Saturday, April 6, 2013

Jurassic Park's 3D restoration


   In 2011, Universal released the long awaited high-definition release for Jurassic Park on Blu-Ray Disc. Though the release was for that format was long anticipated, the film's master was sourced from a flawed dated transfer, which produced a sharper than intended picture. Thanks to its 20th birthday, almost all visual deformities was resolved with what could have been the best looking Jurassic Park yet.

 For the 3D version, the movie received a new faithful (and I stress faithful) restoration under Steven Spielberg's vision, the very man who directed the movie itself. Not only was the soundmix re-engineered by the original mixer Gary Rydstrom, the movie was scanned in 4K from its original 35mm negative, then color corrected with the intended warm grading. It explains why the original trailer and the production stills appear warmer than the film on home video. These corrections were in fact the first immediate impression I made when witnessing the 3D trailer the first time, noticing the richer earthy feel and tone of key scenes, now lacking the blue / purple hues and edge enhanced blemishes.  To say the least, the overall film never looked better. (For more, visit Ian Failes' article elaborating the extensive process). 
Lo-res screen cap (more below) lifted from the FXguide's video.
UPDATE: With a more intimate look at the 3D Blu-Ray, I can say for a fact it is not perfect. Due to 3D conversion, DNR was applied due to necessary grain removal and therefore, loss of finer details, resulting in a less filmic overall presentation. While this shouldn't detract your 3D experience (I for one can vouch for that), it has ways to go as a stand alone 2D film, which I find is just as important. If Universal is in need of guidance on how to perfect this, they have Ken Brown's review of the 3D Blu-Ray to refer to, which well contrasted the pros and cons between the 2013 and 2011 versions. Having the best of both worlds would be that definitive restoration that's yet to happen. The 3D's 4K master otherwise shows great potential in that direction.

It was assumed the 3D combo pack includes the newly remastered version on 2D Blu-Ray. It is sadly the exact same 2011 disc, confirmed by a Blu-Ray.com member, who contacted Universal with the disappointing news.

 I took the liberty to e-mail Universal myself (try yourself). To no surprise, I received the same reply:
"The 2D Blu-ray and DVD releases to be included is our upcoming "Jurassic Park" 3D package will use the master that was created for the Jurassic Park Ultimate Trilogy in 2011. 
We hope that you will continue to enjoy our releases.
SIncerely,
Consumer RelationsUNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOME ENTERTAINMENT"

 Eventually, they created a new default response everyone elsee received, "defending" the flawed 2D master:
"The 2011 "Jurassic Park Ultimate Trilogy" Blu-ray release is based on remastered source material developed under the auspices and with the direct approval of the filmmakers. Extensive efforts went into the remastering process, and the differences between this Blu-ray release and our original DVD release are dramatic. The same remastered materials will be used for our upcoming DVD and 2D Blu-ray release. 
We will forward your comments to the appropriate department. 
Again, thank you. 
Sincerely, 
Consumer Relations UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOME ENTERTAINMENT"
 While the 2011 Blu-Ray is a huge upgrade over the DVD, it is not the kind of restoration it deserves. It makes one wonder why Universal didn't get it right the first time, having only then giving the real shine for the 3D version only. For the overall entertainment value, I savored every frame of my IMAX viewing. Would have loved to take home that remastered experience on 2D Blu-Ray, not just 3D.

Here are more sensational shots to stress the point further. There are many prestigious titles presented with the polish they deserve. While Jurassic Park is no question a contender for that treatment, it presently remains a victim to that lost opportunity. Let's hope a future 4K Blu-Ray combo pack remedies that in the future with an updated master.







at

19 comments:

  1. Jimm NeedleMay 31, 2014 at 7:25 PM

    It looks terrible. The DNR is bad but its just simply too dark. This is not the way I remember seeing it back in '93. Its just more in this trend of regrading during restorations that have destroyed so many possible excellent restorations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nosy NeighborSeptember 24, 2015 at 5:00 AM

      True! And also, the orange/teal grading which is driving me nuts - back in the 90's it was actually custom to use a VARITITY of colors. This version of JP really looks terrible

      Delete
    2. Simon ElliotSeptember 3, 2016 at 6:09 AM

      Totally agree. I fucking HATE orange and teal. It's the worst trend that has ever befallen the industry. Not only do we have to put up with every new film looking like this, now they are going back and doing it to old classics! Absolute bastards.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousJune 8, 2014 at 3:15 AM

    I agree completely, if it's not broken don't fix it...the new color grade looks similar to other Hollywood films and seems to have less color fidelity and sense of realism, completely destroys the original photography. Let it be!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Josh MartinJune 8, 2014 at 1:48 PM

    ^To begin with, it was "broken" the second it transitioned to home video. The warmer color grading you see now is how it was meant to be, as shown in theaters in 1993. Somehow that got messed up when mastering for home video, appearing cooler with blueish/purple/magneta hues, all the way since VHS / Laserdisc to the 2011 Blu-Ray.

    Though it funnily did not interfere with my 3D experience (and that's with 3D glasses), I do agree with Jimm about how it's too dark. If anything, this was all applied onto the 3D version only, including the DNR. The definitive 2D presentation should maintain the color grading minus the visual detractions mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM

      Ya Sorry, I agree with the others. This is not how it was shown in theaters in 1993. It was blue and magenta. Not warm and dusty. This is a brand new color timing. Completely different then the original film!

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 24, 2015 at 7:30 PM

      I also agree. Saw this over 10 times in the theaters in 93. This was not how it looked in it's original release. The color pallet was more natural with blues and greens throughout.

      In fact I've seen the film in theaters both on film and digital several times in the last 4 years. This "restoration" for IMAX is the only time I've seen this grade at all.

      Delete
    3. Josh MartinJune 7, 2015 at 8:53 PM

      I suppose it's up to preference at this point. Many who viewed this movie on VHS / Laserdisc were already used to the cooler purple-ish hued transfer. And I can respect those who have a problem with the latest remaster in contrast with that, even if the color grading is color corrected as intended. I for one much prefer the 2013 version. It's a dramatic difference and in my opinion, an improvement. I never thought I could enjoy a movie I already loved more by "small" adjustments that makes a big difference to the final product and overall experience.

      Delete
  4. UnknownJune 24, 2016 at 12:28 AM

    Does anyone know which discs are included with the most recent release? (The one that comes with Jurassic World? I have the Ultimate Edition blu, but if the new "Collection" set had a better transfer, I'll buy it. In short, I want the best looking set, i.e. closest to the original

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownJanuary 17, 2018 at 4:23 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. UnknownJanuary 17, 2018 at 4:23 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. UnknownJanuary 17, 2018 at 4:23 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. UnknownJanuary 17, 2018 at 4:24 PM

    The stupid orange tone has nothing to do with the restoring any original look, but rather with making it difficult for people to release a pirate copy converted to cyan-red 3D anaglyph. And avoiding the "edge enhanced blemishes" is just a way to distract you from the fact that the 3D bluray necessarily has less that half the resolution, because left and right eye images are stored in the same frame.

    That's all. No mistery, no faithful restoration of anything. The sharp look of the 2D 2011 edition is great and has nothing to do with any defective conversion or anything wrong. The color was also perfectly OK.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Josh MartinJanuary 17, 2018 at 8:41 PM

    II would agree with the above statement (or statementS) if it wasn’t director approved. And it was as intended. A lot of people seems to be over looking that part.

    That said, Orange tone or not, the superficial sharpened magneta hue-ish transfer is by all means not good in general. And it, the 2011 transfer, certainly is not “perfectly OK”. That makes me concerned for what the general public defines as a good transfer, especially for the sharpened part. There’s a way to restore films and retain that classic feel. While the 2013 Blu-Ray clearly isn’t the best of what’s to offer in that regard (DNR for example - all done for game sake of 3D conversion) it has certainly taken the right steps the 2011 Blu-Ray did not and vice versa, but leaning more on the 2013 version.

    I’m just hoping for the most definitive transfer for its 25th Anniversary. Neither the 2D or 3D Blu-Ray reaches that milestone as of yet and this occasion would make a good excuse for it. After all, they now have an untouched 4K DI in their hands they can work with thanks to the 3D conversion! (and I emphasize 4K DI, not the 3D part).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Josh MartinJanuary 17, 2018 at 8:42 PM

    ^typing on a phone - excuse typos

    ReplyDelete
  11. UnknownJanuary 17, 2018 at 11:07 PM

    It might be "director approved" but the director naturally wants to make money from this release. They have to mask the fact that the resolution is cut in half for the 3D release. That is why they destroyed the colors and applied the blur. If they had left the original texture and color, everybody would very quickly realize that the resolution is shitty as compared with the 2011 2D original. The horrible Transformers look (that is clearly a modern corruption and has nothing to do with the original theatrical colors, there was no Orange and Teal s**t yet back in 1993) is achieved by a gamma increment increase in the red channel and about half the value subtracted in the blue channel, except in the darker scenes where the values are different. You can capture a frame and undo the thing. Then the difference in image definition with the 2011 bluray is very apparent.

    It all boils down to that. The Transformers look makes many people perceive the release as fancier or something, and hides away the fact that the 3D bluray has less lines per frame than a PAL DVD!

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2018 at 2:36 AM

    Maybe the 3D release was spectacular in movie theaters, but the bluray has some flaws. First, they store the anamorphic frames stretched horizontally instead of the more natural vertical stretch that produces better overall resolution. Why? They may have scanned the movie to 4K, but the final product in blueray has 520 lines per frame. As pointed out in a comment, in Europe a DVD has 576 lines per frame, so this 3D blueray has less resolution than that... Then the spurious orange and teal filter destroys the central and most famous scene of the movie, the appearance of the tyrannosaurus, so dark that it is dificult to distinguish. Also, that scene happens in the night, where the perceived colors should be blue (Purkinje effect) and not with those orange reflections as if it were a sunset. Rexy has those orange reflections and it gives the impression there is a burning fire behing the camera. The orange filter may be bearable in other scenes, but in the scene of the tyrannosaurus it is distracting and fake.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Josh MartinJanuary 18, 2018 at 7:28 AM

    I think everyone is missing the point of what’s already been said numerous times, both in my post and the comments so far:

    I’m not praising the 3D/2013 transfer as the definitive viewing experience. I simply stated that it has done some things right that the 2D/2011 did not (and once again, vice versa). The good thing about the 3D release is that it gave them the excuse to have a 4K scan of the film, which would be a shame if Universal doesn’t go back to that as a source for remastering the film for a proper 4K release (Ultra HD Blu-Ray, 4K Digital or even a regular 1080p Blu-Ray) because the 2011 transfer is still far from ideal. ET Blu-Ray for example, also remastered in 4K, was given a proper 1080p Blu-Ray release to quality reference high definition. Even it’s recent 4K release excelled that, which was based on the same master used for its 2012 release. Jurassic Park is long overdue for that quality release and it needs to follow suit.

    I too agree the orange needs to be dialed back to some extent for certain scenes (like some night scenes as mentioned being Purple-ish and as well as the morning/afternoon skies for example, looking too orange for realism.

    Bottom line: It’s been 5 years since its last 20th Anniversary release. Universal has an opportunity and excuse to celebrate 25 years and milk the opportunity before Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom releases by remastering it properly this time with its 4K scan. Better pray they get the HDR right too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. UnknownJanuary 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete