2025-06-03, 09:57 AM
Fanrestore - Fan Restoration Forum
›
Complete projects
›
In progress
[In progress] Jurassic Park 35mm 6.5K scan + 14 trailers
[In progress] Jurassic Park 35mm 6.5K scan + 14 trailers
|
[In progress] Jurassic Park 35mm 6.5K scan + 14 trailers
|
Posts: 7
Threads: 1 Joined: 2020 Dec Thanks: 26
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s) Country: 
Posts: 623
Threads: 22 Joined: 2015 Mar Thanks: 142
Given 55 thank(s) in 50 post(s) Country: 
2025-06-15, 02:19 PM
Now that the remastered UHD didn't turn out quite good, as it should be, this scan is our only hope!
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 30 Joined: 2017 Aug Thanks: 154
Given 484 thank(s) in 310 post(s) Country: 
2025-06-15, 04:31 PM
(2025-06-15, 02:19 PM)titanic Wrote: Now that the remastered UHD didn't turn out quite good, as it should be, this scan is our only hope! Yeah, except it's not a remaster, that's the problem. It's a "tweaked-master". They apparently just applied less DNR for a little bit of extra detail and modified the grading a bit with a Dolby Vision layer on top of the exact same master they used previously. And audiowise, they probably just transcoded the same object-based remix from dts:X to Dolby Atmos and called it a day. That level of laziness is infuriating. We'll never get it right from Universal, unless they do it again from scratch in 2033 or 2043 for the 40th or 50th anniversary. 
Posts: 2,636
Threads: 47 Joined: 2015 Apr Thanks: 2100
Given 477 thank(s) in 391 post(s) Country: 
2025-06-15, 06:41 PM
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 30 Joined: 2017 Aug Thanks: 154
Given 484 thank(s) in 310 post(s) Country:
(2025-06-15, 06:41 PM)dvdmike Wrote:(2025-06-15, 02:19 PM)titanic Wrote: Now that the remastered UHD didn't turn out quite good, as it should be, this scan is our only hope! Why not? It's Spielberg and Universal. Both "Jaws" and "Duel" have been treated well. "E.T." and "Schindler", too. Heck, even "Sugarland Express" has been remastered, but with AI involved. That's what I was afraid of for "Jurassic Park": finally a proper remaster but ruined with AI. And... No, not even that. They just repurposed the same old master with some tweakings. That doesn't make any sense. This one title would sell very, very well if properly done. I read the original negative was burned in a fire at Universal lot, but so what? They still have an interpositive or internegative to work with. We don't necessarily need the definition of the original negative, the one of the interpositive would be just fine, properly restored like Nolan's remasters, with original colors. It probably would be even better not to work with the original negative definition so that the 1993 CGI blend in better with the rest. I see no reason, except laziness, for this not to happen when all other Spielberg films are given better care, and this one is a very popular one. 
2025-06-16, 10:46 AM
It was burned, really? Do you have any more info on that?
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 30 Joined: 2017 Aug Thanks: 154
Given 484 thank(s) in 310 post(s) Country:
2025-06-16, 10:51 AM
(2025-06-16, 10:46 AM)Daffy_Duck Wrote: It was burned, really? Do you have any more info on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Unive...udios_fire
2025-06-16, 02:18 PM
Hm...can't find it in the list at the bottom of the site.
Posts: 1,427
Threads: 30 Joined: 2017 Aug Thanks: 154
Given 484 thank(s) in 310 post(s) Country:
(2025-06-16, 02:18 PM)Daffy_Duck Wrote: Hm...can't find it in the list at the bottom of the site. Me neither. I don't remember where I read it, or maybe it was just an assumption somebody made because of that infamous fire, but you wanted more info on said fire, so there, you got some. Anyway, the point is whether or not they have the o-neg, they at least have the next best thing to work on a proper restoration and they still haven't. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)