Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[TN05]

I'm not an expert on DNR or anything else, but the 4K HDR iTunes version is a substantial update over the previous version I have on Blu-Ray. Not sure it's enough to buy the set (I don't care for The Lost Word or III and Jurassic World is a big meh) but it looks nice.

That being said I don't think highly of the old version. I was watching with my dad and he asked me if it was even in HD... which is a really bad sign.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by tysonmax

Too many variables come into play from individual opinions in the threads. (ie: equipment being used and some interesting choices in settings that people use.)

That's the amazing advanced nature of 4K UHD, and simultaneously the limitations! Maybe in a few years all new TV's will be able to cover p3 color volume and reach peak hilights over 1000nits, even the cheaper ones; for the HDR10 standard. Then tone mapping won't cause the vast chasm of opinions.

I think the issue comes with many reviewers having a front projection setup and even if you buy a native 4K one and put 6000$ + into an "HDR" JVC or Sony model, its not at all representing the discs capability. Just fact.

[iEddiez]

Taken the jump, ordered one through four and used SIGNUP10... Boom.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

That's the amazing advanced nature of 4K UHD, and simultaneously the limitations! Maybe in a few years all new TV's will be able to cover p3 color volume and reach peak hilights over 1000nits, even the cheaper ones; for the HDR10 standard. Then tone mapping won't cause the vast chasm of opinions.

I think the issue comes with many reviewers having a front projection setup and even if you buy a native 4K one and put 6000$ + into an "HDR" JVC or Sony model, its not at all representing the discs capability. Just fact.

It seems to me very few UHD BD reviewers are using front projection for reviews. There seems to be just as much inter-variability among flat panels based on reading this forum and reviews. However, HDR looks excellent on my well calibrated JVC RS440 and once you've actually seen a properly calibrated unit in the right environment (room) using a really good custom curve, you would surely be impressed. Talk to Kris Deering about it who has a flat panel as well as a JVC set-up properly. He will tell you the same. Sure, I cannot get all of the highlight information that a Z9 flat panel can (but which flat panels can even match that display) but what I've seen has been rather impressive. I'm also getting better/more accurate P3 coverage than most flat panels, still getting over 30 ftl which meets the minimum HDR requirement, doing no SDR conversion while tracking along EOTF. All of this while enjoying scope movies at 124" in a truly immersive experience.
Cal report:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gd...aSVKMybR_ZHotb

[nusilver]

I can't access the new iTunes transfer from anywhere but my iPad right now—and on a fairly craptastic public wi-fi network at work—but I can confirm this version is NOT based on the 2013 version. For one, the titles bounce a little just like they did in the 2011 Blu-ray (I laid a pencil over the screen to make sure it wasn't just my eyes); for another, wires and other elements that were digitally erased for the 2013 are still present. The brontosaurus'—excuse me, apatosaurus'—head is also not cropped out in the "welcome to Jurassic Park" scene.

Can't say whether it's been DNR'd since, again, I'm streaming it over public wi-fi, so I can't tell if there's a healthy grain presence. I might be able to check when I'm home, but I'll just as likely be too busy with family stuff to remember :-)

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by nusilver

I can't access the new iTunes transfer from anywhere but my iPad right now—and on a fairly craptastic public wi-fi network at work—but I can confirm this version is NOT based on the 2013 version. For one, the titles bounce a little just like they did in the 2011 Blu-ray (I laid a pencil over the screen to make sure it wasn't just my eyes); for another, wires and other elements that were digitally erased for the 2013 are still present. The brontosaurus'—excuse me, apatosaurus'—head is also not cropped out in the "welcome to Jurassic Park" scene.

Can't say whether it's been DNR'd since, again, I'm streaming it over public wi-fi, so I can't tell if there's a healthy grain presence. I might be able to check when I'm home, but I'll just as likely be too busy with family stuff to remember :-)

But why? Why isn't it based on the 2013 restoration?

[nusilver]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

But why? Why isn't it based on the 2013 restoration?

From the little bit of research I've done, that "restoration" was done in the service of providing a stable 3D image. Hence the digital removal of certain elements (wires they didn't want to rotoscope for stereo imagery), and the DNR removing the grain which they didn't want to pop out of the screen. To my eyes, it wasn't much of a restoration, just a trendy digital color grade to match the look of every other movie shot digitally circa 2013.

In other news, I just did a little side-by-side comparison using my Oppo 203 running the 2011 Blu-ray and my 15-inch Macbook Pro running the new iTunes version (I assume in 1080p.) There's definitely strong definition and a healthy amount of grain, plus a bit of a red push, in the new version. That doesn't necessarily mean this is what we have in store for the upcoming UHD disc version, but... honestly, I'm still pretty blown away by that 2011 disc. I'm not so sure I'm going to keep my box set pre-ordered, even if it's only $50.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

But why? Why isn't it based on the 2013 restoration?

Except it wasn't a "restoration". JP wasn't rotting away in some vault. It's just a different 4K transfer. Wrath of Khan has now had two 4K transfers.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It seems to me very few UHD BD reviewers are using front projection for reviews. There seems to be just as much inter-variability among flat panels based on reading this forum and reviews. However, HDR looks excellent on my well calibrated JVC RS440 and once you've actually seen a properly calibrated unit in the right environment (room) using a really good custom curve, you would surely be impressed. Talk to Kris Deering about it who has a flat panel as well as a JVC set-up properly. He will tell you the same. Sure, I cannot get all of the highlight information that a Z9 flat panel can (but which flat panels can even match that display) but what I've seen has been rather impressive. I'm also getting better/more accurate P3 coverage than most flat panels, still getting over 30 ftl which meets the minimum HDR requirement, doing no SDR conversion while tracking along EOTF. All of this while enjoying scope movies at 124" in a truly immersive experience.
Cal report:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gd...aSVKMybR_ZHotb

I'll take the Theater experience with a projector over a panel any day. I'm not interested in just the pixel count, I'm interested in having a great movie experience.

[RustinCohle]

Did anyone ever find out if this collection comes with the Barbasol can?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by RustinCohle

Did anyone ever find out if this collection comes with the Barbasol can?

I believe the Steelbook is made from recycled Barbasol cans. But unfortunately "nobody cares" smh...

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I believe the Steelbook is made from recycled Barbasol cans. But unfortunately "nobody cares" smh...

No menthol, no sale.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by gates70

I'll take the Theater experience with a projector over a panel any day. I'm not interested in just the pixel count, I'm interested in having a great movie experience.

So you aren't interested in having a display that can reproduce the effect of looking at the sun when you see a shot of the sun in a movie? :P

Seriously though, the desire for displays that can produce more and more lumens has me scratching my head...

[Vangeli]

Thing is, people who've seen the 10,000 nit displays don't claim they're difficult to view at all; they claim the image is more realistic than any other display.

And if a movie is mastered to look like classic film then it'll look like classic film and when projected that's probably extra special. There's plenty of exciting content I'd love to see make full use of the capabilities of the format, however.

[s_har]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

people who've seen the 10,000 nit displays don't claim they're difficult to view at all;

Did they wear sunglasses by any chance?

Having a display capable of 10.000 nits must make for an awesome experience, but I wonder how that's like if watching in a completely dark room. Even my measly LG 2017 OLED (which peaks at 700 nits or so I think?) does on occasion make my eyes squint if a dark scene is followed by a particularly bright one. I can only imagine 10.000 nits would feel like staring into the sun.

[aetherhole]

The iris of the eye adjust accordingly. Lest we forget that 10,000 nit displays will not be outputting full-field images at 10,000 nits. Specular highlights, likely even in minuscule sizes and at relatively uncommon frequency are about the only times we will see that. The APL will likely be quite a bit lower and again, our eyes will adjust accordingly.

Hell, there have been movies even in SDR where a whole lengthy scene takes place in dark shadows, then fades to white or flashes a bright scene that makes me squint (I mean, squint even more than my Asian eyes already are) and those were probably only 100-125nit peaks.

[Vangeli]

There are already 10,000-nit mastered movies and yes, 99.9% of the movie doesn't get nearly that bright; it's almost entirely the specular highlights. But with specular highlights sprinkled throughout so much of many movies, that's a big difference to the realism of the image.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

There are already 10,000-nit mastered movies and yes, 99.9% of the movie doesn't get nearly that bright; it's almost entirely the specular highlights. But with specular highlights sprinkled throughout so much of many movies, that's a big difference to the realism of the image.

I was most likely one of those who used the argument that any brighter than my 2016 OLED would just be blinding...

Most movie content APL is still in the SDR range, glints and gleeming highlights at much higher brightness are absolutely are going add to the realism of the image even despite the APL being relatively low.

The problem currently is that people think that "because I have a higher nits-capable television than yours" that they absolutely must watch and have all their content in eye-fatiguing APL range because that's what it's capable of.

As an example I have a friend whose family bought a Samsung 9 series TV a year or so ago. He really likes watching movies and he had me over at one time to watch a movie so he could show off his new set. We turned down the lights, started the movie, watched about 20 minutes of it and then his wife started complaining that it was hurting her eyes. I commented that he probably needed to adjust the settings and that the setting was causing eye fatigue. He said, "I'll just turn on the lights."

Now, instead of having a properly calibrated image, he'd rather admire how bright of an image his TV could produce, turn the lights on to regularly watch content like that. Which, by the way, with his "settings" is still too damn bright and causes eye fatigue even with all the lights on. Nevermind that's not how it is supposed to look or be experienced... He got a bright TV, so he wants to make sure it always looks bright.

But that's the mentality of most average consumers.

[iEddiez]

Just had this from Zoom.co.uk

Zoom Customer Services (Zoom Customer Service)

Apr 18, 10:42

Dear Customer,

Thank you for your recent order for the four Jurassic Park and Jurassic World 4K Steelbooks.

Today we are a launching special offer, which affects your recent order, where customers can purchase all four Jurassic Park and Jurassic World 4K Steelbooks for only £70. (no discounts apply as a multi-buy offer)

Don’t worry; we haven’t forgotten about you as we are going to reduce the difference in price so you won’t miss out on this incredible offer when your card is charged and you will only be charged £70 for all 4 titles.

Hope this is good news for you and if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to get back in touch.

Many thanks

Zoom Customer Service
Zoom Online Customer Services

£70 for all four, bit better!! £17.50 per steely.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Now, instead of having a properly calibrated image, he'd rather admire how bright of an image his TV could produce, turn the lights on to regularly watch content like that. Which, by the way, with his "settings" is still too damn bright and causes eye fatigue even with all the lights on. Nevermind that's not how it is supposed to look or be experienced... He got a bright TV, so he wants to make sure it always looks bright.

But that's the mentality of most average consumers.

Such examples are as old as flat panel technology. Still, I would prefer to have my equipment be capable of native display of what is on the disc; even if that means some idiot out there abuses his guests with ridiculous brightness settings.. The nits race is not about "brightness" its about highlight detail.