Indiana Jones gets a "restoration"?

I question the accuracy of this article's complaints. It reads to me like the author is comparing the new 4K versions to poorer video transfers from the past, but not to the original theatrical release quality. I saw all of these films as first run cinema releases with top notch projection. They were sharp, contrasty and vibrant in color. That is the standard for comparison, not to an HD transfer from a decade or more ago. The author is viewing history through a selective filter.
 
https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/93495/indianajones4moviecollection4kultrahdbluray.html
https://thedigitalbits.com/item/indiana-jones-collection-2021-4k-uhd
Either one of these reviewers is to be trusted more than the one you linked to; each has more than just a couple paragraphs of vague, unclear writing; both go into great detail, demonstrating an understanding not only of the series but also its visual language; and they go into great detail describing how the remastered versions are superior. The screenrant rant is just that: it is an outlier. The writer's opinion is not the consensus of filmlovers, far from it.
 
Maybe the author just liked the Indy movies better in a softer version. There were sometimes nice things about watching VHS...

I remember being impressed by the beautiful look at the opening of Mandingo (a horrible movie) when I watched it on Netflix. But then the credits sequence ended and the clarity and contrast shot up. The credits had probably been done with an optical printing process that reduced the detail and contrast of the underlying footage... The rest of the movie looked quite normie, though that was not one of its major problems

I remember someone telling me that the degraded quality of the old Nosferatu transfer they had seen contributed to its vibe of discovering a lost movie from the crypt, and thereby contributed to the authenticity of the tale
 
ahalpert said:
Maybe the author just liked the Indy movies better in a softer version. There were sometimes nice things about watching VHS...

I remember being impressed by the beautiful look at the opening of Mandingo (a horrible movie) when I watched it on Netflix. But then the credits sequence ended and the clarity and contrast shot up. The credits had probably been done with an optical printing process that reduced the detail and contrast of the underlying footage... The rest of the movie looked quite normie, though that was not one of its major problems

I remember someone telling me that the degraded quality of the old Nosferatu transfer they had seen contributed to its vibe of discovering a lost movie from the crypt, and thereby contributed to the authenticity of the tale
Click to expand...

OK then, have fun watching 2001: A Space Odyssey in PixelVision.
 
The remastered version of Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) caused a sensation everywhere it was screened. I used to attend film festivals in Korea and the same reaction greeted the stunning restoration of The Housemaid (1960). The originals of both masterpieces were miserable. Same goes for the Criterion remasters of Fritz Lang's brilliant Dr. Mabuse trilogy and just about everything else they touched. There is little to celebrate about the shameful way films have been neglected and allowed to deteriorate and it can cost 100s of thousands or even millions to restore those films.
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
OK then, have fun watching 2001: A Space Odyssey in PixelVision.
Click to expand...

jonpais said:
The remastered version of Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) caused a sensation everywhere it was screened. I used to attend film festivals in Korea and the same reaction greeted the stunning restoration of The Housemaid (1960). The originals of both masterpieces were miserable. Same goes for the Criterion remasters of Fritz Lang's brilliant Dr. Mabuse trilogy and just about everything else they touched. There is little to celebrate about the shameful way films have been neglected and allowed to deteriorate and it can cost 100s of thousands or even millions to restore those films.
Click to expand...

The only point is that SOMETIMES there is something special added by lo-fi presentation. And there can be a variety of different effects generated by different viewing circumstances. Maybe you're watching it at a drive-in, hearing the sound over your car radio, and the projection is far from perfect. But it might be a more memorable experience than seeing it under "superior" conditions.

As long as the screenrant author is giving his honest impression, then I think his opinion is legitimate even if it's not objective. (But it does seem luddite to me to say that NO films should be given 4K restoration...)
 
ahalpert said:
The only point is that SOMETIMES there is something special added by lo-fi presentation. And there can be a variety of different effects generated by different viewing circumstances. Maybe you're watching it at a drive-in, hearing the sound over your car radio, and the projection is far from perfect. But it might be a more memorable experience than seeing it under "superior" conditions.

As long as the screenrant author is giving his honest impression, then I think his opinion is legitimate even if it's not objective. (But it does seem luddite to me to say that NO films should be given 4K restoration...)
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article? The author is not a man.
 
jonpais said:
Did you even read the article? The author is not a man.
Click to expand...

I speed-read it. It's pretty easy to get the idea even without looking at the byline.

Looking more closely, this line is interesting: 'Walter Donovan's face as he first begins to rapidly age looks like makeup rather than the pale and sagging skin of a dying man."

Sounds a little like one of HER issues is that the effects and production don't actually withstand the scrutiny of higher resolution
 
movies are cheap entertainment. Why is everyone so snooty? It's like analyzing Pepsi vs Coke or how good the popcorn was.
 
ahalpert said:
I speed-read it. It's pretty easy to get the idea even without looking at the byline.

Looking more closely, this line is interesting: 'Walter Donovan's face as he first begins to rapidly age looks like makeup rather than the pale and sagging skin of a dying man."

Sounds a little like one of HER issues is that the effects and production don't actually withstand the scrutiny of higher resolution
Click to expand...
Not all opinions are equally worthwhile. I'll take those of either one of the authors I cited over the poorly written screen rant jab any day of the week.
Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits sees more and through his excellent analysis, his readers are also able to see and understand more as well.

"Raiders was shot on 35 mm photochemical film using Panavision Panaflex-X cameras with Panavision anamorphic lenses (with some VFX work done in VistaVision format) and it was finished on film at the 2.39:1 aspect ratio for its wide theatrical release. For this new Ultra HD, the original camera negative and master interpositive elements were scanned in native 4K to create a new 4K Digital Intermediate, complete with grading for high dynamic range (both HDR10 and Dolby Vision options are included on this disc). The remastering work was approved by director Steven Spielberg. The result is a marvel, with a significant increase in resolution and fine detail. Skin, stone, and fabrics all show more refinement than ever. Some shots exhibit the usual anamorphic softness around the edges of the frame, and of course the film’s optically-printed opening titles and transitions are a generation down from the negative, so they look a little softer. A bit of DNR may also have been applied here and there to keep the grain under control in those situations. However, that grain is still visible at all times, and it remains organic everywhere. The HDR has deepened the blacks, while allowing for more shadow detail—even given the use of on-set atmospherics, the blacks are just much better here than on the previous Blu-ray release, where they looked a bit gray on occasion. Highlights are bolder—daytime desert skies, for example, and lightning flashes—and the brightest moments are just at the point of eye-reactivity. The Ark of the Covenant has a gleaming luster now that’s more brilliant. And the colors! Gone is the pale green tint that plagued the previous Blu-rays. Colors are richly saturated and accurate, exhibiting a more natural variety and nuance. What’s more, there’s been some effort to recomposite key VFX shots digitally to remove or de-emphasize matte lines. All of the elements within these shots—models, live action plates, matte paintings—now look more unified. But it doesn’t appear that there’s been any untoward, Star Wars-style revisionism. This film simply looks its best now, and better than it’s ever looked before at home by a wide margin. Diehard fans should be pleased."

"Raiders of the Lost Ark, with a marked improvement in resolution and fine detailing, once again visible in skin, stone, and fabric textures. There’s a bit of characteristic anamorphic softness around the edges of the frame in some shots, and optically printed titles and transitions are a little softer looking, but footage scanned from the OCN exhibits a clarity never seen before at home. Grain is light-moderate and organic. The HDR grade is sublime, with inky blacks, bright highlights, and more detail than ever in both. The glittering sequined black and silver dresses in the opening dance number have a boldly luminous sparkle. Colors are rich, natural, and beautifully saturated—just look at the skin tones in Club Obi-wan, Willie’s red and gold dress, the blonde color of the teak wood flooring, the metallic silver fixtures. Beetle abdomens, monkey brains, and eyeball soup have seldom looked less appetizing than they do in 4K UHD with HDR."
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
movies are cheap entertainment. Why is everyone so snooty? It's like analyzing Pepsi vs Coke or how good the popcorn was.
Click to expand...

I know, right? Why even discuss films that cost over USD $250 million and an industry whose global box office and home entertainment revenue is valued at USD $150bn?
Truffaut, Godard, Fritz Lang, Orson Welles - they are all hacks who belong to obscurity!
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
Not all opinions are equally worthwhile. I'll take those of either one of the authors I cited over the poorly written screen rant jab any day of the week.
Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits sees more and through his excellent analysis, his readers are also able to see and understand more as well.

"Raiders was shot on 35 mm photochemical film using Panavision Panaflex-X cameras with Panavision anamorphic lenses (with some VFX work done in VistaVision format) and it was finished on film at the 2.39:1 aspect ratio for its wide theatrical release. For this new Ultra HD, the original camera negative and master interpositive elements were scanned in native 4K to create a new 4K Digital Intermediate, complete with grading for high dynamic range (both HDR10 and Dolby Vision options are included on this disc). The remastering work was approved by director Steven Spielberg. The result is a marvel, with a significant increase in resolution and fine detail. Skin, stone, and fabrics all show more refinement than ever. Some shots exhibit the usual anamorphic softness around the edges of the frame, and of course the film’s optically-printed opening titles and transitions are a generation down from the negative, so they look a little softer. A bit of DNR may also have been applied here and there to keep the grain under control in those situations. However, that grain is still visible at all times, and it remains organic everywhere. The HDR has deepened the blacks, while allowing for more shadow detail—even given the use of on-set atmospherics, the blacks are just much better here than on the previous Blu-ray release, where they looked a bit gray on occasion. Highlights are bolder—daytime desert skies, for example, and lightning flashes—and the brightest moments are just at the point of eye-reactivity. The Ark of the Covenant has a gleaming luster now that’s more brilliant. And the colors! Gone is the pale green tint that plagued the previous Blu-rays. Colors are richly saturated and accurate, exhibiting a more natural variety and nuance. What’s more, there’s been some effort to recomposite key VFX shots digitally to remove or de-emphasize matte lines. All of the elements within these shots—models, live action plates, matte paintings—now look more unified. But it doesn’t appear that there’s been any untoward, Star Wars-style revisionism. This film simply looks its best now, and better than it’s ever looked before at home by a wide margin. Diehard fans should be pleased."

"Raiders of the Lost Ark, with a marked improvement in resolution and fine detailing, once again visible in skin, stone, and fabric textures. There’s a bit of characteristic anamorphic softness around the edges of the frame in some shots, and optically printed titles and transitions are a little softer looking, but footage scanned from the OCN exhibits a clarity never seen before at home. Grain is light-moderate and organic. The HDR grade is sublime, with inky blacks, bright highlights, and more detail than ever in both. The glittering sequined black and silver dresses in the opening dance number have a boldly luminous sparkle. Colors are rich, natural, and beautifully saturated—just look at the skin tones in Club Obi-wan, Willie’s red and gold dress, the blonde color of the teak wood flooring, the metallic silver fixtures. Beetle abdomens, monkey brains, and eyeball soup have seldom looked less appetizing than they do in 4K UHD with HDR."
Click to expand...

The problem is that one can miss the forest for the trees if one analyzes technical details too closely. Sort of like how Peter Jackson shot the Hobbit in 48fps and everybody thought it looked like ****. He had his technical reasons. But technical reasons don't always amount to greater emotional impact.

I haven't seen the new restoration, let alone done a side-by-side viewing to compare it with previous blu-ray, DVD, VHS releases. Only if I did that could I tell you which experience I enjoyed better.

The screenrant article spent more time talking about how they FELT watching the movie, and also expressed displeasure at some of the color corrections that the other two articles you cite approved of. Would they have had such a problem if they had first seen the restoration rather than the worse-quality transfers? Maybe, maybe not.

And as for Spielberg approving the restoration process, it's really neither here nor there. As a viewer, all I care about is what I enjoy more.

PS Please stop downvoting me
 
Not sure what you're talking about. I never downvoted you in any of these threads. I can't even downvote anyone since I've already been inundated with downvotes! HAHAHA
 
really, i think it's a personality thing. some people are attracted to "maximum" quality and some are more interested in overall gestalt/effect
 
No, that's not it at all. The difference is the huge gulf that separates the writers in culture, understanding, education and taste.
 
jonpais said:
No, that's not it at all. The difference is the vast gulf that separates the writers in culture, understanding, education and taste.
Click to expand...

you're saying that the screenrant writer is less cultured and educated?

I think it's like with lenses. one person prefers lens A because it's the sharpest. a different person prefers lens B because they think it's the most beautiful (at least in a SPECIFIC circumstance, which is what we're talking about here - a specific movie)
 
I’ve been enjoying a rewatch in 4:3 of a series from tv that I watched in 1973 and 1974. While binge watching, I’ve notices tube camera lens flares, VT alignment issues, camera talkback audible when a camera was near a live mic. Not a radio mic in the studio, and it matches my memory perfectly, if not better, now I appreciate how it was produced. If they somehow recreated it as HD 16:9 if it suddenly stopped matching my memory, it would be for me a failure. If a first time viewer enjoyed it on its own merits, and liked it, then that’s a different thing. Spielberg approval is important. True 4K is going to reveal lots that will be negative. Revealing shadow detail might be destructive, and makeup will be a killer. Revealing some things will not be a positive for the movie, and if new audiences watch it differently, and like it less as a result, it was a bad idea.I’m not certain that some products gain anything. The original Star Trek did, I feel, when they replaced the optical effects that were less good than the live action. It worked better. The fixation we now have with colour tweaking concerns me though. If Spielberg is happy with the changes, I have to follow, it’s his movie, but if things get changed just because some spotty just out of college youth is put in charge of grading, that’s different. As an oldie, I get really angry when youth decide my history is wrong, and fix it. I’ve been a fan of very few US TV programmes. We get lots and most don’t work for me, but two did, and I’ve followed them for a very long time. I’m now thinking of giving up. The technicals progressed brilliantly. The look of the current series on my tv is really good, but the content and style is too modern. The storylines don’t resonate any more and maybe this is the problem with restoring historic movies. The younger people, new to them, don’t understand they are what they are and instead of fixing impossible faults from the original material, they try to ‘improve’ on them, and that is very different.
 
jonpais said:
No, that's not it at all. The difference is the huge gulf that separates the writers in culture, understanding, education and taste.
Click to expand...

the thing is, I don't think there's a contradiction between any of the viewpoints we've discussed:

1. jonpais thinks that the Digital Bits article is much more informative and technically savvy

2. Bill Hunt of the Digital Bits thinks that the 4K restoration looks more like a high-quality release print of the film (or better, if they've improved the SFX) than any previous consumer edition

3. screenrant author prefers the lo-fi versions she's used to both because she finds them more charming and because of nostalgia - both nostalgia for that look that she was used to and the nostalgia of feeling like the movies themselves were somewhat dated to begin with. not everyone was alive when Indy came out. I was 5 months old at time of Last Crusade release. Looks like screenrant author is a couple years younger than I am. I first saw those movies on VHS. it impacts one's perceptions of what the movies are and should be. it looks like screenrant author had a graduate thesis on "Frankenstein adaptations and their relationship with popular culture." She probably has more formal education than Bill Hunt, just not about gamma curves and black levels. And that's probably the lens through which she views Indy releases - different "adaptations" with different qualities/characteristics rather than approximations of an original that are judged by how closely they match it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top