Richard Penna 3,770 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Having seen John Carter in 3D, I'm suddenly very uninterested in seeing conversions.It would be awesome to see this remastered on the big screen, but in fake 3D? No thanks.I'd watch 10 minutes of it, just for fun and to see how well they handle the conversion, but that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,379 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Apparently Titanic looks stunning, but they spent about $22m on that and took a year to convert it.Though Spielberg's got just as technical an eye for detail as Cameron does; I think if he supervised the conversion, it could look amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scallenger 487 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 As excited as I am to see JP in theaters again, I'm not very excited about the 3D aspect, Spielberg involvement or not. Spielberg was involved with Tintin's 3D, right? I didn't think that film had very good 3D, honestly. It wasn't horrible, but for a 3D CGI film, I thought it was a missed opportunity in that department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The only moment in a film where I felt the 3D was worth something was the short scene in free fall at the beginning of Avatar.Usually after five minutes I forget I'm seeing something in 3D and it looks 2D anyway, IF the film is good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scallenger 487 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I was just thinking... many people (including me in a way) were a bit put-off by the video transfer of Jurassic Park when it was released last year. While it wasn't DNR'd all to hell, it was obviously NOT transferred from any real negative or even properly (it was cropped, on all 4 sides, slightly). It also had a bit too much grain, honestly, to the point of being distracting. Like there are many scenes where it looks like it is just snowing grain. I'm wondering, because of this, aren't they pretty much FORCED to do another remastering of the first film in order for the 3D to even work or look halfway decent? I mean, they can't make it work well with all that grain flying around. Do you all think this will happen? And will they re-release this new remastered version when they do? I hope they actually go after the negative like they did for Jaws this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,647 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I was just thinking... many people (including me in a way) were a bit put-off by the video transfer of Jurassic Park when it was released last year. While it wasn't DNR'd all to hell, it was obviously NOT transferred from any real negative or even properly (it was cropped, on all 4 sides, slightly). It also had a bit too much grain, honestly, to the point of being distracting. Like there are many scenes where it looks like it is just snowing grain. I'm wondering, because of this, aren't they pretty much FORCED to do another remastering of the first film in order for the 3D to even work or look halfway decent? I mean, they can't make it work well with all that grain flying around. Do you all think this will happen? And will they re-release this new remastered version when they do? I hope they actually go after the negative like they did for Jaws this time.I am clueless about such technical things, but I have the JURASSIC PARK trilogy DVD set released a few years ago, and the films looks fine to my eyes. Then again, my TV is crappy, so probably not the best way to check the quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 456 Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 Licensing Expo photo of new 3D poster:http://www.comingsoon.net/imageGallery/Licensing_Expo_2012/Licensing_Expo_2012_15.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The expression on the Twinkie with glasses says it all...why must this exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I was just thinking... many people (including me in a way) were a bit put-off by the video transfer of Jurassic Park when it was released last year. While it wasn't DNR'd all to hell, it was obviously NOT transferred from any real negative or even properly (it was cropped, on all 4 sides, slightly). It also had a bit too much grain, honestly, to the point of being distracting. Like there are many scenes where it looks like it is just snowing grain. I'm wondering, because of this, aren't they pretty much FORCED to do another remastering of the first film in order for the 3D to even work or look halfway decent? I mean, they can't make it work well with all that grain flying around. Do you all think this will happen? And will they re-release this new remastered version when they do? I hope they actually go after the negative like they did for Jaws this time.Maybe the grain is there on purpose, so the dinos don't look to fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Maybe the film is just grainy. Like Empire of the Sun.But they cropped it? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,507 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Glad I didn't buy the blu ray set yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Why would Spielberg want to crop his own film? This is madness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,807 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 i hope this brings complete scores to the table....if not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy 55 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Well said, I don't want another reissue like TPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The JP blu set is fantastic, worth it for the sound alone. Plus it's only $23 on Amazon, click for review and link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,507 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I'm sure it sounds great and TLW and JP3 PQ are fine, but after reading all the negative comments about the JP1 PQ, I'll wait for the re-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I recall no issues with the picture quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,507 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I recall no issues with the picture quality.http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21495&st=40#entry801424 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Are you claiming another man's opinion as my own? For those prone to pre-judging releases, Jurassic Park Ultimate Trilogy will have two strikes against it going in: first off, it's a Universal catalog titles, and those have long been the bane of high definition aficionados, and second of all it's encoded via the VC-1 codec, which for some reason is the Rodney Dangerfield of video compression techniques. All three films are presented in their original 1.85:1 aspect ratio in 1080p. Let's dispense with the usual furor over Universal catalog releases, and that is the perceived overuse of digital noise reduction. I'm the first person to admit that DNR, at least when applied judiciously, does not bother me in the slightest, though it evidently drives other videophiles to froth-mouthed fury. The good news is if—and that's a big if—DNR has been applied to any of these three releases, it has been done so extremely judiciously, and I doubt very many people are going to complain about an overly smooth and waxy texture to any of these films. (It should be noted that at least sometimes when people claim a film has been slathered in DNR—as in the recent brouhaha over Breakfast at Tiffany's--the truth is they are mistaking either original filming techniques like soft focus or not completely understanding other elements endemic to the source material). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,493 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 They don't look particularly great. Jurassic Park has the weirdest fuzziest transfer. Was it supposed to look like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,507 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Are you claiming another man's opinion as my own?What? No. I was just saying that I've read a bunch of reports of bad picture quality on the first film, so I won't be buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Maybe the film is just grainy. Like Empire of the Sun.But they cropped it? What?I'm playing the Blu Ray in 1080p on my PS3 now and if I use the "just scan" option on my TV, I have a 1/2 half inch black bar on top and bottomMaybe it just means wasn't filmed exactly 16:9?The grain is pretty obvious though, but I get the impression that it looked the same in the cinemaI'm watching to the "sighting of the dinos" scene nowI stand by my comments that the music is mixed too low and of inconsistent volume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I think the grain fits this film. I know that grain was originally an undesirable artifact but sometimes I like it and to me it's just another possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 My theory is that there might be extra grain be to cover up the bad CGI textures of that eraNow I clearly remember the first Bracho sighting to very grainy in theater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Now that would be a very bad choice. I want the original Jurassic Park, no extra grain, no crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Grain is just a natural byproduct of film. A necessary amount is needed to give detail and quality to the image, but too much and it becomes intrusive. I've never heard of anyone adding extra grain to cover up CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TownerFan 4,991 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Maybe the film is just grainy. Like Empire of the Sun.But they cropped it? What?I'm playing the Blu Ray in 1080p on my PS3 now and if I use the "just scan" option on my TV, I have a 1/2 half inch black bar on top and bottomMaybe it just means wasn't filmed exactly 16:9?The film was shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio, hence if you toggle the Underscan option on your monitor you'll see slim black bars on top and bottom.I still don't have the JP Blu-ray, so I can't compare if the picture was indeed cropped or not in comparison to the DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,807 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The JP films (and most Spielberg films, i think) are not 16:9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,379 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The grain will need to be scrubbed clean off the film print to convert to 3D anyway. You can't do a conversion with a layer of film grain, it creates weird distortion effects.God I hope they do a proper 4K remaster and do this right. Get Lowry to remaster the whole film from scratch, and get those 3D people who did Titanic (and all future Star Wars films) to do the conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,807 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The grain will need to be scrubbed clean off the film print to convert to 3D anyway. You can't do a conversion with a layer of film grain, it creates weird distortion effects.God I hope they do a proper 4K remaster and do this right. Get Lowry to remaster the whole film from scratch, and get those 3D people who did Titanic (and all future Star Wars films) to do the conversion.I hadnt read that the SW films were changing 3d conversion company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 456 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 God I hope they do a proper 4K remaster and do this right. Get Lowry to remaster the whole film from scratch, and get those 3D people who did Titanic (and all future Star Wars films) to do the conversion.Huh, if Lucasfilm ever gets around to it. If it made twice more than the pathetic $43M domestic number, or closer to TLK's $94M re-release -- Fox and Lucasfilm would've already scheduled an early 2013 date for Attack of the Clones.But Stereo D is a good conversion company. Their work on the Marvel films have been mixed, but Titanic looked stunning in 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I avoided seeing TPM in 3D because I want this 3D enterprise to fail. Even if that means we won't see Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi in 3D, that's ok with me. ShowUStheHOOK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scallenger 487 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 While I lack the proper screenshots that were once on Bluray.com in the forums (the links now broken), the BluRay is indeed slightly cropped on all 4 sides. It's pretty slight, mind you, but it definitely is. The comparison was to the DVD release and also the (what some called "superior") HDTV broadcast, that had been recorded. In some cases the HDTV broadcast also had less grain and clearer detail, in addition to seeing slightly more image on all 4 sides. It's almost as if whatever print they ended up using was somehow slightly zoomed in or just not framed right.For most people, however, the cropping is so minor you probably wouldn't have ever noticed unless you had side by side comparisons. But still, just knowing there is a little less image irks me, because this is my personal favorite film we're talking about. I'm still really hoping they do further image remastering from a better print for the 3D version and the eventual BluRay re-release of the first film when it includes the 3D version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I'd love to see this in cinema, I never did back in 1993. I hope there will be promotion, merchandise and everything just like then :-)I do hope they will improve some dated scenes eg the control room, it needs flatscreens etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,507 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 What? The movie takes place in the year it came out, 1993. Why would they change the monitors to ones that weren't invented yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 This is the guy who thinks Herrmann will be forgotten in 50 years, what'd you expect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 What? The movie takes place in the year it came out, 1993. Why would they change the monitors to ones that weren't invented yet?To make it more timeless? Btw is was quite clear those flatscreens were going to happen, besides it would suit the supposed advanced technology of InGen, it's science fiction after all. Those awful screens look really painfully outdated in the movie context. I generally hate it to see dated technology in movies. Other comparable movies from the 90-ies eg ID4 still do not look dated, so I don't know why they deliberately choose a 90-ies approach in the production design of JP. George Lucas retouched entire character appearances in SW, a few screens in JP wouldn't be too much trouble.Of course I am not talking about replacing actors, or dino CGI, which still looks amazingly real even today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,507 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Delorean90 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Just like to make one consider things...draw your own conclusions :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodMusician 56 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 To respond to scallenger, I like the TV HD rip. It's not "better quality" than the Blu ray, but it's a bigger image, more of the picture, and less grain than the blu ray. You can tell they don't have the original masters. Just copies because there is so much of that dark snow from data loss in all the images. If you watch the extended cuts of the Harry Potter films on blu ray, all the newly included scenes have that too becuase they're slightly less quality like an upconversion. I just hope this doesn't hamper the 3D...also...I wonder if they'll make the Potter Plant/ Stage Light blend in with thebackground or will they make those pop a little with the 3D :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Btw will they make mr. DNA in 3D also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,379 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Just to put in the good news that Stereo D are handling Jurassic's 3D conversion. They did Titanic, so, woo hoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,095 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Btw will they make mr. DNA in 3D also?I should hope not. That cartoon presentation is just that - a cartoon presentation on a 2D screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scallenger 487 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Just to put in the good news that Stereo D are handling Jurassic's 3D conversion. They did Titanic, so, woo hoo!Any news article source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,379 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Some investigstive sleuthing on Google didn't take me long https://groups.googl...ist/LkKeibYtOm8[1-25]Just a shout out to Ben Houston, Thiago Costa and their great plugins... We used them on Titanic, Avengers, and most recently on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (and Jurassic Park) to create smoke, and dust etc for hundreds of shots in these features.Graham D Clark, Head of Stereography, Deluxe 3D dba Stereo DAnd also this guy's resume:http://www.rozefx.com/resume.html Work History 2012 Stereo D -Compositor ; Stereo Compositor "Marvel: The Avengers" Feature Film "Katy Perry; Part of Me" Feature Film "Red Bull" Commercial "James Camerons; Abyss" Documentary "Jurassic Park" Feature FilmAnd also the LinkedIn profile here:http://www.linkedin....ofile_name_linkAndrew Eick Production Coordinator at Stereo D, leading 2D-3D conversion house; Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, Titanic in 3D, Jurassic ParkNo word on whether the film got a modern 4K restoration though, or if they cheaped out and post-converted the horrid 10 year old DVD masters used for the BluRay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 456 Posted August 15, 2012 Author Share Posted August 15, 2012 Even better news: Universal bumped it up from July 19th to April 5th.http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jurassicpark3d.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,770 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 It's good that they're taking their time over it, but most conversions I've seen just sucked.The Titanic clips I saw did look good though - the depth was there, which is the key thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 456 Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 The Titanic clips I saw did look good though - the depth was there, which is the key thing.The whole movie looked really good. It wasn't just the depth, but the last part of the movie really lent itself to the 3D experience. It was quite something.Jurassic Park has a few scenes that will good in 3D, but I don't know if it will look as good as Titanic did. Cameron and the two 3D companies (Stereo D and Venture3D) spent two years and $18M... Universal will have spent the same amount of money but half the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now