold on those pics, it's all much too yellow.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sorry Riddhi I'm not sold on those pics, it's all much too yellow.

That's how most blockbuster colour timing used to look in cinemas, albeit with the yellow and the green a bit less intense, as I already said in my previous post. The Blu-ray is just quite dull and does not have the richness or vibrancy of the celluloid prints.

lost-8 copy.jpg

lost-15 copy 2.jpg

LostWorld_R1-01 copy.jpg

LostWorld_R1-03 copy.jpg

LostWorld_R2-04 copy.jpg

See? They are all yellow! Much more so than the 2D Blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

Still doesn't mean I have to like it, I wouldn't want the stupidly high gamma of a print to be preserved on the home video version either.

[Riddhi2011]

I personally care about the theatrical experience first and foremost and the original look of films in the cinemas. So, in my case, I'd want the home video counterpart to look exactly the same as it did in the cinemas back then. I don't like the 2D Blu-rays as they are, at all. They aren't faithful to the theatrical look, which is how it should be preserved across all formats.

Anyway, what remains to be seen is how they colour correct the films on UHD, that have apparently been scanned directly from the original negatives.

[s_har]

Originally Posted by cmcclure16

It says "2160p UHD HDR10 Widescreen" on the back, so no.

I suspected as much. Was having a faint hope since Gladiator being a Universal release (in Europe at least) apparently getting DV I was hoping that might be the case for JP too.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I personally care about the theatrical experience first and foremost and the original look of films in the cinemas. So, in my case, I'd want the home video counterpart to look exactly the same as it did in the cinemas back then. I don't like the 2D Blu-rays as they are, at all. They aren't faithful to the theatrical look, which is how it should be preserved across all formats.

Anyway, what remains to be seen is how they colour correct the films on UHD, that have apparently been scanned directly from the original negatives.

Prints are specifically designed to have such a high gamma because this tiny strip of film is having light blasted through it to illuminate a huge screen, this is a shortcoming that I don't need or want carried on over into home video on a display with characteristics that are vastly different to said theatrical print projection.

[VickPS]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Prints are specifically designed to have such a high gamma because this tiny strip of film is having light blasted through it to illuminate a huge screen, this is a shortcoming that I don't need or want carried on over into home video on a display with characteristics that are vastly different to said theatrical print projection.

Here i couldn't disagree more. If your set up have no problems with blacks and near black, the higher gamma of a print is EXACTLY what you want.
Also, "shortcoming" is highly debatable.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

No immersive mixes, huh Bill Hunt?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Prints are specifically designed to have such a high gamma because this tiny strip of film is having light blasted through it to illuminate a huge screen, this is a shortcoming that I don't need or want carried on over into home video on a display with characteristics that are vastly different to said theatrical print projection.

I see what you mean. But the theatrical look, without getting into technicalities too much, IS THE LOOK that the cinematographer and the director designed with the colour timer, for the big screen. There is absolutely no excuse to say that the home version cannot look the same.

Today, with advanced colour-grading set-ups, there is no reason why the cinema look cannot be faithfully re-created, as it should. They supposedly scanned in 4K from the OCN after all, didn't they?

There must be a reason why JP2 looks so yellow, green and orange on 35mm and that is because of the jungle-island wilderness setting and the lush, deep greenery. Also, the warm timing helps with the dusty stretch of field where they roundup the dinosaurs under harsh sunlight. In real life, dusty fields under the blazing sun, do look yellow-ish. The warm timing also helps blend the CGI better with the live action.

Even Jurassic Park's 35mm wasn't that warm, neither is JP3. For JP2 they were going for a different look from the start and it becomes evident once one sees the 35mm colours. I read that Fuji and Kodak stocks varied slightly. So, we need to compare two prints from these two stocks. But apart from that, I don't see JP2 looking any different in the cinemas.

Even when restoring films, it is always advisable to preserve the original theatrical look of the film. Universal home video should have done just that for the forthcoming 4K UHDs. Let's see what they produced.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by VickPS

Here i couldn't disagree more. If your set up have no problems with blacks and near black, the higher gamma of a print is EXACTLY what you want.
Also, "shortcoming" is highly debatable.

Even to the point where it obliterates shadow detail? Print gamma is soooooo not the same thing as the conventional gamma we aim for in the home environment so it doesnt matter a jot "if your set up have no problems with blacks and near black". A direct view display is not, I repeat, NOT the same thing as film projection. Never was, never will be.

There's a reason why colourists in this day and age have to regrade their films for 14fL 2D projection, 4.5fL and/or 7fL for 3D projection, 30fL (100ish nits) for the SDR home video trim pass and indeed the separate 108 nit DV projection, with another pass for IMAX owing to their proprietary setup (not just framing but colour and brightness also). It's because each environment is NOT the same as the other for brightness, gamma, even colour temp (theatrical P3 hitting D63 and not D65) so the image must be finessed to ensure that the intent is carried across within the bounds of each system.

This whole cult around film prints is admirable...but mistaken. If you guys are actually watching these prints IN a movie theatre then that's fine because that's what these items were specifically timed and intended for, but taken out of that environment the display parameters change so much that you can't simply transpose one to the other without serious compromise.

[VickPS]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even to the point where it obliterates shadow detail? Print gamma is soooooo not the same thing as the conventional gamma we aim for in the home environment

We could end the discussion here as we aim for totally different gamma settings in our home environment, apparently.
Leaving alone HDR what's your aiming, 2.2?
On HD and 2.2 encoded BD's i go with 2.4/2.6 or even BT.1886 if a panel is worthy.
And no man on earth could convince me that there's a better choise than these on panels with 66430:1 contrast ratio and 0 blacks.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

so it doesnt matter a jot "if your set up have no problems with blacks and near black". A direct view display is not, I repeat, NOT the same thing as film projection. Never was, never will be.

Maybe, but it can be reeeally uncannily ****ing close on a few hi-end plasmas. And i know very few will believe this if they never saw a calibrated one in person.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This whole cult around film prints is admirable...but mistaken. If you guys are actually watching these prints IN a movie theatre then that's fine because that's what these items were specifically timed and intended for

Than why on Earth would high quality printed material totally match 35mm gamma?

Originally Posted by Geoff D

but taken out of that environment the display parameters change so much that you can't simply transpose one to the other

Yeah, well, you couldn't do that since you wouldn't see shit, literally, without a light source behind the film strip.
But with an high quality scanner? Hell yeah, gimme what's on a pristine 35mm only and call the day.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

without serious compromise.

Yeah, compromises like losing that "noir high contrast dark shadows/bright hightlights cinematography" Spielberg and Kaminski were talking about in TLW Making Of.

I usually agree with you, like on the yellow push of those prints, but on gamma as i said i couldn't disagree more.