DVD Talk
Lawrence of Arabia - FINALLY arrives... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Lawrence of Arabia - FINALLY arrives...


trespoochies
03-21-12, 07:32 PM
Saw this on digitalbits. Hopefully the announcement will come very soon. Been hearing about this since, 2007??

"...the Norwegian BD website Release.no has posted details from a leaked Sony sell sheet that indicate we're finally about to see the long-awaited Blu-ray Disc release of Lawrence of Arabia. The reported street date in Norway is 6/13, with dates in other countries around the same time. One would certainly expect an official announcement from Sony in the next few days or weeks."

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/miscgfx2/lawrenceofarabiaopenbrd.jpg

Solid Snake
03-22-12, 09:55 AM
about goddamned time. I await our US release.

slop101
03-22-12, 11:20 AM
For such a long wait, it better look freaking amazing. Though I'm pretty sure it will.

islandclaws
03-22-12, 11:38 AM
Minor complaint, but I hate threads announcing a film only to open it and read it's for another country.

Doctorossi
03-22-12, 11:47 AM
Minor complaint, but I hate threads announcing a film only to open it and read it's for another country.

Me, too! Why do people keep forgetting that the internet is only for one country?!

Cicero
03-22-12, 12:04 PM
Norwegian release?

I got excited for no reason. At least it means that a US release won't be far behind.

Doctorossi: not all of us in the United States of America have a region-free bluray player. They would prefer such announcements be made in the International Dvd Talk part of the forum.

Doctorossi
03-22-12, 12:22 PM
Doctorossi: not all of us in the United States of America have a region-free bluray player. They would prefer such announcements be made in the International Dvd Talk part of the forum.

:confused:

You need a region-free player to be excited by a news item that says that a US release will be coming in the same time-frame as the Norwegian disc?

trespoochies
03-22-12, 12:28 PM
No shit, that's why I put this in the HD thread. This has been talked about for years, and now it looks like it'll finally be released. I don't know of any Sony releases where it was announced in one region and not in another.

rexinnih
03-22-12, 01:04 PM
Have a region free BD player and excited about this finally being released. Pretty sure we'll see announcements for other countries. But you never know with those sneaky Norwegians.

tylergfoster
03-22-12, 05:42 PM
I hate it when I open a thread and it turns out I'm expected to read all of the first post!

RocShemp
03-22-12, 06:41 PM
About damn time! This better be a brand new transfer to show off the glorious 70mm source material as best as 1080p possibly can.

Superdaddy
03-22-12, 08:00 PM
About damn time! This better be a brand new transfer to show off the glorious 70mm source material as best as 1080p possibly can.

Was reading about this on the HTF and it is supposed to be a brand new master, meticulously redone using the 1989 restoration as the source. Given Sony's track record, I agree that everyone has the right to expect nothing less than the best presentation of this masterpiece.

Giles
03-22-12, 08:26 PM
from what I've read the release will be like 'Taxi Driver' - the restoration will be released to theaters prior to the bluray release.

Greg MacGuffin
03-22-12, 11:17 PM
Oh, wow, that's good news. The only time I've seen it on the big screen it was a really beat-up, scratchy old print.

davidh777
03-22-12, 11:42 PM
Was reading about this on the HTF and it is supposed to be a brand new master, meticulously redone using the 1989 restoration as the source. Given Sony's track record, I agree that everyone has the right to expect nothing less than the best presentation of this masterpiece.

I saw that restoration on a huge screen! :banana:

Looking forward to picking up the eventual U.S. release.

Superdaddy
03-23-12, 06:25 AM
I saw that restoration on a huge screen! :banana:

Looking forward to picking up the eventual U.S. release.

Me too, on both counts. It was a 70mm print and one of the great moviegoing experiences of my life. I'll never forget it.

And best of all, I'd never bothered watching the movie in its entirety on TV. My first real exposure was on that big screen, with a large bag of popcorn, stereo sound, and at the intermission people were talking to each other about how beautiful it looked.

Cicero
03-23-12, 10:26 AM
:confused:

You need a region-free player to be excited by a news item that says that a US release will be coming in the same time-frame as the Norwegian disc?

Ok, I missed that part of the announcement...

TomOpus
03-23-12, 12:13 PM
:confused:

You need a region-free player to be excited by a news item that says that a US release will be coming in the same time-frame as the Norwegian disc?To be fair it says "Other countries" which may or may not include the US.

Mr. Salty
03-23-12, 01:13 PM
Minor complaint, but I hate threads announcing a film only to open it and read it's for another country.

Sony typically releases its major titles worldwide. I'm sure that will be the case here.

slop101
03-23-12, 04:08 PM
If this doesn't have a transfer that brings me to full climax, I'll be pissed!

nando820
03-23-12, 05:00 PM
I saw it in Cinerama! :banana:

Giles
03-23-12, 05:11 PM
seeing it on a large screen is indeed a treat - but since LoA's 70mm's aspect ratio is only 2.20:1 it's nowhere as wide as common place 2.35 scope film or even Cinemascope film's (2.55) - I saw a reissue of 'Ben Hur' at the Uptown and when the curtain kept rolling back to reveal the whole 2.76 image - my jaw was on the floor. I hope when the theatrical release is scheduled for Lawrence - the biggest and best screens are booked.

Supermallet
03-23-12, 06:19 PM
Seeing Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen in 70mm is one of the greatest experiences you can have at the movies.

Giles
03-23-12, 06:29 PM
Seeing Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen in 70mm is one of the greatest experiences you can have at the movies.

Indeed. Not only is it a visual treat, but even the little scene where Lawrence is singing "The man that broke the bank at monte carlo" - the echo audio cue is a fun and effective 'sound moment'.

CRM114
04-04-12, 11:50 AM
I don't know what I'm more thrilled about: finally getting Lawrence on blu-ray or seeing it on the big screen.

Gerry P.
04-04-12, 10:53 PM
I don't know what I'm more thrilled about: finally getting Lawrence on blu-ray or seeing it on the big screen.Well, if it's in 70mm, then you should be more excited about the big screen, but if it's projected video ala 'Taxi Driver', then get excited about buying the Blu-ray and watching at home.

Giles
04-04-12, 11:43 PM
Well, if it's in 70mm, then you should be more excited about the big screen, but if it's projected video ala 'Taxi Driver', then get excited about buying the Blu-ray and watching at home.

in70mm says the theatrical release will be 2K and 4K DCP digital and 70mm (but I don't get the sense it's written in stone though)

and for the record the 'Taxi Driver' presentation was 4K DCP release - not projected video.

Doctorossi
04-05-12, 07:06 AM
for the record the 'Taxi Driver' presentation was 4K DCP release - not projected video.

For the record, projected video is precisely what a 4K DCP release is.

Giles
04-05-12, 06:43 PM
For the record, projected video is precisely what a 4K DCP release is.

yes, but it's more commonly referred to as 'digital projection' ... say projected video and you run the risk of confusing people that it a bluray or worse, DVD being thrown onto the screen, which some theaters have been known to do.

Doctorossi
04-05-12, 06:47 PM
yes, but it's more commonly referred to as 'digital projection' ... say projected video and you run the risk of confusing people that it a bluray or worse, DVD being thrown onto the screen, which some theaters have been known to do.

So, if Levi's are more commonly referred to as jeans, it's inaccurate to call them pants?

Giles
04-05-12, 09:46 PM
So, if Levi's are more commonly referred to as jeans, it's inaccurate to call them pants?

correct ... :D

Josh Z
04-06-12, 02:21 PM
I know at least one person in the industry who objects to the description of digital photography or digital projection as "video." While it may sound like semantics to us, there are technically a lot of differences between the two. Calling it "data" is more accurate.

davidh777
04-06-12, 02:34 PM
I don't know what I'm more thrilled about: finally getting Lawrence on blu-ray or seeing it on the big screen.

I think this is big enough to be excited by both :banana: :banana:

Mabuse
04-06-12, 05:26 PM
Given Sony's track record, I agree that everyone has the right to expect nothing less than the best presentation of this masterpiece.Actually if I take Sony's track record into account I have every reason to doubt the quality of the Blu. Their first release of Lawrence on DVD was crummy, only on the Superbit did they do a proper job with the colors, then the Superbit disapeard and for years they've only sold a one disc barebones version of the original crummy transfer.

I'll wait for the reviews on this one, and since all home video reivews now completely suck I'll wait to hear the chatter on the forums and I'll especially wait to hear what Robert A Harris has to say.

After buying this twice on DVD I don't think I'll upgrade at all. I swore long ago that you really can't do the film any justice at home. I have an 84" screen and it still doesn't look like it should. It really must be seen on the big screen.

Mabuse
04-06-12, 05:37 PM
Found this quoted over at IMDb:
Lawrence of Arabia which had been scanned in at 8K resolution (to ensure the highest capture of detail from the film’s large-format 65mm negative) and then taken down to 4K for the workflow, was even more revealing. A close-up of Peter O’Toole’s face jumped off the screen compared with the earlier 2K master, thanks to the more detailed texture of his skin and the sharper reproduction of the layer of dust partially coating his face. A longer shot from Lawrence that was also taken in the desert showed a series of fine concentric lines near the top of the frame in a pattern reminiscent of a fingerprint. These, (Grover) Crisp explained, are cracks in the film emulsion caused by its melting in the desert heart and then healing over. The Lines have always been there in the negative and result in an unusual rippling artifact when viewing the movie, but until now there hasn’t been a way to fix it. We’ve never been able to see this kind of detail before – it’s always been kind of submerged, he says, but now with this 8K scan it’s more obvious, Sony commissioned a third party to develop software to minimize or eliminate this distracting artifact for the restored version, which is due out on blu-ray and in theaters later this year

- Home Theater (February 2012 Vol. 19 No. 2) “Hollywood the 4K Way” by Rob Sabin
Why fix it? It's part of the actual photography of the film. We're going way past restoration and into recreation. Disney is apparently "fixing" 20,000 Leagues to "fix" some artifacts created by early anamorphic lenses. What's wrong with these restoration people?

slop101
04-06-12, 06:49 PM
I don't understand how these lines would be more "obvious" after an 8K scan than they would be from the original 65mm film when new - the film is a much higher resolution.

NoirFan
04-06-12, 07:03 PM
I saw the film in 70mm in 1989 as a kid, and haven't seen it since (pointless on a television), so I'm looking forward to the theatrical revival. I'll probably hold off on the Blu-ray until I upgrade my 50-inch plasma to a 65, hopefully next year, funds permitting.

Doctorossi
04-07-12, 12:25 PM
I don't understand how these lines would be more "obvious" after an 8K scan than they would be from the original 65mm film when new - the film is a much higher resolution.

It isn't, actually. There's not a lot of spatial resolution difference between an 8K scan and what's likely on the negative. Meanwhile, there's a very big difference between that scan and what you would see on a 70mm print in even the best of circumstances.

Superdaddy
04-08-12, 01:28 PM
Actually if I take Sony's track record into account I have every reason to doubt the quality of the Blu. Their first release of Lawrence on DVD was crummy, only on the Superbit did they do a proper job with the colors, then the Superbit disapeard and for years they've only sold a one disc barebones version of the original crummy transfer.

I'll wait for the reviews on this one, and since all home video reivews now completely suck I'll wait to hear the chatter on the forums and I'll especially wait to hear what Robert A Harris has to say.

After buying this twice on DVD I don't think I'll upgrade at all. I swore long ago that you really can't do the film any justice at home. I have an 84" screen and it still doesn't look like it should. It really must be seen on the big screen.

I am speaking of their BD track record (not their DVD history). I have not been seriously disappointed by a Sony BD yet (mildly disappointed by one out of several dozen I own). I have the first DVD release of Lawrence and am aware of the poor color timing. I do not own any other release.

Now, having seen a projected 70mm print of LOA on a large screen, if you are saying that ANY home video experience of this film is likely a compromise, I'll certainly agree with that. Considering the rarity of such theatrical viewings though, a BD of comparable quality to their best previous efforts is welcome to me, so that I'll be able to freely watch this movie at least a few more times before shuffling off the mortal coil.

Superdaddy
04-08-12, 01:43 PM
Found this quoted over at IMDb:
Why fix it? It's part of the actual photography of the film. We're going way past restoration and into recreation. Disney is apparently "fixing" 20,000 Leagues to "fix" some artifacts created by early anamorphic lenses. What's wrong with these restoration people?

This is where I could go either way.

I know of the marks on the image they are talking about; they were readily visible in the 70mm screening and on the old DVD. But they do not result from a photographic process; they result from damage to the film. It's fine with me if they leave them in; if they fix it and do a crappy job of it, I won't be happy. But if they fix it and do a good job of it, I won't complain.

Removing anamorphic artifacts is more troubling to me, since these are due to the actual photographic process.

bluetoast
04-08-12, 01:58 PM
I've never seen this before, so I will hold out for a 70 mm presentation.

Mr. Salty
04-08-12, 07:40 PM
When Robert Harris was restoring "Lawrence of Arabia" several years ago he asked David Lean whether he wanted him to try to fix the thermal damage. After some thought, Lean said they should leave it alone. I believe it's discussed in the documentary on the DVD.

Superdaddy
04-08-12, 07:50 PM
When Robert Harris was restoring "Lawrence of Arabia" several years ago he asked David Lean whether he wanted him to try to fix the thermal damage. After some thought, Lean said they should leave it alone. I believe it's discussed in the documentary on the DVD.

I would hope that Harris is in the loop about the upcoming BD release. Based on reading his posts as HTF, he seems to be but probably can't reveal too many details while this is still upcoming.

Haven't watched that documentary in ages. If Lean wanted the damage to remain, that's good enough for me.

Doctorossi
04-09-12, 12:34 AM
If Lean wanted the damage to remain, that's good enough for me.

He may have wanted it to remain, in the abstract. However, he may have only preferred it to whatever alternative they thought they'd be able to accomplish at the time.

Josh Z
04-09-12, 11:39 AM
I am speaking of their BD track record (not their DVD history). I have not been seriously disappointed by a Sony BD yet

Ghostbusters was a serious cock-up from Sony.

Mr. Salty
04-09-12, 03:03 PM
He may have wanted it to remain, in the abstract. However, he may have only preferred it to whatever alternative they thought they'd be able to accomplish at the time.

No, he wanted it to remain because it was part of the history of the film and what they went through to make it.

Doctorossi
04-09-12, 03:06 PM
No, he wanted it to remain because it was part of the history of the film and what they went through to make it.

Is that motive specified or supposed?

Mr. Salty
04-09-12, 05:27 PM
Is that motive specified or supposed?

Specified.

Giles
04-09-12, 10:59 PM
Ghostbusters was a serious cock-up from Sony.

in what way?

personally I find the grainy to be ultra distracting and ugly, but it was supposedly meant to be seen that way, I don't remember the 70mm (35 blowup) presentation looking that shoddy.

Superdaddy
04-10-12, 05:56 AM
Ghostbusters was a serious cock-up from Sony.

Yes, I never claimed they were perfect...I said the same thing when you posted this exact comment in the Monty Python thread...

Doesn't change my perception that they are the best of the majors. I wish I were happy with 90% of my Universal discs, like I am with Sony.

Superdaddy
04-10-12, 06:04 AM
in what way?

personally I find the grainy to be ultra distracting and ugly, but it was supposedly meant to be seen that way, I don't remember the 70mm (35 blowup) presentation looking that shoddy.

I don't own it personally, but apparently part of the problem is that the grain you are talking about does not look natural; the contrast is supposedly ridiculously pumped up as well.

Superdaddy
04-10-12, 01:35 PM
I remember quite a bit of discussion of the heat damage on Lawrence's negative around the time the Harris restoration first hit DVD. At the time, I still didn't know what caused it; I assumed it was an artifact from the shoddy treatment of the negative post-production. I was surprised to find it dated back to the original shooting.

When the new master screens, I am sure that Mr. Harris will get some questions thrown his way if this has been digitally tweaked.

Josh Z
04-11-12, 01:46 PM
in what way?

personally I find the grainy to be ultra distracting and ugly, but it was supposedly meant to be seen that way, I don't remember the 70mm (35 blowup) presentation looking that shoddy.

Discussed in this thread. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/547313-ghostbusters-25th-anniversary-june-16th-10.html#post11137229)

The grain in Ghostbusters is exaggerated on the Blu-ray due to electronic manipulation.

CRM114
04-11-12, 01:53 PM
To those knowledgeable about how the movie theater business works: Why are screenings of films like LoA and 2001 so few and far between? Do theaters have to be given permission to show these films? Is there some place where theater owners can rent a film to be shown in their theaters? How does the business side work?

Oh, and can someone fill me in, in layman's terms, about "projected video" and specifically Taxi Driver?

Giles
04-11-12, 01:57 PM
To those knowledgeable about how the movie theater business works: Why are screenings of films like LoA and 2001 so few and far between? Do theaters have to be given permission to show these films? Is there some place where theater owners can rent a film to be shown in their theaters? How does the business side work?

Oh, and can someone fill me in, in layman's terms, about "projected video" and specifically Taxi Driver?

you need to live in the Washington DC area, the AFI Silver shows both (in 70mm) on a somewhat regular basis :D

it might have to do with availability of actual prints

in regards to Taxi Driver, when Sony finalized the master for transferring onto bluray they also made a DCP (Digital Cinema Package) hard drive version so that theaters that have Sony 4K digital systems could present the movie at it's highest resolution, sharpness and clarity. Remember all 4K work flow transferring has to be downrezzed to 2K for bluray hidef.

Some studios along with Fathom Events have transmitted programming (i.e, Classic film titles) via satellite transmission - visually it's inferior to DCP presentations both in terms of it's picture quality and audio quality.

Does that explanation help at all??

For 'Lawrence' rerelease of the restoration, Sony is going all out and creating 2K and 4K DCP's - the former for theaters that don't have 4K projectors as well creating new 70mm prints

Discussed in this thread. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/547313-ghostbusters-25th-anniversary-june-16th-10.html#post11137229)

The grain in Ghostbusters is exaggerated on the Blu-ray due to electronic manipulation.

whatever the reason it's flat out hideous, I tried watching twenty minutes of it and had to stop

Supermallet
04-11-12, 02:33 PM
To those knowledgeable about how the movie theater business works: Why are screenings of films like LoA and 2001 so few and far between? Do theaters have to be given permission to show these films? Is there some place where theater owners can rent a film to be shown in their theaters? How does the business side work?

The studios own prints. Theaters can rent them for a fee. The reason they're not showing 70mm all the time is that prints are few and far between, and you may need a special projectionist who's handled 70. Also, you're talking about arthouse/revival theaters, and they have to create a dynamic schedule. Can't just show the same 70mm prints over and over.

The Aero theater in Santa Monica does a screening of Lawrence in 70 every year, and it always sells out. If they did it multiple times a year, it might not sell out.

trespoochies
04-11-12, 02:42 PM
We have the Paramount Theater here in Austin and every summer they do a film series. Usually in this series, they have a 70mm week where they show My Fair Lady, 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. The projectionist who works there specializes in handling 70mm and is the last in Texas to be part of the Projectionists union.

Doctorossi
04-11-12, 03:47 PM
The reason they're not showing 70mm all the time is that prints are few and far between

Commercial theatres with working 70mm projectors are few and far between these days, as well.

Superdaddy
04-11-12, 05:33 PM
We have the Paramount Theater here in Austin and every summer they do a film series. Usually in this series, they have a 70mm week where they show My Fair Lady, 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. The projectionist who works there specializes in handling 70mm and is the last in Texas to be part of the Projectionists union.

What I wouldn't give to see 2001 in 70mm...my #1 film of all time.

My Fair Lady would be no slouch either.

Who am I kidding...a second viewing of Lawrence would be okay too!

bluetoast
04-11-12, 06:03 PM
Had a quick look at the AFI Silver...the only 70 mm for the next few months is Patton. I hope they get this one though. I saw West Side Story there last year, looked good.

Giles
04-11-12, 09:17 PM
Had a quick look at the AFI Silver...the only 70 mm for the next few months is Patton. I hope they get this one though. I saw West Side Story there last year, looked good.

did you miss last month's 'Hello, Dolly!' in 70mm (second time seeing it). Word is that a 70mm Festival at the AFI Silver might happen later in the year - so a whole smorgasbord of films will be shown :thumbsup:

JackBurton
04-11-12, 10:07 PM
did you miss last month's 'Hello, Dolly!' in 70mm (second time seeing it). Word is that a 70mm Festival at the AFI Silver might happen later in the year - so a whole smorgasbord of films will be shown :thumbsup:
I saw 2001 in 70mm at the AFI Silver a few years back and it was awesome. I'd definitely be down for a festival.

bluetoast
04-11-12, 10:21 PM
did you miss last month's 'Hello, Dolly!' in 70mm (second time seeing it). Word is that a 70mm Festival at the AFI Silver might happen later in the year - so a whole smorgasbord of films will be shown :thumbsup:

Nice! Yeah I didn't see Hello Dolly...in fact I've only been there twice, once for West Side Story and the other time for The Artist. I should go there more often.

CRM114
04-12-12, 12:23 AM
Giles - Thanks.

I guess I just don't have a local theater interested in or capable of 70mm. I'll have to look for LoA in Philly or NY.

CRM114
04-16-12, 12:01 PM
I missed the part about Maryland and figured the AFI Silver was in LA. It's 3.5 hours from me. Might be worth an overnight stay in Silver Springs for LoA. :) You are so lucky to have a theater like that.

trespoochies
04-26-12, 10:46 PM
Restored Lawrence of Arabia to Premiere at Cannes

International distributor and sales agent Park Circus will have a strong presence at this year's Cannes Film Festival with two titles selected as part of the Official Selection – Cannes Classics. The first is Sony Pictures Entertainment's 50th Anniversary restoration of David Lean's epic Lawrence of Arabia.

From Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Andrei Konchalovsky's cult thriller Runaway Train, starring Jon Voigt, Eric Roberts and Rebecca De Mornay will also be screening as part of the Official Selection - Cannes Classics to mark the director's presence at the festival.

In addition to the films taking part in the Official Selection, Park Circus will also present a selection of other titles available for licensing, including Nicholas Ray's restored We Can't Go Home Again and Susan Ray's documentary Don't Expect Too Much. Distribution deals for these films have already been concluded for the USA and France.

Also coming to Cannes for all rights licensing are restored versions of major Harold Lloyd films including Safety Last, Speedy, Girl Shy and many more features and shorts by "the third genius'. Agreements for France and UK have already been concluded.

Superdaddy
04-27-12, 09:22 AM
Side note: A newly mastered, longer cut of a film by this guy named Leone is premiering there as well:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/in-contention/posts/269-minute-redux-cut-of-sergio-leones-once-upon-a-time-in-america-to-premiere-at-cannes

Solid Snake
04-27-12, 06:08 PM
About goddamn fucking time. I've been waiting for that cut for years now. Guess his daughter was really serious about getting it out. Fucking awesome.

Giles
04-29-12, 04:24 PM
so is the Cannes presentation 4K digital projection or actual 70mm?

Gerry P.
04-30-12, 06:20 AM
so is the Cannes presentation 4K digital projection or actual 70mm?It's Cannes. I'd be shocked if it was anything but 70mm.

trespoochies
04-30-12, 08:31 AM
It's Cannes. I'd be shocked if it was anything but 70mm.

Then be shocked.

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en/article/58952.html

To mark the 50th anniversary of the production and release of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA by David Lean (1962, 222'), Sony-Columbia have made a new restoration of the film in 4K.
Restored by Sony Pictures Entertainment in 4K at Sony Pictures’ Colorworks.

Doctorossi
04-30-12, 08:55 AM
To mark the 50th anniversary of the production and release of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA by David Lean (1962, 222'), Sony-Columbia have made a new restoration of the film in 4K.
Restored by Sony Pictures Entertainment in 4K at Sony Pictures’ Colorworks.

That doesn't mean it's going to be shown in 4K; just that restoration work was done to produce a 4K master (from which 70mm prints could be struck).

That said, I expect it probably will be projected digitally.

trespoochies
04-30-12, 09:08 AM
Me too. I'm going by the other films on the page I posted. Most say if they're being projected via film or digital. Pretty dissappointing.

CRM114
04-30-12, 02:50 PM
So 4K digital is inferior to 70mm I take it?

Doctorossi
04-30-12, 04:16 PM
So 4K digital is inferior to 70mm I take it?

Not necessarily.

Giles
04-30-12, 09:15 PM
Not necessarily.

true, sort of... considering 35mm is equivalent to 6K and most 70mm movies when they are scanned and transferred is done at 8K

Doctorossi
04-30-12, 11:17 PM
true, sort of... considering 35mm is equivalent to 6K and most 70mm movies when they are scanned and transferred is done at 8K

That statement is both inaccurate and grossly, grossly oversimplified.

Supermallet
05-01-12, 01:45 AM
I had always read that 35mm is the equivalent of 4k.

Doctorossi
05-01-12, 09:18 AM
I had always read that 35mm is the equivalent of 4k.

"Equivalent" is kind of a tricky word. The spatial resolution of a fast modern 35mm film stock, exposed for detail, can be fully represented by a 4K scan.

CRM114
05-01-12, 09:42 AM
So when the post above says "Sony-Columbia have made a new restoration of the film in 4K" that will shown at Cannes, it's like showing a 35mm print?

Doctorossi
05-01-12, 10:09 AM
So when the post above says "Sony-Columbia have made a new restoration of the film in 4K" that will shown at Cannes, it's like showing a 35mm print?

No. 4K can accommodate the best of what a 35mm negative can deliver. A 35mm print cannot accommodate the same. A 4K "digital print" will look more resolute than the best 35mm print and far more resolute than the average 35mm print.

Meanwhile, the article's referring to this Lawrence of Arabia presentation as a "4K restoration" is a bit of a misnomer (or, at least, misleading shorthand). The 65mm negative was scanned at 8K and digital restoration work was then performed at 6K. The "digital print" for this screening is a 4K down-conversion because the projector in use will be 4K. So, really, it's a 4K presentation of a 6K restoration of an 8K scan.

CRM114
05-01-12, 10:26 AM
:lol: OK. I think I understand somewhat.

So, bottom line, should I go see LoA with a 4K digital screening or hold out for a 70mm screening?

Gizmo
05-01-12, 10:58 AM
Looks like the "it's coming really soon!!!!!" from 2006 finally arrived in 2012. Not bad!

Doctorossi
05-01-12, 11:13 AM
So, bottom line, should I go see LoA with a 4K digital screening or hold out for a 70mm screening?

If you can find a 70mm screening with a good, strong lamp and a lot of screen real estate, I'd go that way. Beyond the light output potential of a 70mm projector, though, I strongly suspect a 70mm screening and a 4K screening of this restoration will look very similar to each other. I haven't seen it yet, though, so I speak with no authority.

Mabuse
05-01-12, 12:58 PM
It should be viewed in 70mm because that's the closest approximation to how it was meant to be exhibited when it was new.

Doctorossi
05-01-12, 01:03 PM
It should be viewed in 70mm because that's the closest approximation to how it was meant to be exhibited when it was new.

Well, 4K digital projectors weren't exactly an option when it was new, so no one can accurately tell us what Lean and company would have preferred, given today's options.

Mabuse
05-01-12, 01:41 PM
Well, 4K digital projectors weren't exactly an option when it was new, so no one can accurately tell us what Lean and company would have preferred, given today's options.

I could use that logic to justify converting it to 3D. Maybe if Lean were allive today he would want the film cropped to fit 16x9 displays.

A film from that era is ideally viewed in a manner most closely approximating how it was released when new. In LOA's case that would be 70 mm celluloid.

Mr. Cinema
05-01-12, 01:45 PM
Looks like the "it's coming really soon!!!!!" from 2006 finally arrived in 2012. Not bad!
and it'll look much better than what we would've gotten in 2006.

CRM114
05-01-12, 03:03 PM
I could use that logic to justify converting it to 3D. Maybe if Lean were allive today he would want the film cropped to fit 16x9 displays.

A film from that era is ideally viewed in a manner most closely approximating how it was released when new. In LOA's case that would be 70 mm celluloid.

Its a matter of driving hours to see it in 70mm or possibly seeing it locally.

Doctorossi
05-01-12, 03:31 PM
I could use that logic to justify converting it to 3D.


Sure, but digital projection isn't really a revision. The fact is that neither a new 70mm print of this restoration nor a 4K "digital print" of it are going to look like the movie did upon release, but I think they're going to look very close to each other and I don't think either would misrepresent the movie (any poor color-timing decisions, etcetera, in the new master, aside).

Giles
05-01-12, 04:32 PM
I had always read that 35mm is the equivalent of 4k.

it isn't. An article written around the time of the 'The Dark Knight' came out in American Cinematographer and when it came to the issue of the 'resolution' of 35mm, 65mm and IMAX 15/70 - 35mm was mentioned that while isn't pixeled like video the comparison was specifically noted that it's equivalent to 6K.

No. 4K can accommodate the best of what a 35mm negative can deliver. A 35mm print cannot accommodate the same. A 4K "digital print" will look more resolute than the best 35mm print and far more resolute than the average 35mm print.

Meanwhile, the article's referring to this Lawrence of Arabia presentation as a "4K restoration" is a bit of a misnomer (or, at least, misleading shorthand). The 65mm negative was scanned at 8K and digital restoration work was then performed at 6K. The "digital print" for this screening is a 4K down-conversion because the projector in use will be 4K. So, really, it's a 4K presentation of a 6K restoration of an 8K scan.

and the fact that current digital projection can only go up to 4K. 35mm and 70mm in film form when done right can look better than 4K digital projection, but since the industry has swayed to everything digital the superior 'film' format has become second fiddle.

Doctorossi
05-01-12, 04:47 PM
it isn't. An article written around the time of the 'The Dark Knight' came out in American Cinematographer and when it came to the issue of the 'resolution' of 35mm, 65mm and IMAX 15/70 - 35mm was mentioned that while isn't pixeled like video the comparison was specifically noted that it's equivalent to 6K.

That's one (very optimistic and theoretical) opinion. The industry is largely in agreement that a 4K edge-to-edge scan is sufficient to capture the resolution of 4-perf 35mm film.

35mm and 70mm in film form when done right can look better than 4K digital projection

In the best of circumstances, you can probably get marginally better spatial resolution results from 5-perf 70mm (on recent stocks) than from 4K digital sourced from the same negative. In the vast majority of real world situations (and especially in light of the fact that most of the 5-perf 70mm material people want to see was not shot on recent stocks), you won't.

As for 35mm, if you can show me a theatrical print that can produce more spatial resolution on the screen than a 4K digital projection of a scan of that film's negative, I'll buy you the theatre you screened it in.

Of course, spatial resolution isn't the whole story, but it's the one we were talking about (and the only one most people ever seem to want to talk about).

Josh Z
05-02-12, 12:46 PM
it isn't. An article written around the time of the 'The Dark Knight' came out in American Cinematographer and when it came to the issue of the 'resolution' of 35mm, 65mm and IMAX 15/70 - 35mm was mentioned that while isn't pixeled like video the comparison was specifically noted that it's equivalent to 6K.

This is really dependant on a lot of different factors, including film stock used and shooting conditions. The numbers I hear tossed around most frequently tend to range from 4k to 5k equivalency.

And of course, we're talking about the original camera negative here, not the dupe theatrical prints or how much detail actually makes it onto a theater screen (which is sub-2k in most cases).

and the fact that current digital projection can only go up to 4K. 35mm and 70mm in film form when done right can look better than 4K digital projection, but since the industry has swayed to everything digital the superior 'film' format has become second fiddle.

It's that "when done right" part that's the sticking point.

Supermallet
05-02-12, 03:34 PM
I could use that logic to justify converting it to 3D. Maybe if Lean were allive today he would want the film cropped to fit 16x9 displays.


3D existed at the time of LoA, so we can know for sure Lean didn't want it in 3D. Also, multiple aspect ratios existed back then, so we can say pretty well he didn't want it in 16x9.

Mr. Cinema
05-17-12, 12:17 PM
Someone posted these on blu-ray.com. Sony appears to be going the WB route with a deluxe edition. I hope there's a non-junk box set version available.

http://i.imgur.com/XLXMn.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cvOKW.jpg

Doctorossi
05-17-12, 12:26 PM
Jam-packed "special editions" are great, but can we PLEASE stop with the super-wide boxes?! There's a REASON this format has standardized around a single packaging width and we all have storage solutions that result from it. There's no reason these materials can't fit in a STANDARD-WIDTH (albeit deep) box.

*Insert witty 'widescreen movie needs widescreen box' retort here*

Labor
05-17-12, 12:37 PM
are they serious with that cover art.

One of the greatest films of all time and that's the cover? Really?

Doctorossi
05-17-12, 12:39 PM
One of the greatest films of all time and that's the cover? Really?

Yeah, it looks like an HBO special. I guess that's what they want.

trespoochies
05-17-12, 01:15 PM
I would have preferred either of these. At any rate, I'll be buying the "junk" box set since this is my second favorite movie of all time.

http://cdn10.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Lawrence-of-Arabia.jpg http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/05_06/1962/0056172/l_22885_0056172_f3b02af9.jpg

Doctorossi
05-17-12, 02:27 PM
http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/05_06/1962/0056172/l_22885_0056172_f3b02af9.jpg

:rolleyes:

Don't you love these notices?

"Please stop using the Web the way it was intended to be used."

CRM114
05-17-12, 02:33 PM
I'll be buying it. I'd rather do without the enormous box though.

Hokeyboy
05-17-12, 03:01 PM
I'd rather do without the enormous box though.
:eyebrow:

creekdipper
05-17-12, 03:10 PM
I kinda like the cover art. The image of O'Toole waving the pistol in a 'Come On!' gesture combined with the wide shot of the charging horses captures the epic scope of the film for me.

It reminds me of Scorsese's plea for widescreen format that's included on a lot of DVDs in which he shows how cropping the picture removes the vast distance of the desert. The pic does it for me.

At least, I like it a lot better than most of the DVD releases or the first poster art posted on the previous page (couldn't get the 2nd pic).

Have to agree, though, that these boxes are space-eaters. So far it's okay if they confine it to the truly great epic films (Wizard, Ben-Hur, GWTW, Sound of Music, etc.), but eventually it's going to filter down to some others that would be better suited to more standard wide boxes ala Citizen Kane. I liked Willie Wonka and there some nice goodies in the box, but I really don't know that it merited the big box treatment. Nor did Gettysbury/Gods & Generals.

Of course, there are standard regular-size options for all of those films, so we really shouldn't complain.

RocShemp
05-17-12, 08:31 PM
Someone posted these on blu-ray.com. Sony appears to be going the WB route with a deluxe edition. I hope there's a non-junk box set version available.

http://i.imgur.com/XLXMn.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cvOKW.jpg

Uhg! I wan't this so bad but not if I have to get that stupid box. -ohbfrank-

Giles
05-17-12, 08:59 PM
betcha the UK edition will be the movie/supplements only without the box and all those spangly extras.

GrouchoFan
05-18-12, 12:15 AM
I hope the DVD-ROM material from the first release is included in a more convenient format.

Superdaddy
05-18-12, 09:23 AM
Not thrilled with the big box either. I'll hope for a discs-only version, but I love this movie so much I might cave and make this my fourth big box to kill much-needed space.

Giles
05-18-12, 10:14 AM
sheesh, they could have at least thrown in a 70mm cel into that box

NoirFan
05-18-12, 10:17 AM
As always, I'll wait for the regular release.

Doctorossi
05-18-12, 10:30 AM
70mm cel

You mean a frame?

Gizmo
05-18-12, 10:43 AM
and it'll look much better than what we would've gotten in 2006.

Debatable.

At that point, studios should just stop releasing and start up again in 5 years.

I'll grab this when it hits $10 or less. As with most catalog, it shouldn't take long.

Doctorossi
05-18-12, 10:45 AM
Debatable.

About as debatable as the color of the sky.

Gizmo
05-18-12, 11:00 AM
About as debatable as the color of the sky.

So you would agree that the newest version of Predators (Ultimate Edition) with DNR/EE slathered on is superior to the original release in 2006?

Again, debatable. Making assumptions won't work. Sony has been promising this film for years, so for all we know, it's the same dusty transfer they had planned to release years ago.

$10 or less shouldn't be too long. These things go on sale so damn fast nowadays there is no point buying anything on release week.

trespoochies
05-18-12, 11:11 AM
So you would agree that the newest version of Predators (Ultimate Edition) with DNR/EE slathered on is superior to the original release in 2006?

Again, debatable. Making assumptions won't work. Sony has been promising this film for years, so for all we know, it's the same dusty transfer they had planned to release years ago.

$10 or less shouldn't be too long. These things go on sale so damn fast nowadays there is no point buying anything on release week.

I didn't see any articles talking extensively about the 8k transfer of Predator however. It's possible the transfer may not be worth the wait, but I think that's pretty slim.

And your last comment may be correct, unless something comes out that someone really wants. Like me wanting this movie on release day.

Doctorossi
05-18-12, 11:17 AM
So you would agree that the newest version of Predators (Ultimate Edition) with DNR/EE slathered on is superior to the original release in 2006?

No, I wouldn't. No idea what that has to do with my statement, though.

$10 or less shouldn't be too long. These things go on sale so damn fast nowadays there is no point buying anything on release week.

Yeah, I guess encouraging distributors to produce the movies you want by helping them to actually make a profit instead of a loss is no point at all.

davidh777
05-18-12, 07:15 PM
I kinda like the cover art. The image of O'Toole waving the pistol in a 'Come On!' gesture combined with the wide shot of the charging horses captures the epic scope of the film for me.

Seems strange to me to have a blurry gun image (to convey motion, I guess) and O'Toole's face partially obscured. This movie has been marketed on O'Toole's eyes for years. Seems like there could have been many better images. Heck, I'm not even sure that's a gun--maybe he's hammering the shed in his back yard.

Gizmo
05-18-12, 10:59 PM
Yeah, I guess encouraging distributors to produce the movies you want by helping them to actually make a profit instead of a loss is no point at all.

If you want to waste your money go ahead. This will drop fast like every other catalog title does. They are poor sellers and retailers want to move them fast. Sorry, no more getting tricked and paying full price on release week to see it drop a few weeks after.

Hokeyboy
05-18-12, 11:09 PM
What happened to you Gizmo? :(

CRM114
05-22-12, 11:28 AM
So you would agree that the newest version of Predators (Ultimate Edition) with DNR/EE slathered on is superior to the original release in 2006?

Again, debatable. Making assumptions won't work. Sony has been promising this film for years, so for all we know, it's the same dusty transfer they had planned to release years ago.

$10 or less shouldn't be too long. These things go on sale so damn fast nowadays there is no point buying anything on release week.

You think LoA just might have a little bit more care put into it than Predators?

And the HD release of LoA is not just another ho-hum catalog title.

Mabuse
05-22-12, 01:13 PM
About as debatable as the color of the sky.Funny. I hope you realize that the color of the sky is exactly what has been endlessly debated in regards to restoring LOA. Robert A Harris's number one objection about the original DVD was that the color wasn't timed correctly and that made the color balance between sand and sky wrong.

Mr. Cinema
07-17-12, 11:53 AM
Robert Harris has been posting the restoration process over at HTF. The rumor is we'll get an official US announcement soon, possibly this week.

Giles
07-17-12, 04:58 PM
the UK edition is back up for preorder:

Lawrence of Arabia [Blu-ray Region Free] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lawrence-Arabia-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B003ARSPIE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342558643&sr=8-1)

Mr. Cinema
07-18-12, 04:40 PM
The L.A. Times says the box set will arrive on November 13. Photo is on Amazon's listing.

http://images.blu-ray.com/news/upload/3133_tn.jpg

Giles
07-18-12, 05:05 PM
^ got a link to that LA Times mention?

NoirFan
07-18-12, 05:09 PM
I love the cover of that deluxe packaging, but I'll still wait for the eventual single-disc edition to hit $9.99.

Giles
07-18-12, 05:36 PM
the UK import is 11 GBP

NoirFan
07-18-12, 05:38 PM
the UK import is 11 GBP

Thanks, but I hate the ratings symbols that are plastered all over UK discs, so I avoid them unless necessary.

Mr. Cinema
07-18-12, 06:04 PM
^ got a link to that LA Times mention?
no. That's what blu-ray.com mentioned. The title has now been officially announced. The date is November 13.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=9159

Sony's Blu-ray offers the film in a 4K digital restoration; according to Sony's official press release, "the original camera negative was scanned at 8K and the film went through a painstaking process of repairing problems inherent to the fifty-year old film elements."

Giles
07-18-12, 06:45 PM
and the theatrical release is October 4th - as much as it's great news to finally have this movie on hidef, it's the ideal way to see and experience this movie on the largest screen possible.

trespoochies
07-19-12, 10:14 AM
Updated OP with set picture. I'll be buying this Day 1 as well as see this again in the theater. I'm really looking forward to finally get a hold of this.

slop101
07-19-12, 11:07 AM
I'm not a fan of big bulky box sets like that for single movies, but for this movie (being that it's in my top-5 of all time), I'll make an exception.

Mr. Cinema
07-19-12, 05:31 PM
Pre-order is up. This has an expensive list price of $95.99. Amazon's 30% off price is still $67.19. I'm certainly not paying that much for a movie, no matter how much shit is thrown in a fancy box. I'll wait until there's a non junk version, or hope that Walmart or Target gets that version as an exclusive.

Travis McClain
08-04-12, 11:21 AM
Very stoked to finally get a crack at this on the big screen and on Blu-ray! I confess, I'm put off by the price of that box set - Sony's Bridge on the River Kwai released at $19.99 and that was a solid, worthwhile issue. Lawrence of Arabia deserves the deluxe treatment, I won't argue that. However, that price is outside my comfort zone these days. I'll be excited to see it in theaters, though, and that'll tide me over until I can catch a good deal on the Blu-ray (perhaps a Black Friday offering?). It's unlikely I'll re-watch it so soon after the theatrical showing anyway.

BTW, Cinemark's ongoing weekly classic movie series features both Doctor Zhivago and The Bridge on the River Kwai in September! I've seen Bridge in a theater, but never Zhivago. Gonna get my big screen David Lean on this year, y'all! :D

John Galt
08-04-12, 02:15 PM
Is there an actual date yet for this set?

Mr. Cinema
08-04-12, 05:49 PM
November 13 is rumored

Mr. Cinema
08-06-12, 07:28 PM
I got this from blu-ray.com. Don't know the source, but this appears to be the extras list for the deluxe set. The book in the gift set is a whopping 88 pages. I may have to spring for that, especially for the bonus disc. But it'll have to be under $50.

http://i.imgur.com/SFvdb.png

Superdaddy
08-09-12, 08:09 AM
Looks like the big set is the only way to get all the bonus features, according to the blu-ray.com article.

Have to think about this one. I hate to lose extras, but I don't like big boxes either. In the end, I'll probably end up getting the box. That's what I did with the Casablanca remaster.

lamphorn
08-09-12, 11:00 AM
I usually detest big box sets but I want disc 3 and I want the CD soundtrack. I'll have to make an exception for this.

What annoys me is that they're trumpeting a 4K theatrical release as if it's something to celebrate. They should re-release it in 70mm the way it was meant to be seen. There is no comparison between 4000 digital lines of resolution and the organic celluloid equivalent of hundreds of thousands of lines. 35mm film has many times the resolution of 4K and 70mm has double the resolution of 35. Why go to the theatre to watch a film that was shot in Super Panavision 70 downrezzed to what's essentially a television format?

trespoochies
08-09-12, 11:04 AM
I'm guessing because 4k television isn't a reality yet for us commoners. I'm with you though, I'd prefer a great 70mm print release over 4k any day of the week.

Doctorossi
08-09-12, 11:05 AM
There is no comparison between 4000 digital lines of resolution and the organic celluloid equivalent of hundreds of thousands of lines.

:lol:

The 4K release, well-presented, will put more visible resolution on the screen than any 70mm print ever has.

Why go to the theatre to watch a film that was shot in Super Panavision 70 downrezzed to what's essentially a television format?

The analog (optical) process of producing a theatrical print (and the limitations of the projector displaying it) reduces the resolution of the original camera negative far more than this digital print which was made from a scan of that negative.

Doctorossi
08-09-12, 11:07 AM
I'd prefer a great 70mm print release over 4k any day of the week.

Watch them back-to-back and you'll change your tune.

Mabuse
08-09-12, 12:51 PM
It's not about better or worse...it's about how the film was intended to be seen.

As I've said before "A film from that era is ideally viewed in a manner most closely approximating how it was released when new. In LOA's case that would be 70 mm celluloid." If Lean were alive today maybe he'd want it recropped to 16x9, maybe he'd want it color corrected to teal and orange, or post-converted to 3-D. Who knows what he might prefer. In his absence the best thing we can do, the RIGHT thing to do, is to watch it as it as he intended in 1962.

trespoochies
08-09-12, 12:56 PM
Watch them back-to-back and you'll change your tune.

I understand the difference, but I like the look of film. Tune has, and will stay the same. Guess it's my years of being a projectionist.

Doctorossi
08-09-12, 12:57 PM
It's not about better or worse...it's about how the film was intended to be seen.

It's difficult to judge the intent of a deceased filmmaker against the aesthetics of a presentation format that didn't exist when the film was made.

As I've said before "A film from that era is ideally viewed in a manner most closely approximating how it was released when new. In LOA's case that would be 70 mm celluloid." If Lean were alive today maybe he'd want it recropped to 16x9, maybe he'd want it color corrected to teal and orange, or post-converted to 3-D. Who knows what he might prefer. In his absence the best thing we can do, the RIGHT thing to do, is to watch it as it as he intended in 1962.

Meanwhile, in the world of commercial cinemas circa 2012... 70mm projectors are almost no longer existent, while 4K digital projectors are busy being installed around the world.

Unfortunately, it's not really a question of this release on 70mm versus in 4K digital; it's a question of this release in 4K digital or not at all.

Doctorossi
08-09-12, 01:01 PM
I understand the difference, but I like the look of film. Tune has, and will stay the same. Guess it's my years of being a projectionist.

Fair enough.

If you've seen them both in comparable conditions, though, you will agree that in terms of viewable spatial resolution, a 70mm release print does not have a 4K DCP from a DI of the 65mm OCN beaten.

lamphorn
08-09-12, 09:41 PM
Meanwhile, in the world of commercial cinemas circa 2012... 70mm projectors are almost no longer existent, while 4K digital projectors are busy being installed around the world.

Unfortunately, it's not really a question of this release on 70mm versus in 4K digital; it's a question of this release in 4K digital or not at all.

This is true, sadly, and it looks like cinema will be remembered as a distinctly 20th century art form that was replaced by cheap digital video tech (which, by the way is impossible to archive for future generations) due to corporate cost-cutting. I have a beautiful large HD TV at home and just feel jipped when I go to the theatre and find out it's a "digital presentation".. I could just wait for the Blu Ray if I want a "digital presentation"... which is of course what people will increasingly do, thus finally killing theatrical mass distribution.

Giles
08-09-12, 10:52 PM
the number of theaters with 70mm projectors has diminished considerably, but thankfully P.T Anderson is headstrong in having as many of those theaters to present 'The Master' as such, when it opens later in the year. Warner's got a number of theaters to reinstall their 15/70 IMAX projectors for 'The Dark Knight Rises' - with 'Lawrence', 'The Master' and 'Samsara' (which is unfortunately only getting released in 35mm, despite being shot in 70mm) it's great to see 70mm seeing a slight renaissance in the age of digital projection.

CloverClover
08-13-12, 08:41 AM
digital video tech (which, by the way is impossible to archive for future generations) .

Do you think digital storage technology is going to remain in its current state forever? We'll be able to hold a thousand films at full 8K scanned resolution, on a thumb drive... probably in a decade or two.

All you film people support the elitist limitations of film because you're nostalgic about a little bit of grain. I like the film-look too, but it's not that big of a deal. It is a very silly and stubborn perspective. Maybe ten years ago there was a point to the debate, but the tech is just improving too much.

Travis McClain
08-13-12, 08:48 AM
I'm curious about that soundtrack CD. I was given to understand the master recordings had been destroyed?

Josh Z
08-13-12, 11:26 AM
Do you think digital storage technology is going to remain in its current state forever? We'll be able to hold a thousand films at full 8K scanned resolution, on a thumb drive... probably in a decade or two.

Digital data is easily corrupted and is unreliable as a long-term archival storage medium.

RocShemp
08-13-12, 11:49 AM
Damn. I guess I'll have to wait for a price drop on the gift set to get the third disc and soundtrack CD.

RobLutter
08-13-12, 03:40 PM
the number of theaters with 70mm projectors has diminished considerably, but thankfully P.T Anderson is headstrong in having as many of those theaters to present 'The Master' as such, when it opens later in the year. Warner's got a number of theaters to reinstall their 15/70 IMAX projectors for 'The Dark Knight Rises' - with 'Lawrence', 'The Master' and 'Samsara' (which is unfortunately only getting released in 35mm, despite being shot in 70mm) it's great to see 70mm seeing a slight renaissance in the age of digital projection.
Alamo Drafthouse just installed a 70mm projector in their Downtown Austin location (The Ritz) and is already planning a ton of 70mm films. Lawrence isn't on their list yet, but I believe its inevitable.

PT Anderson approves.

http://drafthouse.com/special_events/alamoscope

Austin now has 2 70mm theaters (including the Paramount Theater) and the largest IMAX in Texas.

Travis McClain
08-13-12, 03:47 PM
Digital data is easily corrupted and is unreliable as a long-term archival storage medium.

I remember reading a few years ago in Rolling Stone that apparently, parts of Toy Story had become corrupted on Pixar's drive. They discovered the damage when they prepared the Blu-ray release. If it can happen to Pixar, it can happen to anyone!

slop101
08-13-12, 04:43 PM
I remember reading a few years ago in Rolling Stone that apparently, parts of Toy Story had become corrupted on Pixar's drive. They discovered the damage when they prepared the Blu-ray release. If it can happen to Pixar, it can happen to anyone!Here's a great, in-depth article about it (http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/) - not just the pixar stuff, but on the debate on film vs digital and the pros/cons of each.

TheBang
08-13-12, 09:53 PM
Digital data is easily corrupted and is unreliable as a long-term archival storage medium.
I can't support a blanket statement like that.

Josh Z
08-14-12, 11:34 AM
I can't support a blanket statement like that.

This is something that greatly concerns all of the major studios. All of them continue to preserve archival copies of their movies on film. Even digitally photographed movies are output onto film for the preservation assets. Though they also prepare digital copies, no one trusts the digital versions for long-term storage.

slop101
08-14-12, 12:01 PM
Yeah, as that article I posted points out, digital storage is really unpredictable; it corrupt data within weeks, or years - you can never tell. Or it might just corrupt a tiny part of your data, which you may not notice until it's too late. You also have to keep a hard-drive running just so it'll have a less likely chance of crashing or of not working at all. Basically, long-term digital storage is a total crap-shoot and extremely unreliable.

Giles
08-15-12, 03:52 PM
the theatrical rerelease of Lawrence is set for Thursday October 4th with a 2pm and 7pm screening

(theaters yet to be announced)

Travis McClain
08-15-12, 04:31 PM
the theatrical rerelease of Lawrence is set for Thursday October 4th with a 2pm and 7pm screening

(theaters yet to be announced)

Source?

Adam Tyner
08-15-12, 04:43 PM
Source?Minus the exact show times, eight billion sites quoting the press release from July (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lawrence+of+arabia%22+%22October+4th%22&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).

Travis McClain
08-15-12, 04:54 PM
Minus the exact show times, eight billion sites quoting the press release from July (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lawrence+of+arabia%22+%22October+4th%22&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).

Yeah, it was the source for the show times I wanted. I'm quite well aware of the July release.

Giles
08-15-12, 06:00 PM
of the DC area AMC screens that are showing this they are:

Georgetown
Mazza (hooray!)
Tysons
Hoffman

as to why AMC completely ignores the Uptown is simply beyond me.

Dusty Bottoms
08-15-12, 09:39 PM
Yeah, it was the source for the show times I wanted. I'm quite well aware of the July release.

Fandango is already selling tickets for 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. shows on Oct. 4 at a couple of theaters in Nashville, TN.

Edited to add: I just bought my ticket for the matinee.

Giles
08-16-12, 12:24 AM
^ I don't see the Mazza Galleria screenings up yet on Fandango, but once I do, I'm snagging a tix ASAP!

Supermallet
08-18-12, 12:29 AM
The American Cinematheque in Los Angeles runs a 70mm print of Lawrence several times a year. It's a shame most people will never get to see it that way.

lamphorn
08-18-12, 11:52 AM
The American Cinematheque in Los Angeles runs a 70mm print of Lawrence several times a year. It's a shame most people will never get to see it that way.

Decided 10 years ago that my first viewing of Lawrence would be in 70mm someday..and that finally happened a couple years ago after moving to L.A. at the Egyptian. Unforgettable. Can't wait to see it again.

Supermallet
08-18-12, 04:12 PM
They run it at the Aero as well.

Giles
08-18-12, 07:55 PM
and the AFI Silver too.

Jay G.
08-22-12, 06:09 PM
Here's a great, in-depth article about it (http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/) - not just the pixar stuff, but on the debate on film vs digital and the pros/cons of each.

I found a few more articles about the Toy Story 2 data loss:
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/05/backing-up-footage-toy-story-2/

http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/05/21/how-pixars-toy-story-2-was-deleted-twice-once-by-technology-and-again-for-its-own-good/

TheBang
08-22-12, 11:30 PM
I just got around to reading the Toy Story 2 articles, and frankly, that has nothing to do with data archiving. Basically, they granted full permissions on the full working data set to everyone (mistake #1), and someone did an rm -rf on it (mistake #2). Then, they also had backups that weren't properly configured (mistake #3), backup logs that weren't being monitored (mistake #4), and backups that weren't verified or tested to make sure they restored all the data properly (mistake #5). Again though, all of this (even the backups) are part of an active working data set. That is very different from long term data archival, which is what would be relevant to the discussion about digital film preservation.

Jay G.
08-23-12, 12:34 AM
I just got around to reading the Toy Story 2 articles, and frankly, that has nothing to do with data archiving...
True. The story about Toy Story losing 20% to corruption would be applicable, but I can't find any real source for that story.

This story talks about converting the films for 3D, which required them to convert the original animation files into a form usable on their current computers, but nowhere is it mentioned that data was lost:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/movies/04murp.html?_r=1

TheBang
08-23-12, 08:58 PM
Ah, OK, I see. I didn't read any stuff about corruption when they went back for the 3D conversions. That does sound like it would be more applicable.

Data archiving has come a long way since 1998, and with new technologies like checksummed, self-healing file systems like ZFS and ReFS, it's going to just get better for long term data storage.

Giles
09-04-12, 09:16 PM
I've been hearing that the Oct. 4 Fathom Event screenings are actual DCP not the traditional satellite feed that Fathom are notorious for (i.e, crappy image). Depending on the theater it will be either 2K or 4K.

Dusty Bottoms
09-04-12, 11:11 PM
I've been hearing that the Oct. 4 Fathom Event screenings are actual DCP not the traditional satellite feed that Fathom are notorious for (i.e, crappy image). Depending on the theater it will be either 2K or 4K.

Giles, I contacted Fathom today through their website to ask about the presentation. I bought a ticket for the matinee at the Regal Opry Mills in Nashville. I'm pretty sure they have at least one 4K projector. I mentioned this in my inquiry to Fathom. This is the response I received:

"It depends on what the theatre is equipped with, but if you are thinking the theatre has a Sony 4K projector, then we will show Lawrence of Arabia in 4K resolution at Regal Opry Mills. However, because the resolution we use greatly depends on what the theatre is equipped with, I cannot say that for sure. We always will show our events in the best possible resolution, so if they do in fact have the 4K projector, that is what the event will be shown in.

Thank you for your email, and enjoy the show!
Fathom Events"

Mr. Cinema
09-04-12, 11:22 PM
Amazon now has a single disc version for pre-order:

Lawrence of Arabia single disc (http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Restored-Version-Blu-ray/dp/B008Y1YK0I/ref=sr_1_16?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1346815335&sr=1-16&keywords=lawrence+of+arabia+blu-ray)

http://images4.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/52492_large.jpg

Mr. Salty
09-05-12, 04:45 AM
Amazon now has a single disc version for pre-order:

Lawrence of Arabia single disc (http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Restored-Version-Blu-ray/dp/B008Y1YK0I/ref=sr_1_16?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1346815335&sr=1-16&keywords=lawrence+of+arabia+blu-ray)

http://images4.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/52492_large.jpg

Actually, that's two discs.

MisterHowie
09-05-12, 07:05 PM
Anybody know what features will be on the two-disc version?

Mr. Salty
09-05-12, 10:03 PM
Anybody know what features will be on the two-disc version?

I would guess they're the two discs that aren't exclusive to the four-disc set.

zekeburger1979
09-07-12, 12:24 PM
From The Digital Bits:

Speaking of Sony, the studio has also set a 2-disc only Blu-ray version of Lawrence of Arabia for release on 11/13 (SRP $26.99). It contains the film and one extras disc - essentially Discs One and Two of the more elaborate 4-disc box set version also due that day (SRP $95.99). Note that from the box, Disc Three contains additional HD extras while Disc Four is a CD soundtrack sampler - just FYI.

BuckNaked2k
09-07-12, 12:36 PM
The two-discer will be fine for me...don't need boxes of stuff regardless of an extra disc or two.

Mr. Cinema
09-07-12, 12:38 PM
It would be cool if Walmart got an exclusive 3-disc set in a regular case. They aren't too fond of massive gift sets.

BSTNFAN
09-07-12, 02:10 PM
It would be cool if Walmart got an exclusive 3-disc set in a regular case. They aren't too fond of massive gift sets.

I've been hoping someone gets a 3-disc Digibook.

Giles
09-07-12, 02:13 PM
welll if anyone is interested, I'm getting the UK 'movie only' version, going to watch it, then either sell it or trade it off

islandclaws
09-15-12, 03:15 PM
DVD Beaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/lawrenceofarabia2.htm)

Stunning.

Superdaddy
09-15-12, 04:17 PM
Anybody know what features will be on the two-disc version?

Like Mr. Salty said. If true, that makes the two-disc release basically an upgrade of the original two-disc DVD, as the features are the same minus the trailer and DVD-ROM content and plus two new items:

Secrets of Arabia picture-in-graphic track
Newly produced Peter O'Toole Revisits Lawrence of Arabia interview
Feature-length The Making of Lawrence of Arabia documentary
Five behind-the-scenes featurettes:

A Conversation with Steven Spielberg
The Camels Are Cast
In Search of Lawrence
Romance of Arabia
1970 version of Wind, Sand and Star: The Making of a Classic

Newsreel footage of the New York premiere and material from the film's advertising campaigns

mike45
09-15-12, 10:47 PM
Actually, that's two discs.

I just received the U.K. version. It's region free. Picture is great. I had to pull the trigger early on this one.

Giles
09-22-12, 12:42 PM
I just received the U.K. version. It's region free. Picture is great. I had to pull the trigger early on this one.

I did too :)

well finished the disc.. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

and now the UK disc is for sale: $20 (I have the deluxe edition on pre-order from Amazon)

interested or have any question feel free to PM me.

RocShemp
09-22-12, 12:51 PM
The two-discer will be fine for me...don't need boxes of stuff regardless of an extra disc or two.

Yeah, in the end I opted for the two disc as well.

Supermallet
09-28-12, 02:31 PM
Finally put in my order for the two disc. I didn't need the extra features on the gift set. I'd probably only watch the special features on the two disc once anyway.

BuckNaked2k
10-15-12, 02:48 PM
Any word yet on store exclusives? I'm hoping BB will have a digi. :fc:

slop101
10-15-12, 03:17 PM
Any word yet on store exclusives? I'm hoping BB will have a digi. :fc:Doubtful. I don't think BB has done digibook exclusives with Sony movies. If it were Universal of WB, maybe.

Superdaddy
10-15-12, 07:37 PM
I have both versions on pre-order because I've been going back and forth on which one to get. Lately I find myself leaning away from the set and toward the two-disc. While the extra bonuses might be nice, with space at a serious premium right now, I don't know if I can justify it. I prefer the more compact releases and, when there's been a bigger set available, I've resisted it in all but a few cases.

When I finally decide I'll delete one of the pre-orders lol.

Mr. Cinema
11-10-12, 07:24 PM
Blu-ray.com has their review up on the 2-disc set. The 2nd disc has a good amount of extras. If you have a Barnes & Noble acct, you can use a 20% off coupon and get the 2-disc set for $15+ tax.

Blu-ray.com Review (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lawrence-of-Arabia-Blu-ray/52492/#Review)

Disc Two:

Peter O'Toole Revisits Lawrence of Arabia (HD, 21:07): The actor recalls landing the role of T.E. Lawrence, preparing for the part, his relationships with and thoughts on various cast and crew, life on and anecdotes from the set, his own crafting of one of the film's most iconic scenes, his thoughts on the film's themes and scope, the life of T.E. Lawrence, editing, not winning the Best Actor Oscar, the film's legacy, and more.

Making of Lawrence of Arabia (SD, 1:01:29): A high-quality documentary that recalls the life of T.E. Lawrence, the marriage of Lawrence's story and film, the initial film discussions and how David Lean came to be attached to the project, the process of assembling a script, casting, costuming, working in the desert and scouting desert locations, the challenges of the shoot, Lean's exacting ways, anecdotes from the set, cinematography and the process of crafting some of the film's most difficult scenes, Sam Spiegel's arrest during the shoot, themes and character arcs, the editing process, scoring the film, the film's release, its restoration, and its legacy.

A Conversation with Steven Spielberg (SD, 8:49): The acclaimed director recalls his first screening, its later impact on his life and career, his fascination with how the film was put together, his reaction to the core story, the picture's artistic licenses and the benefits thereof in this instance, his first meeting with David Lean, his role in the restoration, a unique "live commentary" experience with Lean, and the positives of the film's "natural" filmmaking techniques.

Maan, Jordan: The Camels Are Cast (SD, 2:00): A vintage piece looking at the camels' work, role in the film, and life on the set.

In Search of Lawrence (HD, 5:00): Another vintage featurette that examines the difficult process of shooting in an unforgiving desert.

Romance of Arabia (HD, 4:37): A short vintage feature that looks at the history and natural beauty of one of the world's most fascinating and historically important regions. The piece follows to briefly look at the making of the film.

Wind, Sand and Star: The Making of a Classic (1970) (HD, 4:32): Cast and crew reflect on the film's great success, intercut with making-of footage and voiceover narration covering the difficulties of the shoot. The piece recycles some material from other vintage featurettes.

New York Premiere (SD, 1:08): Brief news reel footage of the picture's premiere.

Advertising Campaigns (SD, 4:51): A piece that offers quick overviews of the film's advertisement campaigns from its various releases and cuts over the years.

RocShemp
11-10-12, 11:45 PM
Crap. No Spanish subtitles or dub? I'm gonna have to alter my Amazon order to remove the 2nd copy I pre-ordered for my dad. I was looking forward to giving this to him as a gift cos he loves this movie. :sad:

Supermallet
11-13-12, 01:25 AM
Watching it now. It looks fantastic. And even better is the sound. The LFE track is insane.

BuckNaked2k
11-13-12, 01:14 PM
^ Who cares about all that technical stuff? It's got a slip-cover!

:banana:

TomOpus
11-13-12, 01:51 PM
Crap. No Spanish subtitles or dub? I'm gonna have to alter my Amazon order to remove the 2nd copy I pre-ordered for my dad. I was looking forward to giving this to him as a gift cos he loves this movie. :sad:Huh? The review at blu-ray.com states there are Spanish subtitles.

Superdaddy
11-13-12, 07:22 PM
El Aurens just got dropped on my doorstep. After much wavering back and forth, I caved and went for the box.

I haven't even opened the shipping carton yet and this thing feels HEAVY.

John Galt
11-13-12, 07:48 PM
^ Who cares about all that technical stuff? It's got a slip-cover!

:banana:

Damn, when did dvdtalk.com start redirecting to blu-ray.com?

RocShemp
11-14-12, 11:26 AM
Huh? The review at blu-ray.com states there are Spanish subtitles.

The specs listed in the review say otherwise:

Audio

English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
French: Dolby Digital 5.1
Japanese: Dolby Digital 5.1


Subtitles

English, English SDH, French, Japanese, Arabic, Dutch

It seems only the special features on disc 2 have Spanish subtitles:

As for this set, disc two subtitle options include English, Chinese traditional, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, and Thai.

TomOpus
11-14-12, 02:30 PM
Oh, oops. Sorry.

slop101
11-17-12, 02:29 PM
Got the box-set and I kinda' dig it. They made it feel like a big fancy laser-disc set.

I'm not that stoked on the film cell I got, but it's not too bad:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8094/img2012111700625.jpg

Paul_SD
11-17-12, 02:39 PM
That's one of my favorite scenes in the film. I think you did great.

slop101
11-17-12, 02:54 PM
Yeah, that scene is great, but for a still, I was hoping for something a little more panoramic/epic.

Solid Snake
11-17-12, 05:12 PM
Greedy fucker, lol.

Robert
11-17-12, 09:22 PM
My cell #7896

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/trustno1013/LOA.jpg

ResIpsa
11-18-12, 03:47 AM
Got the box-set and I kinda' dig it. They made it feel like a big fancy laser-disc set.

I'm not that stoked on the film cell I got, but it's not too bad:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8094/img2012111700625.jpg

Also one of my favorite scenes. O'Toole vamping like O'Toole just before that incredible transition from lit match to desert sun. You done good.

Supermallet
11-18-12, 01:28 PM
The trick, slop101, is not minding that you're not stoked.

Johnny Zhivago
03-10-13, 11:10 PM
bump

$9.99 (two disc) at Best Buy this week... If you have a $5 RZ that expires on 3/19 and are looking to use it...