Film is very interesting. Unlike digital filming film reel can be scanned in any resolution you want no matter when it was filmed so it’s future proof in that sense
Whoever said Digital picture will outdo film picture is an absolute idiot who has not done his or her homework. Clearly, they have no idea how to futureproof beautiful footage for generations, or even centuries, to come. Digital picture can be easily wiped from some form of a digital cloud at any time by some Cancel Culture jerk who destroys history.
@@VennyRestore That won't make it sharper though. In the real world, 35mm film maxes out at about 3 to 4K and that's only the negative. A real-world print in a cinema is about the equivalent of 1080p digital resolution and that in fact precisely where the 1080-line standard came from.
@@notsorandumusername Actually no for the most part 35mm film us said to max out at 5K, but even then it's very opinionated since film is analog so it's not tied to one specific resolution. Also no. Film prints aren't maxed out at 1080p that is just silly. Film prints have less detail than a inner negative or original negative, but that doesn't mean scanning at 4K or higher is somehow worthless. Please do some fact checking
@@elijahvincent985 Actually a lot of movies shot digitally are put on film masters for preservation. Not sure about a lot of movies now, but I know a lot of remasters are put back onto 35mm film masters for further preservation. One example being Jaws when that had a 4K remaster.
The reason the dinosaurs look so much better in these original formats is because they were rendered specifically to blend into the resolutions available at the time. Since then, they have remastered these old movies into ultra high def formats with sharper resolution and different contrasts. This works great for the real-life parts of this movie that were filmed in analog, but they can't change the base CGI renderings themselves. You can't add pixels to the image or change the textures, not without completely re-rendering the dinosaurs from scratch. This is why they stick out like a sore thumb in the modern high def remasters. It's especially noticeable with the Brachiosaurus as well as the "Raptors in the kitchen" scene. This movie was mind blowing in theatres in 1993 and would still hold up very well today as long as you were watching it in the original resolution, contrast and framerate.
@@glibfacsimile I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. You are correct, the film itself is recorded much sharper. In fact, 35mm is analog so there are no "pixels." But as an estimate depending on your ISO, a frame of 35mm could technically translate to 10 to 20 million pixels (extremely sharp). BUT: how well that image translates to a screen is limited entirely by the technology displaying that film. The projectors at the theaters in 1993 were producing displays that were nowhere close to the ones we see today. So the image quality physically on the screen in 1993 was much less than what the 35mm film itself is actually capable of producing. The dinosaurs were obviously not able to be filmed in 35mm because they went extinct. So they had to create them digitally instead and blend those images into the film. And because the CGI renderings ARE digital and ARE created with pixels, they were generated at a resolution that was on par with the image quality that most displays were producing at the time. So you ended up with a slightly blurry Brachiosaurus blending perfectly into a slightly blurry theater screen. However, years later, technology has advanced to the point where we can display that 35mm footage much much sharper than they could in the early 90's. But the digital elements of the film were only created with so many pixels, and they can't be upscaled. It's like playing a N64 on a 4k screen. It doesn't make the graphics look any better because there are only so many pixels making up the image to start with. So you end up in this weird place where the analog parts of the film can now be displayed with unreal sharpness. But the digital elements can't be upscaled to match that. Not without completely re-rendering them. That's why the dinosaurs no longer blend in well in the high def versions of the film.
Not only that, but the cgi itself i think works well because its not ultra high detail cgi the cgi is good enough to be bearable and not barely too perfect to the point where it gets the uncanny realism. But never looks 100% real. Or what i heard to be called the "Weta Effect"
Yeah I was really bothered by the kitchen scene as well. I watched the movie for the first time on a Sony Trinitron through a VHS and the dinosaurs honestly looked better.
Oh god damn, the mood. With the imperfections, blurriness and everything. The mood. Although I have encountered new movies that went for a more natural style and did good, digital can't achieve this.
Absolutely, digital is too "perfect." To get shots like this done. With Analog and old school cinematography you can make scenes with exactly this kind of warmth. Perfection in imperfection.
God I love this film so much, it's done so well, this is one of those movies that I wish I could erase my memory of it after every rewatch and watch it again for the first time. The way the camera slowly closes in on Grant's growing disbelief at 0:15 or how at 1:27 his speech about tearing up the rule book about weather dinosaurs we're warm or cold blooded is such a believable reaction and all this goes without mention of John Williams ethereal score painted over the background of it all and of course probably the most famous line in the whole movie at 2:24. This movie was pure magic, lightning in a bottle, everyone and I mean EVERYONE from the actors, the producers the post FX people and the entire crew did their job perfectly making this film.
Is it just me or does the transition from 4:3 to full work really well? Aside from being able to see the mics and all that, it transitions pretty clean and it’s not jarring whatsoever like widescreen to IMAX can be at times.
It really matters about how many times you cut from the widescreen aspect ratio to IMAX. Christopher Nolan's edits are pretty smooth for the most part since the majority of the scenes in IMAX are shot with that format
@@TravisHouze Yeah I agree, the editing absolutely matters. Great editing will remove that jarring feeling of the formats switching. All I’m saying is that this switch seems far less jarring over all, even with poor editing. Like here, it was never meant to be seen like this, but it works really well regardless. And what that tells me is there’s more potential in these switches than in widescreen to IMAX, you know what I’m saying?
I vaguely remember seeing this film in theaters. I have this one on vhs and Blu-Ray. I like the natural looking color grade on this and the old blu-ray disc. Classic film.
Completely disagree. As someone who saw this film in the theater (on opening day and several times after) the current 4K remaster is FAR closer to the original theatrical image in terms of both color, contrast, and clarity. Not to mention the gate weave on this print is atrocious and would not have passed THX specs even back in the early 90s. This looks like a daily or 2nd gen copy of the final cut at best.
The movie looked like another oldschool movie visually in theaters in 93 seeing it 4 times, remember the golden calmer 35mm atmos and darker, more contrasted night scenes, thinking back then man this looks oldschool.. which is what made the modern effects blend in and seem even more real. Clever boy, Dean Cundey!
Is there any chance you could upload this scan with the uncropped VFX shots? I'd be very interested in seeing what the full frame looks like with the missing bits of VFX on the top and bottom. This scan is GORGEOUS
They don't exist, since the movie was intended to be shown in 16:9, all the vfx shots were done in that aspect, since it was most cost effective (no reason to render extra stuff that's gonna be cut anyway).
@@LordJagd Yes! you get it. It's like youve seen something so much and know every detail of a shot- when you see that there is more to it it's something else. I love this film to death.
I managed to find the full open matte version of Jurassic Park (the full movie) which showed the full aspect of the frame which revealed shots of mics. During the scene when they are going through the gates with the jeeps and it cuts to the overhead shot of Ian Malcolm saying "what they got in there, King Kong?" you can clearly see the end of the motorised track that the jeep is supposedly moving on on the left hand side of the frame, something which I found kinda odd as I thought they would've used a more lengthy section of track as seen in the long distance shots, so it's probably likely that that shot wasn't filmed at the same time as the others, and clearly they never intended for anyone to ever see the full open matte version, though I have heard that the track end can be seen in the fullscreen VHS version. What I liked about it was the more saturated colours and reds looking more orangey, something that would've been seen at the cinema. I remember having an early pirated copy of JP that a family member did for me back in 1994, a surprisingly good recording where there was noone seen standing up or any background noise or talking at all (maybe it was dubbed), but I remember the sound when projected had the familiar projection "crackles" that you don't hear these days, and there was a visible reel cut mark at the top right corner just before Hammond gets up and says to everyone "now, they're here", which isn't seen in the open matte version, so I'm guessing this was something to do with the projection film change at the cinema it was shown at rather than the actual film itself.
@@movieforceofficial I wish I could, the file size seems to very big, even thought it's in MKV but at about 2GB but it's far more larger than that. Wish I could remember the site I found it on, I think I just typed in Jurassic Park open matte torrent or something and came across this site which had others on there like Titanic.
I saw a movie one time where they matted the theater version too low and there were visible boom mics on the screen all the time. Pretty funny when we all figured out what was going on.
With the exception of the aspect ration, this is how I remember the film from my childhood. Why do modern re-releases need to mess with the color grading?
Esto se ve mucho mejor que la versión OPEN MATE de 25.7 GB a 1080p... Pero el film tiene escenas Opacadas, que en la version Cropeada de Bluray estan mucho mejor aclaradas.
The problem with lot of these 4k scans, is that the studios prefer to scan the HD prints previously used in the blu ray release and it looks so basically, half assed. They want to rush these 4k mvoies out to the home video market and streaming services, instead of taking the time and doing it the right way. Jurassic Park is a victim of this half assed 4k scan.
Could it be that Jurassic Park was never filmed in high quality negatives to begin with? This looks like we are watching in between a 480 and a 720 quality.
I actually kind of like the cooler tone of this film scan. Probably just because it's different. So I know a lot of movies were shot in open matte and then cropped to 1.85:1, but what about movies that didn't? Like Robocop is 1.85:1 but I don't think it was open matte, does that mean it was cropped in camera while filming?
If I recall corectly there is possibility to put in the gate of the camera a cropping matte. Its placed right behind the lens, in front of film. This prevents the image to be exposed on "full open gate". There are of course diffrent aspect ratios to choose from. You can than switch the camera to pull film in such way that you wont loose the blank space but expose every frame right next to another. This results in a massive film save if you intend to have a cropped image right out of the camera. But in move of such scale there are many reasons why its better to leave the gate full open.
@@nishitsingh85 The colors are far too blue. Maybe that was offset by projector lights at the time, but looking at it here the color temperature is way too cool.
@@notsorandumusername Okay. If that was bothering me, I would turn on "eye care mode" on my screen before watching. It simulates a projection lamp of a lower color temperature
But wait, this is a scan of the print used in the projector, right? It couldn't be the camera negative because they wouldn't have the CGI baked in like that. The gamut is already going to be smushed if scanning a projection print, which I believe explains the overt "filminess" of the scan
I imagine the 16:9 stuff is how the VFX was delivered in it's final composite, so it's not in open matte outside the original plates. The other stuff is in open matte because there's no VFX in the shot, so it's just straight from the camera with no inbetween.
George Streicher Music honestly wouldn’t mind if a fan release with this film was made where the VFX scenes and shots were pan and scan while we get some amazing extra footage in a 4:3 aspect ratio for the non visual effects scenes and shots
@@GeorgeStreicherMusic Jurassic Park was an open matte film - the 35mm finished prints were also, the picture was cropped for projection in theatres. VHS copies were open matte in the 4:3 days also.
@@TravisHouze No, it's mostly open-matte with gate crop applied at the sides slightly. So, you'd see about the same width for the non-effects shots as you saw in the theatres. the effects shots, or ones were the camera hood obstructed the image at the top (to block lens flare from the sun), are pan and scan.
Also, how do the film blemishes not appear in the production copies? Were they digitally cleaned up or was the film really well preserved until release and these scans are done with it after it's sat in a crappy environment?
The 4K image, from the youtube clips I've seen, looks the same as the 2011 Blu-ray. All of those have the wrong colour timing. The original looks much warmer and brighter with proper white balance and deeper contrast. The colours are also more yellowish and greenish but look natural when projected, while the colours on the DVD, Blu-ray and the 4K look flat, dull and cold, despite it being a summer environment on a tropical island. It's not the fault of the cinematographer or original colour timer. It's the fault of those who mastered the home video versions.
CGI needs some updating otherwise looks great even today. Downloaded the 4k version and it is very good. Has some questionable areas, but otherwise very good
It should be because, in the print, the effects shots are printed with the same width as the full-frame shots, but with less height. here, the matted shots have been artificially expanded to fill the 16:9 frame, while leaving the full-frame shots in the middle, since they wouldn't be "full screen" in such a format. That blowing up makes the image look softer.
The 'uncropped' version would have been the same as the cropped version, just with black bars on the top and bottom. In those days, VFX were done at the theatrical aspect ratio. Same with Terminator 2; plenty of extra image on the top and bottom except the VFX shots.
There is just something about film.
Film is very interesting. Unlike digital filming film reel can be scanned in any resolution you want no matter when it was filmed so it’s future proof in that sense
Whoever said Digital picture will outdo film picture is an absolute idiot who has not done his or her homework. Clearly, they have no idea how to futureproof beautiful footage for generations, or even centuries, to come. Digital picture can be easily wiped from some form of a digital cloud at any time by some Cancel Culture jerk who destroys history.
@@VennyRestore That won't make it sharper though. In the real world, 35mm film maxes out at about 3 to 4K and that's only the negative. A real-world print in a cinema is about the equivalent of 1080p digital resolution and that in fact precisely where the 1080-line standard came from.
@@notsorandumusername Actually no for the most part 35mm film us said to max out at 5K, but even then it's very opinionated since film is analog so it's not tied to one specific resolution. Also no. Film prints aren't maxed out at 1080p that is just silly. Film prints have less detail than a inner negative or original negative, but that doesn't mean scanning at 4K or higher is somehow worthless. Please do some fact checking
@@elijahvincent985 Actually a lot of movies shot digitally are put on film masters for preservation. Not sure about a lot of movies now, but I know a lot of remasters are put back onto 35mm film masters for further preservation. One example being Jaws when that had a 4K remaster.
Every time I watch even the smallest clip of this film I’m instantly transformed back into my 9 year old self. Timeless.
The reason the dinosaurs look so much better in these original formats is because they were rendered specifically to blend into the resolutions available at the time. Since then, they have remastered these old movies into ultra high def formats with sharper resolution and different contrasts. This works great for the real-life parts of this movie that were filmed in analog, but they can't change the base CGI renderings themselves. You can't add pixels to the image or change the textures, not without completely re-rendering the dinosaurs from scratch. This is why they stick out like a sore thumb in the modern high def remasters. It's especially noticeable with the Brachiosaurus as well as the "Raptors in the kitchen" scene. This movie was mind blowing in theatres in 1993 and would still hold up very well today as long as you were watching it in the original resolution, contrast and framerate.
Well said, agree 100%, finally someone with actual knowledge and understanding!
@@glibfacsimile I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. You are correct, the film itself is recorded much sharper. In fact, 35mm is analog so there are no "pixels." But as an estimate depending on your ISO, a frame of 35mm could technically translate to 10 to 20 million pixels (extremely sharp). BUT: how well that image translates to a screen is limited entirely by the technology displaying that film. The projectors at the theaters in 1993 were producing displays that were nowhere close to the ones we see today. So the image quality physically on the screen in 1993 was much less than what the 35mm film itself is actually capable of producing.
The dinosaurs were obviously not able to be filmed in 35mm because they went extinct. So they had to create them digitally instead and blend those images into the film. And because the CGI renderings ARE digital and ARE created with pixels, they were generated at a resolution that was on par with the image quality that most displays were producing at the time. So you ended up with a slightly blurry Brachiosaurus blending perfectly into a slightly blurry theater screen.
However, years later, technology has advanced to the point where we can display that 35mm footage much much sharper than they could in the early 90's. But the digital elements of the film were only created with so many pixels, and they can't be upscaled. It's like playing a N64 on a 4k screen. It doesn't make the graphics look any better because there are only so many pixels making up the image to start with.
So you end up in this weird place where the analog parts of the film can now be displayed with unreal sharpness. But the digital elements can't be upscaled to match that. Not without completely re-rendering them. That's why the dinosaurs no longer blend in well in the high def versions of the film.
Well, the movie is overrated, but I agree with you on that, specially in the dark mid tones and black levels
Not only that, but the cgi itself i think works well because its not ultra high detail cgi the cgi is good enough to be bearable and not barely too perfect to the point where it gets the uncanny realism. But never looks 100% real. Or what i heard to be called the "Weta Effect"
Yeah I was really bothered by the kitchen scene as well. I watched the movie for the first time on a Sony Trinitron through a VHS and the dinosaurs honestly looked better.
Oh god damn, the mood. With the imperfections, blurriness and everything. The mood. Although I have encountered new movies that went for a more natural style and did good, digital can't achieve this.
Absolutely, digital is too "perfect." To get shots like this done. With Analog and old school cinematography you can make scenes with exactly this kind of warmth.
Perfection in imperfection.
God I love this film so much, it's done so well, this is one of those movies that I wish I could erase my memory of it after every rewatch and watch it again for the first time. The way the camera slowly closes in on Grant's growing disbelief at 0:15 or how at 1:27 his speech about tearing up the rule book about weather dinosaurs we're warm or cold blooded is such a believable reaction and all this goes without mention of John Williams ethereal score painted over the background of it all and of course probably the most famous line in the whole movie at 2:24. This movie was pure magic, lightning in a bottle, everyone and I mean EVERYONE from the actors, the producers the post FX people and the entire crew did their job perfectly making this film.
I have never been this happy in my life dang
Is it just me or does the transition from 4:3 to full work really well? Aside from being able to see the mics and all that, it transitions pretty clean and it’s not jarring whatsoever like widescreen to IMAX can be at times.
It really matters about how many times you cut from the widescreen aspect ratio to IMAX. Christopher Nolan's edits are pretty smooth for the most part since the majority of the scenes in IMAX are shot with that format
@@TravisHouze Yeah I agree, the editing absolutely matters. Great editing will remove that jarring feeling of the formats switching. All I’m saying is that this switch seems far less jarring over all, even with poor editing. Like here, it was never meant to be seen like this, but it works really well regardless. And what that tells me is there’s more potential in these switches than in widescreen to IMAX, you know what I’m saying?
The open matte kinda look like 1.19:1 or 1.16:1 to me
So I thought the mic you saw for a sec was the one of the film perforations
@ 1:24
I vaguely remember seeing this film in theaters. I have this one on vhs and Blu-Ray. I like the natural looking color grade on this and the old blu-ray disc. Classic film.
Nice, I have dune 1984 in vhs
looks like the original from 1993 !! this looks actually amazing !
the CG looks better damn O_O, i wish i could see the movie like this
It looks so much better than current version of the film we have
I disagree. This is unfinished, and while it is cool to see, it is not better than the finished film.
@@williamruiz5965 cool.
Completely disagree. As someone who saw this film in the theater (on opening day and several times after) the current 4K remaster is FAR closer to the original theatrical image in terms of both color, contrast, and clarity. Not to mention the gate weave on this print is atrocious and would not have passed THX specs even back in the early 90s. This looks like a daily or 2nd gen copy of the final cut at best.
Every year this movie amazes me one way or another
Ive seen this film MANY times, but always on VHS.
This is incredible
This is actually amazing
Where can I get a link to download this 35mm open matter scan of this gorgeous masterpiece?
I want to know this same thing
ruclips.net/video/jh3_XcLTBTg/видео.html
Go to pahe they have open matte now
@General Grievous The Galactic Hero Ahov29 is right
He actually want to know that from where we can download the open matte
Soulseek or Rutracker
The movie looked like another oldschool movie visually in theaters in 93 seeing it 4 times, remember the golden calmer 35mm atmos and darker, more contrasted night scenes, thinking back then man this looks oldschool.. which is what made the modern effects blend in and seem even more real. Clever boy, Dean Cundey!
Snyder aproves this ratio!
THIS IS THE MOVIE I REMEMBER, not the tv movie shit version you see nowadays. it does not do this masterpeice justice. look how good this looks!
Yeah, that boom mic in frame really does it justice!
This is an unfinished version of the film, the color grading hadn't even been done yet!
@@williamruiz5965 This scan is from a release print. It's by definition finished. The scan just wasn't color corrected properly.
It was nice of the dinosaur to not roar until she was looking, so the surprise wasn't ruined
Is there any chance you could upload this scan with the uncropped VFX shots? I'd be very interested in seeing what the full frame looks like with the missing bits of VFX on the top and bottom. This scan is GORGEOUS
They don't exist, since the movie was intended to be shown in 16:9, all the vfx shots were done in that aspect, since it was most cost effective (no reason to render extra stuff that's gonna be cut anyway).
I would love to see the uncropped version in IMAX.
Is the full film available like this? It’s like watching a completely different version
you can find it online for sure... Open matte 35mm versions are out there...
Whatttt. U wanna watch the movie with black bars on left and right?
It’s more about seeing the full image
@@LordJagd Yes! you get it. It's like youve seen something so much and know every detail of a shot- when you see that there is more to it it's something else. I love this film to death.
@@LordJagd finally someone understands
I managed to find the full open matte version of Jurassic Park (the full movie) which showed the full aspect of the frame which revealed shots of mics. During the scene when they are going through the gates with the jeeps and it cuts to the overhead shot of Ian Malcolm saying "what they got in there, King Kong?" you can clearly see the end of the motorised track that the jeep is supposedly moving on on the left hand side of the frame, something which I found kinda odd as I thought they would've used a more lengthy section of track as seen in the long distance shots, so it's probably likely that that shot wasn't filmed at the same time as the others, and clearly they never intended for anyone to ever see the full open matte version, though I have heard that the track end can be seen in the fullscreen VHS version. What I liked about it was the more saturated colours and reds looking more orangey, something that would've been seen at the cinema. I remember having an early pirated copy of JP that a family member did for me back in 1994, a surprisingly good recording where there was noone seen standing up or any background noise or talking at all (maybe it was dubbed), but I remember the sound when projected had the familiar projection "crackles" that you don't hear these days, and there was a visible reel cut mark at the top right corner just before Hammond gets up and says to everyone "now, they're here", which isn't seen in the open matte version, so I'm guessing this was something to do with the projection film change at the cinema it was shown at rather than the actual film itself.
Could you send me a copy? I lost mine and would love to watch it again!
@@movieforceofficial I wish I could, the file size seems to very big, even thought it's in MKV but at about 2GB but it's far more larger than that. Wish I could remember the site I found it on, I think I just typed in Jurassic Park open matte torrent or something and came across this site which had others on there like Titanic.
@@movieforceofficialyou can find it and others on soulseek
I miss the days of seeing movies on film
THEY INTERACT WITH THE TREES
I saw a movie one time where they matted the theater version too low and there were visible boom mics on the screen all the time. Pretty funny when we all figured out what was going on.
Hermoso material!!!
With the exception of the aspect ration, this is how I remember the film from my childhood. Why do modern re-releases need to mess with the color grading?
so amazing look!!! I know only 1:85 and 1.33 version ;) Great !!!
look like imax
This would look so bad ass in IMAX
Esto se ve mucho mejor que la versión OPEN MATE de 25.7 GB a 1080p... Pero el film tiene escenas Opacadas, que en la version Cropeada de Bluray estan mucho mejor aclaradas.
I cried when I watched this episode of Fantasy Island in 1978.
Cgi looks so much better than the 4k bluray
True quality ♥️🙏
1:44 the scale...
The problem with lot of these 4k scans, is that the studios prefer to scan the HD prints previously used in the blu ray release and it looks so basically, half assed.
They want to rush these 4k mvoies out to the home video market and streaming services, instead of taking the time and doing it the right way. Jurassic Park is a victim of this half assed 4k scan.
Could it be that Jurassic Park was never filmed in high quality negatives to begin with? This looks like we are watching in between a 480 and a 720 quality.
I actually kind of like the cooler tone of this film scan. Probably just because it's different.
So I know a lot of movies were shot in open matte and then cropped to 1.85:1, but what about movies that didn't? Like Robocop is 1.85:1 but I don't think it was open matte, does that mean it was cropped in camera while filming?
Robocop is open matte and the director's preferred ratio is 1.66-1. Only the Criterion laserdisc and dvd have this framing.
@@Knightmessenger Oh damn. I need to watch my old dvd again. It's too bad the recent Arrow release couldn't have added the 1.66:1 ratio.
@@Tlducken Ive seen screenshots of the Criterion dvd, and it has very bad compression.
I have the CAV laserdisc and it looks as good as a dvd.
If I recall corectly there is possibility to put in the gate of the camera a cropping matte. Its placed right behind the lens, in front of film. This prevents the image to be exposed on "full open gate". There are of course diffrent aspect ratios to choose from. You can than switch the camera to pull film in such way that you wont loose the blank space but expose every frame right next to another. This results in a massive film save if you intend to have a cropped image right out of the camera.
But in move of such scale there are many reasons why its better to leave the gate full open.
Zack Snyder’s Jurassic Park
How do I find this though? :( I saw this opening week and I've wanted to again ever since...
1:23 How did they cut the mic guy completely in the final version? It's like Joss Whedon cutting Willem Dafoe from a movie
The projectionist in the theater would crop the image on the top and bottom to 1.85:1 and the boom mic wouldn’t show up anyway.
"They do scan with grain!" .... "We've clocked the 4k detail at over 2 million pixels per second".... "say again?" .... "We have a 4 k!"
So these are the colours that were used in cinema projections or its raw before colour corections?
those are the true colors of the 1993 theatrical version
@@nishitsingh85 thank you
@@nishitsingh85 The colors are far too blue. Maybe that was offset by projector lights at the time, but looking at it here the color temperature is way too cool.
The colours in this scan aren't accurate to the projected print. the actual 35mm projected image would look brighter and warmer.
@@notsorandumusername Okay. If that was bothering me, I would turn on "eye care mode" on my screen before watching. It simulates a projection lamp of a lower color temperature
This is si nostalgic.
THANK YOU
#RestoreTheSpielbergVerse
VHS versions was CROPPED from 1:35. It wasn't open matte
This is actual open matte footage. Then for the VHS release they cropped from the theatrical 2.39.
@@CrisBaggins yeah man, that's what i mean
@@CrisBaggins Jurassic Park was 1.85:1, not 2.39:1 (Indiana Jones series).
@@utthapa you're right
But wait, this is a scan of the print used in the projector, right? It couldn't be the camera negative because they wouldn't have the CGI baked in like that. The gamut is already going to be smushed if scanning a projection print, which I believe explains the overt "filminess" of the scan
I assume the top and bottom of the open-matte shots are opened up on the full-screen VHS & DVD releases?
Animaniacs 2020 opening brought me here
Same
damn nice
I want to see Michael Jackson's Thriller in 35mm film print.
Wait, so why does it flip from 4:3 to 16:9? Were multiple sources used, or something?
I imagine the 16:9 stuff is how the VFX was delivered in it's final composite, so it's not in open matte outside the original plates. The other stuff is in open matte because there's no VFX in the shot, so it's just straight from the camera with no inbetween.
George Streicher Music honestly wouldn’t mind if a fan release with this film was made where the VFX scenes and shots were pan and scan while we get some amazing extra footage in a 4:3 aspect ratio for the non visual effects scenes and shots
That's not 4:3
Brandon lee Morales toro I know I mean they crop it down to 4:3.
@@GeorgeStreicherMusic Jurassic Park was an open matte film - the 35mm finished prints were also, the picture was cropped for projection in theatres. VHS copies were open matte in the 4:3 days also.
Please show the entire movie like deleted scenes
Wait does it have the deleted scenes
why did they not use anamorphic instead of cropping it for better image quality?
I did see a fullscreen dvd of Jurassic Park once. Would it be possible to compare that to this?
It's possible, but it could also be a "pan and scan" version of the widescreen cut.
@@TravisHouze No, it's mostly open-matte with gate crop applied at the sides slightly. So, you'd see about the same width for the non-effects shots as you saw in the theatres. the effects shots, or ones were the camera hood obstructed the image at the top (to block lens flare from the sun), are pan and scan.
And how was computer graphics transferred to film?
Love this anime
Also, how do the film blemishes not appear in the production copies? Were they digitally cleaned up or was the film really well preserved until release and these scans are done with it after it's sat in a crappy environment?
i have the 4k edition and doesn't look like this color wise. this one feel more like i watched it back in 1993.
The 4K image, from the youtube clips I've seen, looks the same as the 2011 Blu-ray. All of those have the wrong colour timing. The original looks much warmer and brighter with proper white balance and deeper contrast. The colours are also more yellowish and greenish but look natural when projected, while the colours on the DVD, Blu-ray and the 4K look flat, dull and cold, despite it being a summer environment on a tropical island. It's not the fault of the cinematographer or original colour timer. It's the fault of those who mastered the home video versions.
CGI needs some updating otherwise looks great even today. Downloaded the 4k version and it is very good. Has some questionable areas, but otherwise very good
1:23 look the microphone.
why it so scratchy and grainy like from the 60s?
the sub is better
Somehow the standard gate 35mm looks higher resolution than the VistaVision stuff.
It should be because, in the print, the effects shots are printed with the same width as the full-frame shots, but with less height. here, the matted shots have been artificially expanded to fill the 16:9 frame, while leaving the full-frame shots in the middle, since they wouldn't be "full screen" in such a format. That blowing up makes the image look softer.
How did you get this?
howd u get this?
Omg please post a version of the VFX uncropped! Would love to see the dinosaur with no head
The 'uncropped' version would have been the same as the cropped version, just with black bars on the top and bottom. In those days, VFX were done at the theatrical aspect ratio. Same with Terminator 2; plenty of extra image on the top and bottom except the VFX shots.
Where do i find this i need this
Can you please send me the download for this
35MM looks better.
those are full grown dinosaurs, ingen must have been doing gene manipulation since the 70's
Which print was this scan lifted from? Interpositive, Internegative, Release?
Why does audio keep peaking?
1:22 Tom Cruise getting attacked by a microphone
bru thats not even tom cruise
You mean Jeff Goldblum.
===========>> joke
U
..................................
Where did you get this?