The HDTV got definitely the edge (pun intended)! Noticeable more details on top, right and bottom (also a bit on the left) sides, plus no DNR and EE, means that this is the way to go - blue glows *may* disappear after the regrading.

About your Sky open matte: it *seems* the Sky HD is 1.85:1, so:

• it could be possible there are two Sky versions, one 1.85:1 and another 1.78:1 (not probable)
  
• it is a WOWOW re-encode (it should contain WOWOW, though)
  
• it is another broadcast (most probable)
  

waiting for the experts thoughts on this!

(2015-05-23, 01:14 PM)spoRv Wrote: CThe HDTV got definitely the edge (pun intended)! Noticeable more details on top, right and bottom (also a bit on the left) sides, plus no DNR and EE, means that this is the way to go - blue glows *may* disappear after the regrading.
About your Sky open matte: it *seems* the Sky HD is 1.85:1, so:

• it could be possible there are two Sky versions, one 1.85:1 and another 1.78:1 (not probable)
  
• it is a WOWOW re-encode (it should contain WOWOW, though)
  
• it is another broadcast (most probable)
  

waiting for the experts thoughts on this!

spoRv, I,m sure the Sky HD is open matte 1.78:1 (one I have, not sure about Rutracker one which I am guessing is from another lesser bitrate Sky cap), not at computer to double check, the Wowow is definitely 1.85:1(OAR). I think both the Wowow and Sky HD are using the same master, but Sky's one the mattes have just been opened. Wowow's is the best due to little compression compared with Sky one though, Sky's encoder tends to remove some of the detail and grain. 

I messed up everything...

So, 2D BD is 1.85:1, WOWOW is 1.85:1, Sky HD is 1.78:1. Right?

(2015-05-23, 04:16 PM)spoRv Wrote: I messed up everything...
So, 2D BD is 1.85:1, WOWOW is 1.85:1, Sky HD is 1.78:1. Right?

Yep but as you've already mentioned 2D Bd is zoomed in, Wowow(1.85:1) and Sky(without 1.85:1 mattes) are less zoomed but here's what's confusing they both still don't show as much of negative as widescreen laserdisc did fom what I've read.

Edit: Just remembered, spoRv, I read about the laserdisc having a more open framing in your Jurassic Park laserdisc project thread even though at the time the laserdisc was accused of being zoomboxed. Makes you wonder how much extra information is on the actual negative, sure I saw somewhere a couple of cells of the negative.

WOWOW is great, but grain seems a bit too much, and it has evident block problem due to MPEG2 compression; so, thought to average it with the Sky, and here you are the result:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128370 - disregard the top and bottom "slices" for now.

(2015-05-23, 06:00 PM)spoRv Wrote: WOWOW is great, but grain seems a bit too much, and it has evident block problem due to MPEG2 compression; so, thought to average it with the Sky, and here you are the result:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128370 - disregard the top and bottom "slices" for now.

I thought the best thing about the Wowow is the fact the grain is left untouched, the way it should be and how it was in the cinema and negative, I'm a grain lover,so my vote is to leave that aspect alone. But your the project manager so you have the final say.

I like grain, too, but *it seems* WOWOW has a bit too much - again, can't be sure... maybe it's due to MPEG2, or just me thinking is too much!

At the moment, the project is not started (yet) so any feedback is welcome!

I suspect the blue glow around the "Isla Nublar" caption may have been present on the original print so I think we should not seek to remove it with grading. It does not make sense that they would add a blue glow to an HDTV master, but it makes more sense that the caption was recomposited for the BD.

As for grain. The 2DBD looks very grainy (much more so than the Sky HD version) but this is entirely due to the over-sharpening of the image. It is not a natural grain as can clearly be seen in the sky in the brachiosaur scene and others. The Sky HD grain is natural, soft and film-like. Are we certain that the wowow version has not been artificially sharpened like the BD (though perhaps not to the same extent)? Remember that harsher grain is not always better. Sometimes it is a telltale sign of sharpening.

Considering that the wowow may be sharpened and has the logos and subtitles that would have to be removed, I would say that the Sky HD version would probably be the best and most workable source for a preservation.

X5gb, did you say you have a Sky HD capture that is a higher bitrate than the 10Gb rutracker version? If so, is it also missing the Universal logo at the beginning?

Trust me, the Wowow is not sharpened like the Bluray, it's natural grain, The Sky HD is slightly filtered due to their encoder and compression as is all their films compared to Wowow captures.

I solved a mystery!!! The Russian version (at least, the one I grabbed, which video size is 9.65 GiB) is NOT a re-encoded SKY... it should be a re-encode for sure, according to what I read on Mediainfo, BUT... it's from Canal+ Film HD!!!
Don't know why there is no logo (unless there is one that periodically appears, but don't think this is the case), but do you know how I discovered it? Well, the very last frame is grey with the logo, but you can't spot it in a normal player... I loaded the file with VirtualDub via AviSynth... Jerry, please check your version and post here if it has the same frame!
So, at the end, we have:


Here you are some comparisons - waiting for your thoughts...
WOWOW Vs Canal+: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128459
WOWOW Vs SKY: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128460
Canal+ Vs SKY: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128461