[In progress] Jurassic Park 35mm 6.5K scan + 14 trailers

[dvdmike]

Surely the DCP has a far-field mix though, generally Rydstrom's theatrical mixes are way better than his near-field mixes.
It's possible the DCP master may get a home release but I guess Spielberg would have to sign off on it, he may well prefer the current UHD master for 'home' viewing (hence its almost slavish devotion to the blu ray master).
Mike, to which 35mm scans are you referring? I thought the only one in the wild was the TN1/Poita scan from years ago

That one and the images here

[2001CluelessDianogas]

Nope, the colour is closer to the 35mm scans we have seen but dialed back, the old dcp was the BD pink looking master.
This had grain and looks great, the audio sounds like the remix however

So strange they didn't use the apparent new master for the 30th anniversary UHD releases then.
I guess they felt they had to not do it in SDR or near SDR and didn't want to pay to extend it to stronger HDR?? I'd be more than fine if they just released the theatrical grading and forgot about trying to give lots of HDR.

[borisanddoris]

HDR is overrated. Change my mind.

A good solid SDR grade is just wonderful and easier to make look great on the vast majority of display devices. HDR can be breathtaking but so many things need to go right, especially the work by the studio.

[zoidberg]

It doesn't help that HDR is a vague term, if you mean enhanced bit-depth then yes that is good, but if it's dynamic contrast/brightness adjustment that varies wildly between manufacturer/display then less so.
If UHD was essentially DCP quality at home (give or take compression) I think that would be pretty good for most people, but that's not what it's about anymore, it's selling new panels year on year

[borisanddoris]

I always felt they botched the UHD adoption rates because they've made the whole thing so complicated for the average consumer. In late 90s, you got a BIG screen with DVD. Using component or S video would give you exceptional performance on most large screens. Easy. Sure you had differences between say a Sony or Mitsubishi or Toshiba TV but they all looked great to a point and performed in a similar manner. Then with Blu-ray, and HDTV in general, all you needed was a nice 1080p capable widescreen set...again...simple.

Today, you've got to worry about is this LED, OLED, etc. What kind of backlight does it have? Is it HDMI 1.4, 2.0, 2.1? HDCP the right generation? HDR or Dolby Vision? Refresh rate? I mean seriously, it's like they don't want to sell the product in an easily digestible way. Source of frustration: used to sell consumer electronics. I can only imagine what it's like doing that today.

[axeyou]

Allow me to respectfully entertain some counterpoints:

Today, you've got to worry about is this LED, OLED, etc.
What kind of backlight does it have?

This matters for SDR presentations as well. OLED vs LED gives noticeably better contrast even in SDR.

Even back then you have to worry about IPS, VA, Plasma, etc.

Is it HDMI 1.4, 2.0, 2.1?
Refresh rate?

I think these are driven primarily by gaming.

HDMI 2.0 is enough for UHD with HDR and that has been around since 2013(?). Furthermore, even if UHD focused on closing the gap with DCP quality (WCG, less compression, etc) instead of chasing HDR, it would still require more signal bandwidth than HDMI 1.4 supported.

120 Hz panels today are an unambiguous advancement over the old standard of 60 Hz even just for film viewing, because 24 fps content can finally be displayed without 3:2 pulldown.

HDCP the right generation?

This was driven by Hollywood's everlasting pipe dream of DRM, which of course never worked to thwart piracy.

HDR or Dolby Vision?

This and panel peak brightness are the only complications that are driven by UHD championing HDR. But I agree it's a big one. And all the dumb marketing out there only confuses the average consumer. The concept (HDR, tone mapping, what DV does) really isn't that complicated, but all the marketing treats consumers like a bunch of school kids. When you Google DV for example, all that greets you is junk written by clueless "tech journalists" who are only capable of regurgitating vague corporate marketing terms.

I always felt they botched the UHD adoption rates because they've made the whole thing so complicated for the average consumer.

My take is most average consumers genuinely don't care about the pixelated or waxy mess that's a 1080p Netflix/Amazon/... stream at single digit Mbps, at least not enough to forego the convenience of streaming platforms.

This extrapolates to the more casual 1080p Blu-ray owners. They may not see a big enough improvement to warrant the investment to upgrade. When I browse various Blu-ray subs on Reddit, most people seem to still watch on a 55" TV sitting at something like 15 ft away (complete with a soundbar). Of course they can't see any difference.

[borisanddoris]

I will give Dolby credit for at least having a standard. HDR10 is nothing more than the Wild West. Of course, I've seen plenty of panels that claim Dolby Vision but can't get anywhere near reproducing it correctly. And that's the problem I have with all this Hight Dynamic Range stuff...the vast majority of panels just can't do it justice unless you spend big bucks. I really wish we'd have just seen DCI-P3 chosen as a standard to shoot for so the pipeline from shooting to editing to exhibition was the same in the cinema as it is at home. I can't think of a reason they couldn't have done that other than people without true knowledge making the decision.

I think in the end I just wish there was an actual standard that everyone followed and adhered to...it would make everything that much easier and better.

[axeyou]

Interestingly even DCI is looking into HDR in cinemas, so it's probably inevitable. (Or one could also argue consumer adoption of HDR forced DCI to adapt.)

Here's their memo: https://www.dcimovies.com/announcements/...1-0701.pdf

Their conclusion was 300 nits in a theater environment achieved the best cost vs benefit.

[zoidberg]

Dolby Cinema HDR is only 108nits so I applaud DCI for their optimism in getting 300nits. Assuming the tech finally comes unless the rollout of new projectors/servers is heavily subsidised (as it was when digital replaced 35mm) theatres won't upgrade

[PDB]

My problem with HDR10 is that it's a half-baked standard.

HDR10, from the beginning, was missing two important things.

It should have always had a dynamic metadata layer like HDR10+ has. There was nothing technically holding them back from making a dynamic metadata layer from the beginning of the standard. If this had been done right from the start, I doubt DV would have ever been developed.

Also and I have no idea why this wasn't done, HDR10 should have always had a metadata layer for conversion to SDR. If you introduce a new way that light is displayed on TVs, it behooves you to have a clearly defined technical way to convert that back to the old standard for legacy purposes.