The fact that the LaserDiscs from 30+ years ago are so much better than the remasters today really says a lot about how Paramount feels about restoration these days.
Your knowledge of these versions history is amazing. It's too bad they don't include the original audio since there's probably plenty of space. I feel like UHD should be used to preserve 1:1 copies of the original films by default and offer enhanced versions as an option. They will probably put out another collection for the new Indy film for a 5 part set and perhaps they can at least add in the original audio mixes as an option for that.
For Raiders, I watch a 1981 35mm scan with the original optical audio. The official releases, like with Star Wars, are dead to me and they get no money.
I have a print of Willow on my cable service, which is cropped but has filmgrain. The Blu doesn't. It looks like an entirely different scan its very red and orange in color. Wish i had that in 2:40:1. The darn 73 Telecine of Graffiti looks better than the blu. Lucas is baffling.
I loved Crystal Skull, it was the perfect ending to the stories. Indy met his son, and he married Marion. In addition, Shia Beouf did a great job playing Mutt Williams.
I love how much detail is packed into these videos. Refreshing to see someone else obsessed over home video standards; you end up saving money by not falling for every new release. With all the details, I think the best way to go is Raiders on DVD, Temple and Crusade on Blu-ray, and Crystal Skull on UHD (if I were a Laserdisc user, it would be a different story). But it just sounds ridiculous to have a split up a series over formats like that.
Thank you! I'm always amazed others get something out of these. I started doing them because I simply had no outlet for my film research and transfer frustrations. As you say the best overall easy option is Raiders on DVD, Temple and Crusade on BD and Skull pick your poison on BD or UHD. But if you get into LD and have a good setup....that mix of Raiders is unbeatable. I wish I could find out where it came from someday!
The only good thing here in Germany is that you can see the original German theatrical dub of Raiders of the lost ark in 2.0 stereo here on Disney Plus and on the UHD. In the past, when it was available on Netflix or Amazon, it was always a new 5.1 dub from 2009 with different voices and a different mix. With Raiders it's a shame that I prefer to hear films in the original language. I only have the damn Bluray.
I guarantee you if some kind of expose was done on these companies doing "restorations", it would be found that most if not all of their claims would be b.s. Thanks again for your detailed critique of these cases of cinematic vandalism.
Do you own the 2023 Groundhog Day 4K reissue? Because apparently it's a must own for picture quality, the original Dolby Stereo track and better compression than the original release. It seems Sony puts a lot more love on their films than what Paramount is doing to their films
I’d like to pick it up and I’m quite surprised they included the original matrixed track which Sony has started recently doing on more of their releases. Sony usually sets a higher standard for their catalog restorations when compared to other studios. The only major issue they’ve had with a lot of their new 4K scans, are going a bit overboard With light in the HDR department.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderAt least there's one studio that at least cares about their films, I'm definitely picking up Bram Stoker's Dracula and Groundhog Day if I get the chance
@@pepsiforbread1416 I really hope they re-issue the films from the out of print first couple Columbia classic boxes. They did finally reissue bridge on the river Kwai including a version of it’s original mono track that hasn’t been around since the early 80s. And they’ve done new steelbooks of Bram Stoker‘s Dracula, and now also Mask of Zorro that are improvements over the first pressings that I’d like to pick up.
It was essentially a process that used four separate optical tracks on 35mm film to have four discrete LCRS tracks instead of using a matrix process. Unfortunately it had some quirks and was dropped after only being used on Popeye and Dragonslayer.
Great video! God bless your "golden eyes" and your ability to see these issues (with the Godfather UHDs, I had a heck of time seeing all the issues you saw... but I did at least see some of them and agree that set could have been better). And now, thanks to your review of this set, I've decided not to bother with the Indiana Jones UHDs... unless of course I can find them dirt cheap. I've also decided to seek out the letterboxed laserdiscs (I do have them in P&S for nostalgia's sake, but now I'm inspired to add the letterboxed versions to my collection too). Keep up the great work dude... and keep being idealistic!
Do you think someone could just easily burn the laserdisc trilogy set to a nice UHD as a bootleg? I'd love to get one. Someone did an excellent 4k of Aliens for instance that's better than whatever Jimmy Kimmel is doing with the official release. I hope you rant about that when you get the new releases.@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
@@paintingcube3853 you could definitely use elements like the audio but the masters aren’t going to look super hot on a modern display without trying to do tons of upscaling or using something like the Domesday duplicator. I think the best option is going to be something along the lines of trying to re-grade the UHD masters, and then go back to using Blu-ray footage or the Japanese wowowow Raiders HD master before it got the awful color grading and use these for all the effects shots. Then adding in the other mixes from Laserdisc and other sources. Essentially doing a Despecialized Indy trilogy.
A flawed release is indeed after your right about the manipulation and revisionism themselves. At that point, it deserves a redo once it licenses to the arthouse distributors like Criterion, Shout! Studios, Arrow Video and Kino Lorber to give the proper release it deserves (including keeping the original audio mix for the first three as 4.0 mix).
It's crazy the heavy alterations that can happen in blu-ray and 4k releases, it's something that happens regularly too. Is it frustrated people who who got rejected from working on original film productions who want to be involved in creative decisions instead of restoring something faithfully that has already been created?
Since moving away from VHS I've never really cared about wether I watch a movie on DVD, Blu-Ray or whatever new super format is out and about... But I DO have serious issues with revisionism. Old movies are old movies, visible seams and mistakes and all. Why can't they just leave them the f**k alone! After having watched this video I'm really glad I never replaced my 2003 Indy dvd box, and now I never will!
Also I forget to mention. What do you think about using a Retrotink scaler with a LD on a modern television? I have a pvm but it would look absolutely amazingly on a 60 inch oled. If it scales properly of course.
@@d.s3484 some have tried it to mixed results. Any scalers or processors that are geared more for gaming don’t necessarily play well with video formats. It’s basically another time where you have to just try a system out and see what results you get.
I Watch the 4ks when they are playing on the background or the VHS tapes but the laserdisc is what you watch when you actual sit down to see them. Dvds are nice for the few features the exclusively have but overall it is a shame that like with 2001 the laserdisc is the best the film will be as it was original shown
The 1991 letterbox laserdisc. No changes, no snake reflection removal, first widescreen master and hands down the best audio mix of the film even though it’s a matrix track no one knows anything about or where it came from. This is the version I always rewatch and the sound is sublime. The later 2003 dvd is okay but it was a Lowry affair in terms of grain removal and it did have a few very minor tweaks. However the 5.1 was great and reputedly derived from the 70mm mix and the last time the sound was good on disc. For something to replicate the 35mm general release the old pan n scan transfers have the original Dolby Stereo mix which is really dynamic but doesn’t have much surround activity.
Raiders should be given to Criterion. They would give it the care it deserves. I got the original Blu Ray set. I use crystal skull as a coaster. I won’t talk about the myth about a 5th movie. Never happened. 😊
The packaging on the Indiana Jones 4K set is the definition of subpar, but somehow it still manages to look leagues better than the 4K SteelBook set that Paramount put out at the same time and that I was foolish enough to pick up. I’ve never come across anything in the physical media realm as flimsy and poorly designed as that atrocity, and I’m embarrassed for having spent good money on it. I guess it’s high time I seek out the old widescreen Laserdisc release. Luckily, I’ve got my own personal Sallah in that regard, so it shouldn’t prove too difficult.
What version would you recommend getting? Whether official release or a fan scan, frankly the compression is a dealbreaker for me and looks really terrible on my large LG C3, and I’d love to know what’s considered the best source for these films
@@bungleprosy I’m glad you notice the bad paramount compression too! Sometimes I wonder if it’s just me because most people seem to somehow not notice it! Unfortunately you’re left with the old masters on BD, the old Lowry processed DVDs or Laserdiscs of you don’t go a fan scan route. My personal favorite is watching the trilogy on letterboxed laserdisc because the transfers are completely hands off and the audio is outstanding despite not being discrete. That’s the last time Raiders was not tweaked in some way on video.
I wonder if you’re able to evaluate the Christopher Nolan Batman 4K discs. I thought they were genuinely horrendous, especially Batman Begins 4K, but everyone said they were spectacular. I’ve never in my life sat so long in front of my tv trying to figure out if it was my setting issue, because if everyone’s right, then I must be wrong, right? The problem is every other disc looked great on my TV EXCEPT for Batman Begins 4K!
The Begins UHD was a pitiful disc and a terrible disappointment. For some reason Nolan is convinced he has to use interpositives and not the film negative for scans and Begins was stuck using an older source and thus the UHD looks like crud. It’s not as bad as the junk UHD of The Bourne Identity where Universal didn’t want to scan the film elements but it does have some of the same hallmarks. Those two are both first films in a series where they’re the only ones I enjoy. I skipped the UHDs because they’re so bad.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader Vindication, at last! I was thoroughly ridiculed in a physical media Facebook group for saying this, but I can imagine you yourself getting this kind of crap too, more so I expect. Keep up the good fight, you have my support in your cause!
@@bigmoviefreak thanks it’s certainly tough at times to dig deeply into this stuff and get ridiculed or ignored no matter how detailed you go. There’s a lot of discussion on the Nolan UHDs in the threads on the Blu-ray.com forum but it’s a lot to dig through. Begins is sadly still stuck with a crummy disc on all formats.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderDo you know if Dark Knight or Dark Knight Rises got poor sources used for the UHDs? I’m planning on checking those out but after the mixed results I’ve heard of Begins I’m skeptical if they’re worth over the BDs.
47:55 I don't care what anyone says, that Blu-ray set is still one of my favorite pieces in my collection. It's built like a tank, and my discs have never been scratched by the sleeves. Universal has copied that sort of packaging numerous times, and I'm always let down when it's flimsy garbage, instead of like the Indy set. 48:25 They also DNRed the menu videos. My memory on this isn't the best, but I believe the newly encoded trailers also look markedly worse. Most of the trailers were just the same exact encodes as on the Blu-rays, but I don't remember which had new encodes and which had old ones.
There are thankfully some very well done archival 4K transfers and masters out there but sadly not as many as there should be. A lot of the recent video masters done by Arrow Video on their catalog UHDs have been sensational such as the Bruce Lee restorations, Barbarella and others.
For sound that's frequently true 80-90% of the time unfortunately. Players can be very difficult to come by and will vary in their video output and audio output. Pioneer is usually the benchmark for manufacturers. The other adage is any working player is a good player. I'd advise to start with something in good shape that's affordable-but the biggest thing to look for is a player with digital audio out so you can get the full PCM signal of Laserdisc digital sound. Pioneer and Panasonic are pretty much the best brands.
My Dad had Raiders on beta it came with Sony's SL-2700 (Beta's first HIFI machine) it sounded amazing ! And i bought the widescreen Laserdisc and it also sounded amazing. I much prefer the original mixes on Beta and Laserdisc to any remixes to DVD up to 4k releases.
I'm pretty sure that this revisionism was done in order to adjust the look of the trilogy to match the "viewing standards" of modern streaming audiences. Someone, somewhere decided that they looked too old to be appealing to the Marvel crowds, so they tried to spice them up a bit. And failed...
What are you listening on? What Atmos arrangement? Speakers? Receiver? I'm curious if the Atmos mix sounds less punchy because you're running outta power. I only have the 4K versions, so I don't have anything to compare, but I also have an $85K spacial sound system in my home theater.
Raiders looks good but it does look like a cleaned up and recomposed version trying to not look like a Republic serial. I can't tell if the grain is authentic or added because I'm not an expert. What sucks is the Atmos mix, the Letterbox Laserdisc PCM audio is so much clearer and impressive. Did ILM do these recomposites and DNR on the effects or did Paramount do them like they did on Star Trek?
I love this channel. Thank you for this analysis! 👍🏽 It's actually quite sick the way all the Star Wars and Indy films have been mangled over the years. The betrayal of film preservation and archiving original cinematic artifacts is quite disappointing, infuriating, and sad. As a fan it breaks my heart 💔 and pisses me off to no end. 🤬
It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The new 4k transfers themselves are great and so Temple and Crusade fare okay if you can look past the effects changes, encoding issues and hdr at times. Raiders is better on the UHD but you have new changes, bad encoding, some errors and still crummy sound. If you’re a diehard fan of the trilogy, it’s actually pretty good to have the DVDs, Blu-rays, and the UHD’s. The audio on the DVDs is still solid and that was the last time Raiders sounded good on video. The transfers aren’t so hot because Lowry digital did them and they’re really showing their age now. The Blu-ray of Raiders is terrible with its color grading and that audio remix. But having older versions means you have copies without the new effects changes and HDR application. I wish I had a simpler answer but unfortunately it’s a bit like Star Wars and there’s not one easy recommendation for a physical media release.
Very informative and well put together video. I love the Indiana Jones movies (not counting Dial of Destiny as I didn't like that one). I bought the 4k steelbook set and the packaging for that was flimsy too. And of course they then released each film as separate steelbook releases with the original poster art instead of the white background. I made a custom steelbook box out of wood/leather that can house each. I like to think I put more effort in than Paramount did in the packaging lol. Transferred the art from toner using Citrasolv.
My favorite is crystal skull and temple of doom. I know revisionism is bothersem but I like the idea of taking out the teal/orange makes it feel like classic Indy. films with teal and orange that use it for good reasoning should keep it, but not Indiana. I hope the same team for Star Wars despecialized completes this trilogy next.
They've I think readjusted some of the digital tweaks for the BD like removing ships on the horizon and other minor bits. All Spielberg 4K masters usually play with the color timing and sound. The mono mix is still not untouched and properly restored so you have to rely on the Laserdisc mono for audio.
I personally only have the temple of Doom uhd and love it. Therefore, id love it if you have the time and are able to compile the resources to compare all of these effects shots between each of the versions. I personally feel that the updates in this way will always require some tweaking in order to preserve "the product" so years from release, you can turn on Temple of Doom without having anything that might distract a modern viewer watching it for the first time. However, I can empathize with how you feel about it given how I grew up with the video tape presentation of a new hope and the dvds of the rest of the 6 Lucas star wars films. I think from the perspective of how kids grew up watching the star wars prequels in dvd, the lack of high resolution hides the seams. So I grew up just being immersed in the world and loving them as every one of my peers did and still do. I enjoy the blu ray versions but you have to consciously forgive the then revolutionary tech that doesn't hold up today but for the fact that the work and level of detail and passion and time put into those at the time hasn't been met since. I have no desire to watch the UHDS of those. There's definitely a market to preserve the version of a film that we engaged with so lovingly as children. You speak very intelligently about it and I'd really encourage trying to find a position in whichever companies offer these new updates. It's clear they put a lot of work into it and if you approach them from the angle of having such an expertise in this area (I'd suggest also to find all these examples of changes religiously. With a fine tooth comb. And present them in a digital pack.) This would demonstrate your expertise and what you can offer. Additionally. If you can create a solution for them. To be able to create a high resolution, modern format of just one key scene where you can preserve what they are essentially killing those darlings with. Then you may become an invaluable asset to them. Especially if you have or can research into more titles that could benefit from this. If these versions could be made at a lower budget to that of the potential profit. You could be really onto something.
He has made changes to his films through the years including American Graffiti and THX 1138. They redid the optical composites for the 4k of Indiana Jones and dnr'ed them. I'm not sure if its Lucasfilm who made the changes, Lucas or Spielberg. Or Paramount. They removed the heavy DNR on Crystal Skull but also removed the bleach pass of the theatrical print. I prefer the 35mm.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader I wouldn't be surprised is what I'm saying, as I said George had the final say on the SW trilogy changes too and I believe these scans were all done at the same time
@@MidnightsEdgeAfterDark yeah the trilogy scans were Lucasfilm in house and then handed over to Disney. However Paramount has also screwed with effects shots on the Trek film UHDs so I’m kinda split on theorizing. I’m leaning towards Paramount behind behind the Indy tweaks but who knows.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader That is true and Paramount is not innocent of a number of issues with their titles, in this case though I think Lucasfilm has more control and George is notorious for his 'fixes' especially the latest round without any announcement...and the round for the blu-rays...and DVD's... and special edition...and prior to the SE's.... all lead back to George. Love him but he's a revisionist
What do you think about the 2023 Jurassic Park UHD, the "Universal Essentials" version? Apparently it's a Spielberg approved 35mm restoration. Going by the screencaps I've seen it looks gorgeous.
I'm leery of any JP release because they always like to tweak something and NEVER give us the untouched theatrical DTS track. They've done better it seems in picture but always have some kind of sound remix sadly.
I have a knack for the details but not to this level... but i certainly appreciate it. It taught me not to trust mainstream reviews. Im glad I watched your review before purchasing. I did however find the Blurays for 15 dollars new for all 4 films. So I'll tolerate them. If not knowing or looking for imperfections they look great on an LG C1 and do a hell of job at having them play in the background. I just subscribed.
I agree on the remixes of Raiders. Thankfully, that overbearing .1 LFE bass from the 1080p was toned down for the 4K, but as you said, the music is reverbed out too much, lacking the clarity and presence of earlier DVD, laserdisc and VHS Hi-Fi releases.
@@kthx1138 thank you! I’d almost started to think I was alone in hating the remixes so much! It’s downright criminal how the music has been remixed in and of itself. This latest Atmos iteration is the worst yet due to the height channels. I don’t know how the BD LFE ever was okayed as it’s constantly excessive. If people could hear all the original mixes on a proper modern release their minds would be blown.
I was sort of with him when he showed the stills. I didnt notice when watching myself but thought "ok the stills are a little off if you squint." But I laughed out loud when he showed the 1936 credit had a long fade out.
Thank you for another in depth review. Also the bluray versions on this 4k boxset is the previous HD transfer they're not a downscaled version of the new UHD print. Can you please do a vid on your thoughts on the alternative versions and releases of the 1978 Superman movie and talk about the various audio mixes?
Actually the UHD set doesn't have BDs. The reissued BDs Paramount made are the same 2012 discs ported. I should definitely put together something for Superman. i was going to pick up the UHDs of 2-4 as standalones whenever they do them but I doubt they'll address any of the technical issues.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader I live in the UK and our UHD Indy boxsets contain the regular blurays. Of course one would assume they're downscaled versions of the new UHD transfers but as you said they are copy and paste versions of the previous BR releases.
The set and 4K UHD's of all the Indiana Jones films seem fine to me. But can also understand why some others may not enjoy it as much. Though from a video stand point they are better than the 2012 blu-ray disc releases.
I haven't seen a home video release of Raiders i'm happy with. The closest is the Letterbox US Laserdisc. I have seen the Litemakr scan and for what it is it is decent. It shows the original color and you have the original optical audio. As for Lucas or companies messing with his films i hear American Graffiti got a new restoration in 4K with a new sound mix. No theatrical cut, no mono, and no theatrical 78 cut and no stereo. Just a new 5.1 mix in 4k with the cgi sunset. Basically the 1998 cut but now in 4K.
I still have all three UK rental versions of Indiana Jones on VHS. Plus the original DVD box set. Never bothered with UHD versions. The box set design just didn't do it for me, and also the advent of companies using those god awful digipacks which, for me is total scarlidge. My Universal Noir # 1box set from Indicator had to go back, because the glue that stuck the backing of the case to sleeve came loose. I understand why boutiques are using digipacks now, and you also get people stating that digipacks are better because of space, but I really miss hard case sets with the hard outer box. Personally, I would have a nice sized box with hard cases anyday with the original artwork.
I liked Skull's 35mm bleach pass. Obviously not matching the esthetic of the first 3. But the 4k is revisionist for doing away with it. I also prefer theatrical Minority Report over the blu-ray. ET reissue special edition despite the changes was a great looking print restoration. I saw it theatrically. Great color, matte lines fixed. But they had to add Walkie Talkies and censored audio, and cgi enhancement. The lack of a blu ray is stupid. Its only on DVD. Its like the Star Wars 1997 editions. Great restored picture. great 5.1 mix. Justifiable fixes and enhancements went too far afield into revisionism and crap cgi. I wish Lucas had done that fix the garbage mattes/matte lines. Replace the cardboard cutout in the Throne room and Landspeeder shot but left everything else alone.
Skull definitely looks better without the 2007 grading but it now looks a bit weird too because it doesn’t have that yucky original grading. Minority Report seems to have been changed for the BD master in terms of the picture timing. The dvd had or at least tried to retain some of that so it would be interesting to see a print version to compare. The garbage mattes are the one thing in the Star Wars trilogy in terms of effects that should be addressed. Only poor transfers have gradually revealed them over the years as they were never meant to be seen. Everything else should be left exactly as-is.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader , I just meant Han shooting second shouldn't be a thing. I even read Lucas say Leia couldn't marry a murderer and that the change was justified because she was going to have kids with this man and he made the change because of that.
It doesn't seem like HDR should be added to old films if they're supposed to be preserved as they were, but I guess it can just be turned off in the player?
Unfortunately it can't. Forcing it to be disabled merely causes the player to attempt downconversion to SDR which isn't an exact science and can cause artifacts. HDR is a tightrope to walk on catalog titles. It's a tough balancing act to utilize the expanded range without ever overdoing it. What we're seeing is the typical difference between films handled with care vs films just being thrown into the latest and greatest tech without quality control and attention being paid.
Hmm. Maybe with some movies I will just stick to regular Blu-Ray and sit farther away from the TV. Or better yet, don't put on my glasses! ha ha @@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
The new scans themselves are great but it’s clearly obvious they manipulated stuff and applied tweaks everywhere. I’d say at least pick up the Blu-ray’s for cheap and see what you think of those as they pre-date paramount being able to go in and do this level of stuff
Great video, I was wondering what your thoughts on the best home video versions of other Spielberg movies would be, such as Close Encounters, E.T., Jaws, etc.?
Thank you! I wish there was an easy answer but it’s a matter of which version you can live with. There’s usually a tweak in color timing and other elements in later masters but usually it’s on the minor or less noticeable side. The original audio of present usually doesn’t sound as good as the best past releases which are usually Laserdisc versions. Most Spielberg films fare well on UHD outside of any tweaks and at least Jaws has a version of its mono-but if you want the best mono that’s on the signature collection laserdisc and the dvd version of this master was the last fully untouched version in terms of any digital changes like removing ships in the horizon. Close Encounters is complicated due to the versions, the home video cuts and the audio. We’ve never gotten the full original 70mm Dolby mix on a release and the 4K master has new color timing and some tweaks I’m not a fan of. I stick with the BD of the theatrical cut and the 5.1 is solid. All the video versions sound good but one can only wonder what the original 70mm mix would be like if released untouched.
Thanks for the reply! In principle I believe we should have the original released versions of movies, but I know that won’t be the case, especially on physical media. It’s becoming more and more clear that people are gonna have to find movies digitally through most likely pirated means to acquire the most faithful edition of their favorite movies. Strangely a movie that comes to mind for me is the original Matrix movie where I personally prefer the original DVD/VHS look and sound. Not sure if that’s how it originally looked and sound in theaters in 1999 but that’s how I always see and hear it in my memories, not a big a fan of the blu ray green tint they did or the new 4K that made skin tones so pink. Sorry for the long rant here, but I was also curious to if you’ve seen a video by Rick Worley titled “How to watch Star Wars Part Two, the Special Editions are the Movies”? I think it has a compelling point of view on the value a director holds in altering their work and should be able to change it as long as they own it. I know a lot of your content refers to companies making alterations to old movies without the creators consent but I’d still be interested in what your opinions are on this subject.
I get that. I wish they had left the new scans alone and properly encoded them with original audio. If that was the case I could wholeheartedly get behind them. It's hard because the new scans so show such marked improvements over the old 2012 BDs in many areas but I can't stand revisionism.
I’m not keen on revisionist editing either. I got The French Connection on dvd to get the original movie. Side note, that movie is 104 minutes long. I’m sure it would be an hour longer if made today.
I always watch indy movies and especially Raiders of the lost ark mostly on dvd then my blu-ray version as i get a more positive Experience with the look and sound, so i think with Raiders on blu-ray has a noticeable difference in the way of compression, But i had the same problem with the A nightmare on elm street movies that had a terrible transfer on blu-ray a few years ago So I got the dvd box set that had a much better transfer with sound and picture.
I watched the Last Crusade the other day and I thought the picture quality was incredible! Didn’t pick up on any of the changes you outlined personally 😂 thanks for the video
That’s cool, I’m glad you enjoyed it. I know I’m in the minority on this one but the years of dealing with Star Wars version research has made me even more sensitive to things being done with Indy.
Just watched the first film on 92inch projection with HDR. Very film like. Loved it! OLED is way to sharp/video for me. I like to watch a film like in the cinema.
Those are pretty solid and have a good 5.1 tracks. The problem is they were handled by Lowry digital back when they were doing extreme degraining so while they’re not as bad as the Star Wars DVDs, they have a lot of the same Lowry problems plus a lot of edge enhancement and other DVD era stuff. Raiders has the two tweaks made but otherwise all three are unchanged. If you’re watching on a crt or a display that will hide more of the flaws or is better optimized for standard def material the DVDs still can be enjoyed very much.
Im pleased i didn't pick this set up. I cant believe how poor the artwork is. These are some of the most popular films of all time. I've just rebought the dvd set you have behind you for £3.50 i used to own it many years ago.
This an amazing video very in depth. I’m a normie when it comes to picture stuff, so I thought they all looked great when I watched them last year on this set. The only thing I noticed was crystal skull. I watched it a lot growing up and I remember the lighting being way more overblown. I think it looks a lot better now. Again great video. Oh and yeah I agree the packaging is absolutely horrible…
Skull is the one where you immediately notice how the color timing was tamed down probably due to it being a new image harvest this time. Once you get past the initial wow factor of the new 4K scan for the trilogy though that quickly fades. I'm used to them skipping original audio so that wasn't surprising but everything else just kept being one bummer after another. The screwing with the effects was it for me. Usually I dig deeper with Indy because I'm used to doing that with Star Wars but there's never been anything this change intensive until now. Having an OLED really magnifies all the little video issues that can pop up in modern releases and particularly Paramount issues that keep occurring.
Usually the benefit of LDs for catalog titles is that the transfers done were mostly hands off from good materials. The format is especially important for audio as studios would frequently transfer master audio sources without any compression or EQ added which makes these typically the best source of a film’s audio on a media release. The format is fun to watch and given a good player, setup and transfer the results can be surprisingly engaging for such an older format. Sure it’s never going to approach a modern format or transfer but it’s a nice way to reconnect with older films and sadly is usually where I have to go to source a better audio track.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusadersorry for the months late reply, but I wholeheartedly agree that LD is a very good format for older films. I’ve actually just ordered the 1992 Widescreen versions of both Raiders and Temple of Doom (already have Last Crusade widescreen on LD, and fullscreen versions of the first two).
@@Darthlucy1 You're certainly going to enjoy running the letterbox LDs of those! It's such a fun and amazing way to reconnect with them and the sound...nothing beats them IMO.
Crystal Skull was 2008 wasn't it? Anyhow, I agree the visuals of the film are awful. Reminds me a little of The Hobbit, with it's terrible colour grading.
I’ve been hoping Warner would finish all of their Kubrick titles and do a UHD boxset. I know they’ll do a big box set with extras and things left off the discs so far once they do all of their Kubrick titles. That’s their habit so far with each format. That’s not a bad idea for doing a Video History of the Warner held Kubrick titles. It would be quite a long video because I’ll have to get into all of the extensive transfer minutia that Warner has subjected them to. And how the original audio has been poorly preserved and not even present on most releases. I’m just amazed they have any form of the mono for Clockwork on the UHD. And it does seem to be a version of the best version we’ve had to date which is from the original DVD release.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderA Clockwork Orange, from what I heard, it's an okay mix for being discrete but it's far from perfect on the old Blu-ray, and They did a new mix that was better although you still have the purest option of the mono mix, I think they may have put that in there not to piss off all their fans. (Word of mouth from when I read it's the DVDs mono. Great for its time, Not so great now in this day and age.) The shining still missing It's original Theatrical mono, Full Metal Jacket, Not the true Theatrical mono, 2001 A space Odyssey heard that one has some noise reduction on the 70 mm mix and the remix was borked, The picture is great though on all of them, half of them have remastered blu-rays.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusadersomewhere on a blog I did say that they didn't bother to restore the original mono just do a new 5.1 mix, This is the first film with Dolby sound, Not exactly stereo but Dolby processing nonetheless, The fact that it didn't have a new restoration in DTS- HD MA 2.0 alongside the 5.1 is a crime within itself. Goes to show you for all the good they did on Kubrick's films in the picture quality department, Warners still find ways to mess up in others. But it does make me wonder on all Stanley's WB catalog UHD discs the audio has been treated that badly.
Yes, it is the best option for the original mono. I'm just saying that it should have been restored well they were making this new 5.1, they should have given this film a lot more respect. Considering Kubrick is a very much a revisionist and a perfectionist (but we forgive him for that) Even this kind of revisionism would possibly have him spinning in his grave. (Remember he had Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and the Shining all changed before their general US release and even then the European release of the Shining was changed yet again to remove more scenes because he felt the film was too long)
Here’s my problem with this review. If you skip through the movie one frame at a time you might find some issues. To pick it apart you need to compare frames, look at bitrates, look for matte lines. But it doesn’t have anything to do with, does the movie look great when you watch? and this is the best these movies have ever looked. I will never understand anyone who says “a film must look exactly the way it did when it was released in theaters for all time”. Why? Film isn’t a picture or painting hanging in a museum. Movies don’t even look the same from one theatre to the next durinf release. There’s dirt, degradation, generational loss. Various options that can change things. 70mm or 35mm. Mono, stereo or surround? This obsession over “the day the movie is released in theatres is the way that movie must now exist forever”. There’s a VAST difference between what Lucas did with the Special Editions, adding characters, changing character actions, adding new sequences. Ok. I understand that being an issue for some. Because the story and movie have changed. These movies were never meant to LOOK like Republic serials from the 30s, so the reasoning for wanting matte lines is flawed if that’s the reason. The Republic serial was simply the motif, the impetus, the narrative structure, the cultural touchstone, not the technical or aesthetic choices(beyond a few shot compositions). When this franchise was released it was a made by using the latest technology advances in movie making. Matte lines were not a sought over artefact. vFX artists did everything and anything to get rid of them. But that’s not always possible. Matte lines, as much as you may like them, can cause audiences members problems buying into the world. Verisimilitude issues. They can be distracting. Faulting a release for getting rid of them when they aren’t wanted is…a choice. So I say again, this is a great upgrade from the blu ray. All I care about, all Anyone should care about, is whether that movie looks look when they pop it in Some of the frame by frame stuff and the how they did it, and criticizing that, is fine. But to say it’s a lesser product? I just think that’s disingenuous.
@@MrGittz I noticed all of this while watching the UHDs. I didn’t have to go frame by frame until analyzing the effects changes further. While not fully on the level of what Lucas has done, I am bothered by the quiet revisionism that happens on Spielberg masters, and in particular the revisionism that’s happened to the Indy trilogy for quite some time. The sound remixes are inferior to the original mixes. While the newer source scans are technically superior the manner in which they were handled by Paramount is terrible. Even for a UHD the presentation and product from Paramount is inferior for the format due to their own practices-especially in the disc encoding.
After Dial of Diarreha, I think we all owe Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and apology lol. It wasn't perfect, but it was perfectly clear it wanted to end the series on a satisying note, rather than destroy the character of Indy to promote Pheobe whoever her name is. Also on a side note, this "restoration" is just as bad as you say lol.
I think it’s easy to see that Dial at its core still has a lot of the same problems because it was originally written by David Koepp for Spielberg to direct. But at the very least Skull was not rewritten and handled by other people trying to shape it into something else entirely.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader Thats true. Both films are incredibly inferior to the trilogy, except Skull at least has some of the spirit while Dial is just a flat out soulless cashgrab.
The revisionism is not ideal, but I would completely disagree with the notion in your video description that this set has no upsides. The films still look fantastic, by far the best they have ever looked on home video. If it had original audio, and no special effects tweaks (though these are still far from dealbreakers), this would come pretty close to be a reference release. The encoding is not ideal, but very far from the worst. This set is many levels above The Godfather set. I wish the Indiana Jones 4K set was the worst Paramount could do. Paramount is so frustratingly inconsistent: they have done some truly amazing 4Ks (It's A Wonderful Life, Pulp Fiction), but also some complete pieces of garbage (Friday The 13th), and anywhere in-between in the spectrum (The Truman Show, bad compression means that it looks more like a good BD than a 4K disc, still a vast improvement over the horrible old blu-ray). I hope the Rosemary Baby 4K soon to come out is towards the good side of the spectrum at least.
I think its comparable to the Star Trek 4K remasters. No original audio. Less DNR except on optical effects. And similar to TMP directors 4K with the recompositing, or even the Star Wars Special Edition which came out in 1997. Or any of the recomposited/reanimated Disney animations.
It’s really hard for me to like these because of the negatives which are dealbreakers for me that I know won’t be for most people. The new base scans seem solid and far beyond even the LaserPacific old ones so it makes you wish we could just get our hands on those and do them properly on our own. I agree Paramount is very inconsistent but even when they do good new scans or work there can be issues poking in. I’m still not exactly sure what they did on Liberty Valance and they have a habit of messing with opticals and transitions. There even some slight encoding artifacts I’ve seen pop up in M:I 1.
The Trek 4k masters comparison is probably a good one because you’ve got the positives of new scans with the negatives of screwing with effects shots and the like.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderWhile it's always important to hope and desire for the best, and point out flaws, I also think it's crucial to be able to see if the positives still far outweight the negatives. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is far more a mixed bag disc, but it's still the best home presentation of the film, and has lots to enjoy (though I understand how the good can also increase one's frustration with it not being perfect instead, because it easily had the potential to be so). When it comes to DNR for example, I think I can take a moderate level of it. Toho is releasing Kurosawa's films in 4K in Japan this year, and the DNR in a few of those discs is not ideal (Ikiru and Stray Dog are the worst in this regard, though their biggest limitation is simply the terrible state of the sources), but also far from an atrocity. Nicwood, an user in blu-ray.com, is doing detailed reviews of all those Kurosawa 4Ks in the forums, and he says that the Seven Samurai disc is by far the best version of the film ever, easily outclassing Criterion, but that the very top layer of grain was taken out. Still perfectly watchable, far from an atrocity. That's often the best one can realistically expect from japanese releases, they love applying DNR more than american studios, such as The recent Future Boy Conan anime 4K discs, which are still big improvements nevertheless due to new scans, and the DNR was still acceptable if not ideal. But the real problem with Kurosawa's 4K is discussion about the color timing of Kagemusha and Ran. If any color timing issues in Raiders are only perhaps slightly innacurate at worst, the Kurosawa 4K discs of his color films have split Kurosawa fans in the middle, and it's impossible for anyone to agree. The new color timing looks in some scenes DRAMATICALLY more muted than the old one. It's a true night-and-day difference. The fact that these 4K restorations were supervised by the films' cinematographers hasn’t really helped silence criticisms of these changes, with some fans accusing the cinematographers of either being senile, or the studio applying a filter after their supervision. Some fans despise the new color grading, using as argument Kurosawa's statements about wanting the films to look bold and colorful like his paintings. But ultimately, we can't know for sure. I don't think that even Kurosawa's resurrection to reply us would end the debate. If you want to see more on this, check page three on the thread "High and Low (1963) / Kagemusha (1980) 4K UHD". I can't share the link to blu-ray.com, or RUclips deletes my post. You'll have to google the thread, it doesn't appear on the film's page in the site.
@@matheus5230 I’ve seen prints of Raiders and a whole bunch of different versions. To be honest I don’t think they’ve ever quite nailed the look of it on video. I talk about the good qualities of the new 4k scans and it’s how they were handled that’s the problem. Even there the UHDs are a clear step up over the BDs technically but you’ve got to deal with the revisionism in the new transfer plus the hdr grade being a bit much in places.
Man i dont get it, there are people who dont care at all, and then there are people who do care and want the original film preserved. Who are they trying to serve by making these ridiculous unnecessary changes?
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader how do we convince them that people with "modern tastes" aren't buying 4k discs of 40 year old movies, they should be catering to us
Extolling the virtues of a 720x480 Laser Disc over a 3840x2160 Blu Ray because of a few fx corrections is essentially saying that you don't care about the quality of the picture . 720x480 is like watching a tenth generation or worse Xerox of an image (300K pixel vs. 8 Million) . Operating from the idea that an old VHS or Laserdisc's color timing is somehow "correct" or exactly like the film appeared in theaters is not a notion supported by evidence.
I prefer watching the LDs because of the sound and because I enjoy the format. They don’t have any of the issues of the later releases and in turn I don’t have to worry about those. On a technical level of course it’s not going to stack up to what we have today and the base 4k scans themselves look like they were well done. If we could get our hands on those raw scans and do it ourselves without any tinkering and including the original audio mixes that would solve it. As for color I’ve never been fully 100% behind any version. The prints and elements I’ve seen do indicate that you get a bit more depth on Temple and Crusade which is at least mostly reflected in the UHDs but Raiders still feels wildly off. The LD transfer is quite good for the format at the time and seems very balanced which I why I like it so much visually in spite of limitations. Crusade is the LD that suffers as it was Paramount’s first ever letterbox release and came out a few years before the other films got new widescreen masters. In spite of it being a bit contrasty and soft in spots it’s pretty solid and darn impressive for a first foray into widescreen video. It also helps to have a good setup for standard def. Watching on my hdcrt with it’s incredible comb filter really enhances old discs. Similarly it helps immensely with crummy masters on later releases to hide their flaws somewhat, such as the super DNR’d Trek TOS BDs or most of all when watching the DVDs of DS9 and Voyager.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader I certainly agree with your overall sentiments about trying to get to the original presentation as much as possible (or at least having that as an option). But in comparison to a 4K transfer (even one with the various sins you have detailed here), Standard Def, visually, is laughably and woefully inferior. It’s like suggesting that watching a more accurate presentation on a tiny screen through a tea bag could somehow be more in line with the creator’s intent. This especially seems specious when the original creator is involved in the process of making the 4K presentation. I know you mentioned that you may value the sound over the picture, which is fair enough. But even great sound on a Laser disc with the pitifully puny lack of picture elements in SD could not be further from the original theatrical. I am on your side but simply see Laser discs and VHSs and other SD memorabilia as being inadequate in every way towards the idealistic crusade (as I imagine it-hell, it’s your crusade, I may be wrong) :)
@@mechanicalbug2658 I can still enjoy old SD masters for what they are and in some instances like here with the Indy trilogy I find more enjoyment out of watching the LDs via my setup than the higher res scans due to the way they were handled. If you see an old master on obsolete formats at its full potential they can still be rather impressive. On my HDCRT, Laserdisc frequently rivals or outdoes some DVD masters and looks pretty remarkable given the age of the format or the individual disc. Plus I enjoy being something of a video archeologist. I know most people won't go that far but it is quite fun plus you learn a lot about video. I'm not claiming that LD can beat a 4K scan on a technical level but given the right circumstances the experience can be just as rewarding just without the same level of visible detail and modern abilities. Sometimes I'm willing to stick with an older release as my goto watching copy simply because its more hands off in how the transfer was done. Admittedly I do go into far more minutiae with all Lucasfilm titles simply because I'm used to it with the Star Wars trilogy. I don't put much stock in the PR blurb about Spielberg and Burtt supervising since they probably signed off on the master before Paramount got their hands on it plus they both previously approved or made the BD changes.
While I'm impressed with your intense level of knowledge surrounding these films, this is a great set. Noone but the top one half of one percent of watchers will notice any of these changes.
That’s possible and I do admit I’m a very particular member of the audience with my knowledge of various changes and tweaks over the years. I do think the effects being changed should be noticeable to most and the encoding issues should be as well but frequently get glossed over by reviewers. If Paramount had left the effects alone, included original audio and had proper encoding then maybe I could call this a good release even without any new extras or better packaging.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderFor Paramount's standards, the encoding is still pretty good overall. Paramount can do a lot worse. I wish the Indiana Jones 4K set was the worst Paramount encoding ever.
@DriveupLife22 Watchers wouldn't know because they haven't informed about all the terrible revisionist changes that take away from the original presentation. If you can't release a set that is faithful to archived presentations, then it is a terrible set. No excuses.
Ok I just started this video. And based on the title I’m guessing this is a negative review. BEFORE viewing this video, my opinion of the Indiana Jones UHD set is they look AMAZING. Reference quality. I don’t think this video will change my mind but…let’s see.
I dislike the modern color grading of films which gives them a flat, waxy appearance more akin to computer animation that made them a chore to sit through. It's largely why I stopped watching new films after Last Jedi.
Last Jedi was amazing in 70mm i didn't get to see it in 70 because our local theater omnimax went digital. That movie was shot half digital half film. It was a blow up though, not shot in 65mm completely. The imax scenes might even have been digitally shot, it is hard to find out.
@@matthewgaudet4064 10-15% of TLJ was shot digitally. It was such a mess of a film that I came very close to walking out of it. I'm fortunate that I came of age in the late 1970s and 1980s when the movies were actually good and there was care and attention paid to the way they were presented. I'm so glad that Hollywood is dying right now.
Agreed, only anal nerds like this guy pretend it's a bad thing. (e.g. "Ya gottta go frame by frame! Most people won't notice! It ruins everything! Just horrible! blah blah".
They're only dodgy when people are only told about it. Revisionism for something that was never a problem is one of the worst mentalities you can take in order to preserve the original presentation on modern video.
Wow.. you really need to get out of your parent's basement and go find a girl to kiss. Did the stories get altered in any way? No. Are they still better than the POS Indy 5 film that just came out? Yes.
I care more about maintaining a proper version of record. Yes, they were altered because to go in and change virtually every effects shot to such a degree in a sneaky manner as has been done is to go against the spirit in which the films were originally made. That’s not even getting into the presentation issues that plague most Paramount releases and the audio revisionism.
I stay with DVD 📀 because it works on my laptop and tablet. But let's pretend 4 K would work for me. DISC 1 ROTLA 🔵 8/10 DISC 2 TOD 🔵 10/10 DISC 3 TLC 🔵 8/10 DISC 4 KOTCS 🔵 2/10 (More than it deserves.) Tear off sheet 📆with code for ddl of DOD. zero! TOTAL SHIGHT!
The fact that the LaserDiscs from 30+ years ago are so much better than the remasters today really says a lot about how Paramount feels about restoration these days.
Lol you are delusional if think any laserdisc is better than a blu ray....
Your knowledge of these versions history is amazing. It's too bad they don't include the original audio since there's probably plenty of space. I feel like UHD should be used to preserve 1:1 copies of the original films by default and offer enhanced versions as an option.
They will probably put out another collection for the new Indy film for a 5 part set and perhaps they can at least add in the original audio mixes as an option for that.
5 films? I only recognise 3 and of those the 2nd one isn’t all that!
@@MikeTheBike2010 What? But the second one has the monkey brains eating scene!
@MikeTheBike2010 Get over it, crybaby. The later Indy films are inoffensive.
For Raiders, I watch a 1981 35mm scan with the original optical audio. The official releases, like with Star Wars, are dead to me and they get no money.
I have a print of Willow on my cable service, which is cropped but has filmgrain. The Blu doesn't. It looks like an entirely different scan its very red and orange in color. Wish i had that in 2:40:1. The darn 73 Telecine of Graffiti looks better than the blu. Lucas is baffling.
I loved Crystal Skull, it was the perfect ending to the stories. Indy met his son, and he married Marion. In addition, Shia Beouf did a great job playing Mutt Williams.
I did like this one. Shia is perfect for this role and I love Marian. No respect
I love how much detail is packed into these videos. Refreshing to see someone else obsessed over home video standards; you end up saving money by not falling for every new release.
With all the details, I think the best way to go is Raiders on DVD, Temple and Crusade on Blu-ray, and Crystal Skull on UHD (if I were a Laserdisc user, it would be a different story). But it just sounds ridiculous to have a split up a series over formats like that.
Thank you! I'm always amazed others get something out of these. I started doing them because I simply had no outlet for my film research and transfer frustrations.
As you say the best overall easy option is Raiders on DVD, Temple and Crusade on BD and Skull pick your poison on BD or UHD. But if you get into LD and have a good setup....that mix of Raiders is unbeatable. I wish I could find out where it came from someday!
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader You're welcome, this is one of those binge-worthy channels, so don't mind me popping up in random videos.
The only good thing here in Germany is that you can see the original German theatrical dub of Raiders of the lost ark in 2.0 stereo here on Disney Plus and on the UHD.
In the past, when it was available on Netflix or Amazon, it was always a new 5.1 dub from 2009 with different voices and a different mix.
With Raiders it's a shame that I prefer to hear films in the original language.
I only have the damn Bluray.
I guarantee you if some kind of expose was done on these companies doing "restorations", it would be found that most if not all of their claims would be b.s. Thanks again for your detailed critique of these cases of cinematic vandalism.
I've seen a version of Raiders derived from a 35mm LPP print and it is a beauty, and the texture really brought me back to my original viewing.
Do you own the 2023 Groundhog Day 4K reissue? Because apparently it's a must own for picture quality, the original Dolby Stereo track and better compression than the original release. It seems Sony puts a lot more love on their films than what Paramount is doing to their films
I’d like to pick it up and I’m quite surprised they included the original matrixed track which Sony has started recently doing on more of their releases. Sony usually sets a higher standard for their catalog restorations when compared to other studios. The only major issue they’ve had with a lot of their new 4K scans, are going a bit overboard With light in the HDR department.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderAt least there's one studio that at least cares about their films, I'm definitely picking up Bram Stoker's Dracula and Groundhog Day if I get the chance
@@pepsiforbread1416 I really hope they re-issue the films from the out of print first couple Columbia classic boxes. They did finally reissue bridge on the river Kwai including a version of it’s original mono track that hasn’t been around since the early 80s. And they’ve done new steelbooks of Bram Stoker‘s Dracula, and now also Mask of Zorro that are improvements over the first pressings that I’d like to pick up.
Indiana Jones and the Blu rays of Bulls**t
Hahahaahahaha
How does Vistasonic compare to traditional 70mm six track or 35mm stereo?
It was essentially a process that used four separate optical tracks on 35mm film to have four discrete LCRS tracks instead of using a matrix process. Unfortunately it had some quirks and was dropped after only being used on Popeye and Dragonslayer.
Great video! God bless your "golden eyes" and your ability to see these issues (with the Godfather UHDs, I had a heck of time seeing all the issues you saw... but I did at least see some of them and agree that set could have been better). And now, thanks to your review of this set, I've decided not to bother with the Indiana Jones UHDs... unless of course I can find them dirt cheap. I've also decided to seek out the letterboxed laserdiscs (I do have them in P&S for nostalgia's sake, but now I'm inspired to add the letterboxed versions to my collection too). Keep up the great work dude... and keep being idealistic!
This is still a far better set than The Godfather. The problems are far from being as bad as the worst of The Godfather.
Thanks! This is thankfully far better than the Godfather set but the issues really mar the new scans for me.
Do you think someone could just easily burn the laserdisc trilogy set to a nice UHD as a bootleg? I'd love to get one. Someone did an excellent 4k of Aliens for instance that's better than whatever Jimmy Kimmel is doing with the official release. I hope you rant about that when you get the new releases.@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
@@paintingcube3853 you could definitely use elements like the audio but the masters aren’t going to look super hot on a modern display without trying to do tons of upscaling or using something like the Domesday duplicator. I think the best option is going to be something along the lines of trying to re-grade the UHD masters, and then go back to using Blu-ray footage or the Japanese wowowow Raiders HD master before it got the awful color grading and use these for all the effects shots. Then adding in the other mixes from Laserdisc and other sources. Essentially doing a Despecialized Indy trilogy.
A flawed release is indeed after your right about the manipulation and revisionism themselves. At that point, it deserves a redo once it licenses to the arthouse distributors like Criterion, Shout! Studios, Arrow Video and Kino Lorber to give the proper release it deserves (including keeping the original audio mix for the first three as 4.0 mix).
It's crazy the heavy alterations that can happen in blu-ray and 4k releases, it's something that happens regularly too. Is it frustrated people who who got rejected from working on original film productions who want to be involved in creative decisions instead of restoring something faithfully that has already been created?
Since moving away from VHS I've never really cared about wether I watch a movie on DVD, Blu-Ray or whatever new super format is out and about... But I DO have serious issues with revisionism. Old movies are old movies, visible seams and mistakes and all. Why can't they just leave them the f**k alone!
After having watched this video I'm really glad I never replaced my 2003 Indy dvd box, and now I never will!
I’m with you. I don’t have the cash to spend on a 4K player and 4K television. I’m completely fine with blu ray for at least another decade.
Also I forget to mention. What do you think about using a Retrotink scaler with a LD on a modern television? I have a pvm but it would look absolutely amazingly on a 60 inch oled. If it scales properly of course.
@@d.s3484 some have tried it to mixed results. Any scalers or processors that are geared more for gaming don’t necessarily play well with video formats. It’s basically another time where you have to just try a system out and see what results you get.
I Watch the 4ks when they are playing on the background or the VHS tapes but the laserdisc is what you watch when you actual sit down to see them.
Dvds are nice for the few features the exclusively have but overall it is a shame that like with 2001 the laserdisc is the best the film will be as it was original shown
Thanks again! Looking fwd to digging into the video.
Wow, thank you!!
I seriously don’t understand anything other than an archival approach to these UHD’s. Why carve up an already perfectly cut turkey?
In your honest opinion, what is the best home video version to own of Raiders of the lost Ark that is truest in form to it's 1981 theatrical release?
The 1991 letterbox laserdisc. No changes, no snake reflection removal, first widescreen master and hands down the best audio mix of the film even though it’s a matrix track no one knows anything about or where it came from. This is the version I always rewatch and the sound is sublime. The later 2003 dvd is okay but it was a Lowry affair in terms of grain removal and it did have a few very minor tweaks. However the 5.1 was great and reputedly derived from the 70mm mix and the last time the sound was good on disc.
For something to replicate the 35mm general release the old pan n scan transfers have the original Dolby Stereo mix which is really dynamic but doesn’t have much surround activity.
Raiders should be given to Criterion. They would give it the care it deserves. I got the original Blu Ray set. I use crystal skull as a coaster. I won’t talk about the myth about a 5th movie. Never happened. 😊
The packaging on the Indiana Jones 4K set is the definition of subpar, but somehow it still manages to look leagues better than the 4K SteelBook set that Paramount put out at the same time and that I was foolish enough to pick up. I’ve never come across anything in the physical media realm as flimsy and poorly designed as that atrocity, and I’m embarrassed for having spent good money on it. I guess it’s high time I seek out the old widescreen Laserdisc release. Luckily, I’ve got my own personal Sallah in that regard, so it shouldn’t prove too difficult.
What version would you recommend getting? Whether official release or a fan scan, frankly the compression is a dealbreaker for me and looks really terrible on my large LG C3, and I’d love to know what’s considered the best source for these films
@@bungleprosy I’m glad you notice the bad paramount compression too! Sometimes I wonder if it’s just me because most people seem to somehow not notice it!
Unfortunately you’re left with the old masters on BD, the old Lowry processed DVDs or Laserdiscs of you don’t go a fan scan route. My personal favorite is watching the trilogy on letterboxed laserdisc because the transfers are completely hands off and the audio is outstanding despite not being discrete. That’s the last time Raiders was not tweaked in some way on video.
I wonder if you’re able to evaluate the Christopher Nolan Batman 4K discs. I thought they were genuinely horrendous, especially Batman Begins 4K, but everyone said they were spectacular. I’ve never in my life sat so long in front of my tv trying to figure out if it was my setting issue, because if everyone’s right, then I must be wrong, right? The problem is every other disc looked great on my TV EXCEPT for Batman Begins 4K!
The Begins UHD was a pitiful disc and a terrible disappointment. For some reason Nolan is convinced he has to use interpositives and not the film negative for scans and Begins was stuck using an older source and thus the UHD looks like crud. It’s not as bad as the junk UHD of The Bourne Identity where Universal didn’t want to scan the film elements but it does have some of the same hallmarks.
Those two are both first films in a series where they’re the only ones I enjoy. I skipped the UHDs because they’re so bad.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader Vindication, at last! I was thoroughly ridiculed in a physical media Facebook group for saying this, but I can imagine you yourself getting this kind of crap too, more so I expect. Keep up the good fight, you have my support in your cause!
@@bigmoviefreak thanks it’s certainly tough at times to dig deeply into this stuff and get ridiculed or ignored no matter how detailed you go. There’s a lot of discussion on the Nolan UHDs in the threads on the Blu-ray.com forum but it’s a lot to dig through.
Begins is sadly still stuck with a crummy disc on all formats.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderDo you know if Dark Knight or Dark Knight Rises got poor sources used for the UHDs? I’m planning on checking those out but after the mixed results I’ve heard of Begins I’m skeptical if they’re worth over the BDs.
@ they’re a bit better but held back from what they could be by some silly mastering choices.
47:55 I don't care what anyone says, that Blu-ray set is still one of my favorite pieces in my collection. It's built like a tank, and my discs have never been scratched by the sleeves. Universal has copied that sort of packaging numerous times, and I'm always let down when it's flimsy garbage, instead of like the Indy set.
48:25 They also DNRed the menu videos. My memory on this isn't the best, but I believe the newly encoded trailers also look markedly worse. Most of the trailers were just the same exact encodes as on the Blu-rays, but I don't remember which had new encodes and which had old ones.
Is there any 4k films that are just rescaned from the origional film stock and not touched up with DNR or colour grading?
There are thankfully some very well done archival 4K transfers and masters out there but sadly not as many as there should be. A lot of the recent video masters done by Arrow Video on their catalog UHDs have been sensational such as the Bruce Lee restorations, Barbarella and others.
It sounds like a lot of movies look and sound better on laserdisc, what model would you recommend?
For sound that's frequently true 80-90% of the time unfortunately. Players can be very difficult to come by and will vary in their video output and audio output. Pioneer is usually the benchmark for manufacturers. The other adage is any working player is a good player. I'd advise to start with something in good shape that's affordable-but the biggest thing to look for is a player with digital audio out so you can get the full PCM signal of Laserdisc digital sound. Pioneer and Panasonic are pretty much the best brands.
My Dad had Raiders on beta it came with Sony's SL-2700 (Beta's first HIFI machine) it sounded amazing ! And i bought the widescreen Laserdisc and it also sounded amazing. I much prefer the original mixes on Beta and Laserdisc to any remixes to DVD up to 4k releases.
I'm pretty sure that this revisionism was done in order to adjust the look of the trilogy to match the "viewing standards" of modern streaming audiences.
Someone, somewhere decided that they looked too old to be appealing to the Marvel crowds, so they tried to spice them up a bit. And failed...
@@SpaceCattttt exactly and what makes it even worse is that these were so poorly done and seem to have been entirely done by Paramount themselves.
What are you listening on? What Atmos arrangement? Speakers? Receiver?
I'm curious if the Atmos mix sounds less punchy because you're running outta power.
I only have the 4K versions, so I don't have anything to compare, but I also have an $85K spacial sound system in my home theater.
Raiders looks good but it does look like a cleaned up and recomposed version trying to not look like a Republic serial. I can't tell if the grain is authentic or added because I'm not an expert. What sucks is the Atmos mix, the Letterbox Laserdisc PCM audio is so much clearer and impressive. Did ILM do these recomposites and DNR on the effects or did Paramount do them like they did on Star Trek?
@@matthewgaudet4064 I don’t know but my guess is Paramount did the effects tweaks and other work.
I love this channel. Thank you for this analysis! 👍🏽
It's actually quite sick the way all the Star Wars and Indy films have been mangled over the years. The betrayal of film preservation and archiving original cinematic artifacts is quite disappointing, infuriating, and sad. As a fan it breaks my heart 💔 and pisses me off to no end. 🤬
No way i could realistically get Laserdisc anytime soon. Which disc version would you recommend?
It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The new 4k transfers themselves are great and so Temple and Crusade fare okay if you can look past the effects changes, encoding issues and hdr at times. Raiders is better on the UHD but you have new changes, bad encoding, some errors and still crummy sound.
If you’re a diehard fan of the trilogy, it’s actually pretty good to have the DVDs, Blu-rays, and the UHD’s. The audio on the DVDs is still solid and that was the last time Raiders sounded good on video. The transfers aren’t so hot because Lowry digital did them and they’re really showing their age now. The Blu-ray of Raiders is terrible with its color grading and that audio remix. But having older versions means you have copies without the new effects changes and HDR application. I wish I had a simpler answer but unfortunately it’s a bit like Star Wars and there’s not one easy recommendation for a physical media release.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader For Star Wars it's real easy now. Just watch 4K77, 4K80, and 4K83. Easy to get online.
Very informative and well put together video. I love the Indiana Jones movies (not counting Dial of Destiny as I didn't like that one). I bought the 4k steelbook set and the packaging for that was flimsy too. And of course they then released each film as separate steelbook releases with the original poster art instead of the white background. I made a custom steelbook box out of wood/leather that can house each. I like to think I put more effort in than Paramount did in the packaging lol. Transferred the art from toner using Citrasolv.
Hope we get a better 5 disc. Loved Dial, and I thought the 4k for that was beautiful
My favorite is crystal skull and temple of doom. I know revisionism is bothersem but I like the idea of taking out the teal/orange makes it feel like classic Indy. films with teal and orange that use it for good reasoning should keep it, but not Indiana. I hope the same team for Star Wars despecialized completes this trilogy next.
CRT TV's, VHS and Laser Discs are more important than ever.
What was altered / revised with the Jaws 4K? The shooting star shot I bet has been played with.
They've I think readjusted some of the digital tweaks for the BD like removing ships on the horizon and other minor bits. All Spielberg 4K masters usually play with the color timing and sound. The mono mix is still not untouched and properly restored so you have to rely on the Laserdisc mono for audio.
I watch them in Italian mostly and luckily the Italian boxset has the original 2.0 Italian track in addition to a newer 5.1 dub.
I personally only have the temple of Doom uhd and love it. Therefore, id love it if you have the time and are able to compile the resources to compare all of these effects shots between each of the versions. I personally feel that the updates in this way will always require some tweaking in order to preserve "the product" so years from release, you can turn on Temple of Doom without having anything that might distract a modern viewer watching it for the first time. However, I can empathize with how you feel about it given how I grew up with the video tape presentation of a new hope and the dvds of the rest of the 6 Lucas star wars films. I think from the perspective of how kids grew up watching the star wars prequels in dvd, the lack of high resolution hides the seams. So I grew up just being immersed in the world and loving them as every one of my peers did and still do. I enjoy the blu ray versions but you have to consciously forgive the then revolutionary tech that doesn't hold up today but for the fact that the work and level of detail and passion and time put into those at the time hasn't been met since. I have no desire to watch the UHDS of those. There's definitely a market to preserve the version of a film that we engaged with so lovingly as children. You speak very intelligently about it and I'd really encourage trying to find a position in whichever companies offer these new updates. It's clear they put a lot of work into it and if you approach them from the angle of having such an expertise in this area (I'd suggest also to find all these examples of changes religiously. With a fine tooth comb. And present them in a digital pack.) This would demonstrate your expertise and what you can offer. Additionally. If you can create a solution for them. To be able to create a high resolution, modern format of just one key scene where you can preserve what they are essentially killing those darlings with. Then you may become an invaluable asset to them. Especially if you have or can research into more titles that could benefit from this. If these versions could be made at a lower budget to that of the potential profit. You could be really onto something.
Indiana Revisions and the UHD of Doom
I wonder if George didn't tweak the movies; he DID do more tweaks on Star Wars trilogy when he did the 4k scans...
He has made changes to his films through the years including American Graffiti and THX 1138. They redid the optical composites for the 4k of Indiana Jones and dnr'ed them. I'm not sure if its Lucasfilm who made the changes, Lucas or Spielberg. Or Paramount. They removed the heavy DNR on Crystal Skull but also removed the bleach pass of the theatrical print. I prefer the 35mm.
I’m really starting to wonder if this was Lucasfilm involved in making changes.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader I wouldn't be surprised is what I'm saying, as I said George had the final say on the SW trilogy changes too and I believe these scans were all done at the same time
@@MidnightsEdgeAfterDark yeah the trilogy scans were Lucasfilm in house and then handed over to Disney.
However Paramount has also screwed with effects shots on the Trek film UHDs so I’m kinda split on theorizing. I’m leaning towards Paramount behind behind the Indy tweaks but who knows.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader That is true and Paramount is not innocent of a number of issues with their titles, in this case though I think Lucasfilm has more control and George is notorious for his 'fixes' especially the latest round without any announcement...and the round for the blu-rays...and DVD's... and special edition...and prior to the SE's.... all lead back to George. Love him but he's a revisionist
What do you think about the 2023 Jurassic Park UHD, the "Universal Essentials" version? Apparently it's a Spielberg approved 35mm restoration. Going by the screencaps I've seen it looks gorgeous.
I'm leery of any JP release because they always like to tweak something and NEVER give us the untouched theatrical DTS track. They've done better it seems in picture but always have some kind of sound remix sadly.
All releases after the Laserdisc seem to be cropped too.
I have a knack for the details but not to this level... but i certainly appreciate it. It taught me not to trust mainstream reviews. Im glad I watched your review before purchasing. I did however find the Blurays for 15 dollars new for all 4 films. So I'll tolerate them. If not knowing or looking for imperfections they look great on an LG C1 and do a hell of job at having them play in the background. I just subscribed.
I agree on the remixes of Raiders. Thankfully, that overbearing .1 LFE bass from the 1080p was toned down for the 4K, but as you said, the music is reverbed out too much, lacking the clarity and presence of earlier DVD, laserdisc and VHS Hi-Fi releases.
@@kthx1138 thank you! I’d almost started to think I was alone in hating the remixes so much! It’s downright criminal how the music has been remixed in and of itself. This latest Atmos iteration is the worst yet due to the height channels.
I don’t know how the BD LFE ever was okayed as it’s constantly excessive.
If people could hear all the original mixes on a proper modern release their minds would be blown.
I was sort of with him when he showed the stills. I didnt notice when watching myself but thought "ok the stills are a little off if you squint." But I laughed out loud when he showed the 1936 credit had a long fade out.
Thanks
Thank you!!!
Thank you for another in depth review. Also the bluray versions on this 4k boxset is the previous HD transfer they're not a downscaled version of the new UHD print. Can you please do a vid on your thoughts on the alternative versions and releases of the 1978 Superman movie and talk about the various audio mixes?
Actually the UHD set doesn't have BDs. The reissued BDs Paramount made are the same 2012 discs ported. I should definitely put together something for Superman. i was going to pick up the UHDs of 2-4 as standalones whenever they do them but I doubt they'll address any of the technical issues.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader I live in the UK and our UHD Indy boxsets contain the regular blurays. Of course one would assume they're downscaled versions of the new UHD transfers but as you said they are copy and paste versions of the previous BR releases.
The set and 4K UHD's of all the Indiana Jones films seem fine to me. But can also understand why some others may not enjoy it as much. Though from a video stand point they are better than the 2012 blu-ray disc releases.
Yeah if only they had left the new scans alone and included original audio with proper encoding I would be able to wholeheartedly recommend them.
It is frustrating in general right? Glad I have all the WS LD releases and my DVDs. Probably will always go back to LD and occasionally DVD.
Just got The Last Crusade on LD, I'm curious to hear the OG mix.
I haven't seen a home video release of Raiders i'm happy with. The closest is the Letterbox US Laserdisc. I have seen the Litemakr scan and for what it is it is decent. It shows the original color and you have the original optical audio. As for Lucas or companies messing with his films i hear American Graffiti got a new restoration in 4K with a new sound mix. No theatrical cut, no mono, and no theatrical 78 cut and no stereo. Just a new 5.1 mix in 4k with the cgi sunset. Basically the 1998 cut but now in 4K.
That’s pretty much my feelings to. I’m amazed they finally did any upgrade to Graffiti though unsurprisingly it’s still the same changes baked in.
I still have all three UK rental versions of Indiana Jones on VHS. Plus the original DVD box set. Never bothered with UHD versions. The box set design just didn't do it for me, and also the advent of companies using those god awful digipacks which, for me is total scarlidge. My Universal Noir # 1box set from Indicator had to go back, because the glue that stuck the backing of the case to sleeve came loose. I understand why boutiques are using digipacks now, and you also get people stating that digipacks are better because of space, but I really miss hard case sets with the hard outer box. Personally, I would have a nice sized box with hard cases anyday with the original artwork.
So, which small format discs should I buy?
@@duncandonuts5268 it depends really on what you’re looking for. Unfortunately no release is without some kind of issue or compromise.
I liked Skull's 35mm bleach pass. Obviously not matching the esthetic of the first 3. But the 4k is revisionist for doing away with it. I also prefer theatrical Minority Report over the blu-ray. ET reissue special edition despite the changes was a great looking print restoration. I saw it theatrically. Great color, matte lines fixed. But they had to add Walkie Talkies and censored audio, and cgi enhancement. The lack of a blu ray is stupid. Its only on DVD. Its like the Star Wars 1997 editions. Great restored picture. great 5.1 mix. Justifiable fixes and enhancements went too far afield into revisionism and crap cgi. I wish Lucas had done that fix the garbage mattes/matte lines. Replace the cardboard cutout in the Throne room and Landspeeder shot but left everything else alone.
I seem to remember the DVD of Minority Report was closer to the look of theatrical prints than the blu-ray was.
Skull definitely looks better without the 2007 grading but it now looks a bit weird too because it doesn’t have that yucky original grading. Minority Report seems to have been changed for the BD master in terms of the picture timing. The dvd had or at least tried to retain some of that so it would be interesting to see a print version to compare.
The garbage mattes are the one thing in the Star Wars trilogy in terms of effects that should be addressed. Only poor transfers have gradually revealed them over the years as they were never meant to be seen. Everything else should be left exactly as-is.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader , I just meant Han shooting second shouldn't be a thing. I even read Lucas say Leia couldn't marry a murderer and that the change was justified because she was going to have kids with this man and he made the change because of that.
Where are the comparison links?
It doesn't seem like HDR should be added to old films if they're supposed to be preserved as they were, but I guess it can just be turned off in the player?
Unfortunately it can't. Forcing it to be disabled merely causes the player to attempt downconversion to SDR which isn't an exact science and can cause artifacts.
HDR is a tightrope to walk on catalog titles. It's a tough balancing act to utilize the expanded range without ever overdoing it. What we're seeing is the typical difference between films handled with care vs films just being thrown into the latest and greatest tech without quality control and attention being paid.
Hmm. Maybe with some movies I will just stick to regular Blu-Ray and sit farther away from the TV. Or better yet, don't put on my glasses! ha ha @@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
I don’t have any other versions. Seen in theaters and the 4K does not feel right. I feel like stuff is missing and it doesn’t look as good as vhs
The new scans themselves are great but it’s clearly obvious they manipulated stuff and applied tweaks everywhere. I’d say at least pick up the Blu-ray’s for cheap and see what you think of those as they pre-date paramount being able to go in and do this level of stuff
I have a vcr. Is there any unmolested version. Same with Star Wars. Don’t have sound system just car about adding or subtracting scenes and adding cgi
Great video, I was wondering what your thoughts on the best home video versions of other Spielberg movies would be, such as Close Encounters, E.T., Jaws, etc.?
Thank you! I wish there was an easy answer but it’s a matter of which version you can live with. There’s usually a tweak in color timing and other elements in later masters but usually it’s on the minor or less noticeable side. The original audio of present usually doesn’t sound as good as the best past releases which are usually Laserdisc versions.
Most Spielberg films fare well on UHD outside of any tweaks and at least Jaws has a version of its mono-but if you want the best mono that’s on the signature collection laserdisc and the dvd version of this master was the last fully untouched version in terms of any digital changes like removing ships in the horizon.
Close Encounters is complicated due to the versions, the home video cuts and the audio. We’ve never gotten the full original 70mm Dolby mix on a release and the 4K master has new color timing and some tweaks I’m not a fan of. I stick with the BD of the theatrical cut and the 5.1 is solid. All the video versions sound good but one can only wonder what the original 70mm mix would be like if released untouched.
Thanks for the reply! In principle I believe we should have the original released versions of movies, but I know that won’t be the case, especially on physical media. It’s becoming more and more clear that people are gonna have to find movies digitally through most likely pirated means to acquire the most faithful edition of their favorite movies. Strangely a movie that comes to mind for me is the original Matrix movie where I personally prefer the original DVD/VHS look and sound. Not sure if that’s how it originally looked and sound in theaters in 1999 but that’s how I always see and hear it in my memories, not a big a fan of the blu ray green tint they did or the new 4K that made skin tones so pink. Sorry for the long rant here, but I was also curious to if you’ve seen a video by Rick Worley titled “How to watch Star Wars Part Two, the Special Editions are the Movies”? I think it has a compelling point of view on the value a director holds in altering their work and should be able to change it as long as they own it. I know a lot of your content refers to companies making alterations to old movies without the creators consent but I’d still be interested in what your opinions are on this subject.
Is the steel books any different then the other 4k
Maybe they will finally get it right for the inevitable FIVE movie set
They looked good to me, and I saw them all in the theatre. The soft box sucked but otherwise I thought it was a solid release.
I get that. I wish they had left the new scans alone and properly encoded them with original audio. If that was the case I could wholeheartedly get behind them. It's hard because the new scans so show such marked improvements over the old 2012 BDs in many areas but I can't stand revisionism.
I’m not keen on revisionist editing either. I got The French Connection on dvd to get the original movie. Side note, that movie is 104 minutes long. I’m sure it would be an hour longer if made today.
I always watch indy movies and especially Raiders of the lost ark mostly on dvd then my blu-ray version as i get a more positive
Experience with the look and sound, so i think with Raiders on blu-ray has a noticeable difference in the way of compression,
But i had the same problem with the A nightmare on elm street movies that had a terrible transfer on blu-ray a few years ago
So I got the dvd box set that had a much better transfer with sound and picture.
I watched the Last Crusade the other day and I thought the picture quality was incredible! Didn’t pick up on any of the changes you outlined personally 😂 thanks for the video
That’s cool, I’m glad you enjoyed it. I know I’m in the minority on this one but the years of dealing with Star Wars version research has made me even more sensitive to things being done with Indy.
Just watched the first film on 92inch projection with HDR. Very film like. Loved it! OLED is way to sharp/video for me. I like to watch a film like in the cinema.
OLED and 4k tvs certainly reveal and highlight everything almost to the point of it seeming like a magnifying glass if you’re a videophile!
Man, I've beeb looking forward to this...
I’ve got the DVDs I bought a few years ago; yay, me? 🤔
Those are pretty solid and have a good 5.1 tracks. The problem is they were handled by Lowry digital back when they were doing extreme degraining so while they’re not as bad as the Star Wars DVDs, they have a lot of the same Lowry problems plus a lot of edge enhancement and other DVD era stuff. Raiders has the two tweaks made but otherwise all three are unchanged.
If you’re watching on a crt or a display that will hide more of the flaws or is better optimized for standard def material the DVDs still can be enjoyed very much.
Im pleased i didn't pick this set up. I cant believe how poor the artwork is. These are some of the most popular films of all time. I've just rebought the dvd set you have behind you for £3.50 i used to own it many years ago.
This an amazing video very in depth. I’m a normie when it comes to picture stuff, so I thought they all looked great when I watched them last year on this set. The only thing I noticed was crystal skull. I watched it a lot growing up and I remember the lighting being way more overblown. I think it looks a lot better now. Again great video. Oh and yeah I agree the packaging is absolutely horrible…
Skull is the one where you immediately notice how the color timing was tamed down probably due to it being a new image harvest this time.
Once you get past the initial wow factor of the new 4K scan for the trilogy though that quickly fades. I'm used to them skipping original audio so that wasn't surprising but everything else just kept being one bummer after another. The screwing with the effects was it for me. Usually I dig deeper with Indy because I'm used to doing that with Star Wars but there's never been anything this change intensive until now.
Having an OLED really magnifies all the little video issues that can pop up in modern releases and particularly Paramount issues that keep occurring.
Why is LaserDisc a better format for older movies than 4K is?
Usually the benefit of LDs for catalog titles is that the transfers done were mostly hands off from good materials. The format is especially important for audio as studios would frequently transfer master audio sources without any compression or EQ added which makes these typically the best source of a film’s audio on a media release.
The format is fun to watch and given a good player, setup and transfer the results can be surprisingly engaging for such an older format. Sure it’s never going to approach a modern format or transfer but it’s a nice way to reconnect with older films and sadly is usually where I have to go to source a better audio track.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusadersorry for the months late reply, but I wholeheartedly agree that LD is a very good format for older films.
I’ve actually just ordered the 1992 Widescreen versions of both Raiders and Temple of Doom (already have Last Crusade widescreen on LD, and fullscreen versions of the first two).
@@Darthlucy1 You're certainly going to enjoy running the letterbox LDs of those! It's such a fun and amazing way to reconnect with them and the sound...nothing beats them IMO.
Crystal Skull was 2008 wasn't it?
Anyhow, I agree the visuals of the film are awful. Reminds me a little of The Hobbit, with it's terrible colour grading.
Keep up the great work 👍🏻
The films look a lot better with these tweaks tbh, especially the shots from The Last Crusade. All they're done mostly is Color correction.
Looked and sounded good to me!!
Would love to hear your thoughts about A Clockwork Orange 4k. Or a physical media history of it
I’ve been hoping Warner would finish all of their Kubrick titles and do a UHD boxset. I know they’ll do a big box set with extras and things left off the discs so far once they do all of their Kubrick titles. That’s their habit so far with each format.
That’s not a bad idea for doing a Video History of the Warner held Kubrick titles. It would be quite a long video because I’ll have to get into all of the extensive transfer minutia that Warner has subjected them to. And how the original audio has been poorly preserved and not even present on most releases. I’m just amazed they have any form of the mono for Clockwork on the UHD. And it does seem to be a version of the best version we’ve had to date which is from the original DVD release.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderA Clockwork Orange, from what I heard, it's an okay mix for being discrete but it's far from perfect on the old Blu-ray, and They did a new mix that was better although you still have the purest option of the mono mix, I think they may have put that in there not to piss off all their fans. (Word of mouth from when I read it's the DVDs mono. Great for its time, Not so great now in this day and age.) The shining still missing It's original Theatrical mono, Full Metal Jacket, Not the true Theatrical mono, 2001 A space Odyssey heard that one has some noise reduction on the 70 mm mix and the remix was borked, The picture is great though on all of them, half of them have remastered blu-rays.
@@mikedbz8530 I’m amazed Warner included any original options though it’s nuts that the lossy 1999 DVD mono is the best there is for Clockwork.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusadersomewhere on a blog I did say that they didn't bother to restore the original mono just do a new 5.1 mix, This is the first film with Dolby sound, Not exactly stereo but Dolby processing nonetheless, The fact that it didn't have a new restoration in DTS- HD MA 2.0 alongside the 5.1 is a crime within itself. Goes to show you for all the good they did on Kubrick's films in the picture quality department, Warners still find ways to mess up in others. But it does make me wonder on all Stanley's WB catalog UHD discs the audio has been treated that badly.
Yes, it is the best option for the original mono. I'm just saying that it should have been restored well they were making this new 5.1, they should have given this film a lot more respect. Considering Kubrick is a very much a revisionist and a perfectionist (but we forgive him for that) Even this kind of revisionism would possibly have him spinning in his grave. (Remember he had Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and the Shining all changed before their general US release and even then the European release of the Shining was changed yet again to remove more scenes because he felt the film was too long)
I have no problem with and like the removal or Matte lines.
Here’s my problem with this review. If you skip through the movie one frame at a time you might find some issues. To pick it apart you need to compare frames, look at bitrates, look for matte lines. But it doesn’t have anything to do with, does the movie look great when you watch? and this is the best these movies have ever looked.
I will never understand anyone who says “a film must look exactly the way it did when it was released in theaters for all time”. Why? Film isn’t a picture or painting hanging in a museum. Movies don’t even look the same from one theatre to the next durinf release. There’s dirt, degradation, generational loss. Various options that can change things. 70mm or 35mm. Mono, stereo or surround?
This obsession over “the day the movie is released in theatres is the way that movie must now exist forever”. There’s a VAST difference between what Lucas did with the Special Editions, adding characters, changing character actions, adding new sequences. Ok. I understand that being an issue for some. Because the story and movie have changed.
These movies were never meant to LOOK like Republic serials from the 30s, so the reasoning for wanting matte lines is flawed if that’s the reason. The Republic serial was simply the motif, the impetus, the narrative structure, the cultural touchstone, not the technical or aesthetic choices(beyond a few shot compositions). When this franchise was released it was a made by using the latest technology advances in movie making. Matte lines were not a sought over artefact. vFX artists did everything and anything to get rid of them. But that’s not always possible.
Matte lines, as much as you may like them, can cause audiences members problems buying into the world. Verisimilitude issues. They can be distracting. Faulting a release for getting rid of them when they aren’t wanted is…a choice.
So I say again, this is a great upgrade from the blu ray. All I care about, all Anyone should care about, is whether that movie looks look when they pop it in
Some of the frame by frame stuff and the how they did it, and criticizing that, is fine. But to say it’s a lesser product? I just think that’s disingenuous.
@@MrGittz I noticed all of this while watching the UHDs. I didn’t have to go frame by frame until analyzing the effects changes further. While not fully on the level of what Lucas has done, I am bothered by the quiet revisionism that happens on Spielberg masters, and in particular the revisionism that’s happened to the Indy trilogy for quite some time.
The sound remixes are inferior to the original mixes. While the newer source scans are technically superior the manner in which they were handled by Paramount is terrible. Even for a UHD the presentation and product from Paramount is inferior for the format due to their own practices-especially in the disc encoding.
After Dial of Diarreha, I think we all owe Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and apology lol. It wasn't perfect, but it was perfectly clear it wanted to end the series on a satisying note, rather than destroy the character of Indy to promote Pheobe whoever her name is.
Also on a side note, this "restoration" is just as bad as you say lol.
I think it’s easy to see that Dial at its core still has a lot of the same problems because it was originally written by David Koepp for Spielberg to direct. But at the very least Skull was not rewritten and handled by other people trying to shape it into something else entirely.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader Thats true. Both films are incredibly inferior to the trilogy, except Skull at least has some of the spirit while Dial is just a flat out soulless cashgrab.
Interesting
The revisionism is not ideal, but I would completely disagree with the notion in your video description that this set has no upsides. The films still look fantastic, by far the best they have ever looked on home video. If it had original audio, and no special effects tweaks (though these are still far from dealbreakers), this would come pretty close to be a reference release. The encoding is not ideal, but very far from the worst. This set is many levels above The Godfather set. I wish the Indiana Jones 4K set was the worst Paramount could do. Paramount is so frustratingly inconsistent: they have done some truly amazing 4Ks (It's A Wonderful Life, Pulp Fiction), but also some complete pieces of garbage (Friday The 13th), and anywhere in-between in the spectrum (The Truman Show, bad compression means that it looks more like a good BD than a 4K disc, still a vast improvement over the horrible old blu-ray). I hope the Rosemary Baby 4K soon to come out is towards the good side of the spectrum at least.
I think its comparable to the Star Trek 4K remasters. No original audio. Less DNR except on optical effects. And similar to TMP directors 4K with the recompositing, or even the Star Wars Special Edition which came out in 1997. Or any of the recomposited/reanimated Disney animations.
It’s really hard for me to like these because of the negatives which are dealbreakers for me that I know won’t be for most people. The new base scans seem solid and far beyond even the LaserPacific old ones so it makes you wish we could just get our hands on those and do them properly on our own.
I agree Paramount is very inconsistent but even when they do good new scans or work there can be issues poking in. I’m still not exactly sure what they did on Liberty Valance and they have a habit of messing with opticals and transitions. There even some slight encoding artifacts I’ve seen pop up in M:I 1.
The Trek 4k masters comparison is probably a good one because you’ve got the positives of new scans with the negatives of screwing with effects shots and the like.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderWhile it's always important to hope and desire for the best, and point out flaws, I also think it's crucial to be able to see if the positives still far outweight the negatives. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is far more a mixed bag disc, but it's still the best home presentation of the film, and has lots to enjoy (though I understand how the good can also increase one's frustration with it not being perfect instead, because it easily had the potential to be so).
When it comes to DNR for example, I think I can take a moderate level of it. Toho is releasing Kurosawa's films in 4K in Japan this year, and the DNR in a few of those discs is not ideal (Ikiru and Stray Dog are the worst in this regard, though their biggest limitation is simply the terrible state of the sources), but also far from an atrocity. Nicwood, an user in blu-ray.com, is doing detailed reviews of all those Kurosawa 4Ks in the forums, and he says that the Seven Samurai disc is by far the best version of the film ever, easily outclassing Criterion, but that the very top layer of grain was taken out. Still perfectly watchable, far from an atrocity. That's often the best one can realistically expect from japanese releases, they love applying DNR more than american studios, such as The recent Future Boy Conan anime 4K discs, which are still big improvements nevertheless due to new scans, and the DNR was still acceptable if not ideal.
But the real problem with Kurosawa's 4K is discussion about the color timing of Kagemusha and Ran. If any color timing issues in Raiders are only perhaps slightly innacurate at worst, the Kurosawa 4K discs of his color films have split Kurosawa fans in the middle, and it's impossible for anyone to agree. The new color timing looks in some scenes DRAMATICALLY more muted than the old one. It's a true night-and-day difference. The fact that these 4K restorations were supervised by the films' cinematographers hasn’t really helped silence criticisms of these changes, with some fans accusing the cinematographers of either being senile, or the studio applying a filter after their supervision. Some fans despise the new color grading, using as argument Kurosawa's statements about wanting the films to look bold and colorful like his paintings. But ultimately, we can't know for sure. I don't think that even Kurosawa's resurrection to reply us would end the debate.
If you want to see more on this, check page three on the thread "High and Low (1963) / Kagemusha (1980) 4K UHD". I can't share the link to blu-ray.com, or RUclips deletes my post. You'll have to google the thread, it doesn't appear on the film's page in the site.
@@matheus5230 I’ve seen prints of Raiders and a whole bunch of different versions. To be honest I don’t think they’ve ever quite nailed the look of it on video.
I talk about the good qualities of the new 4k scans and it’s how they were handled that’s the problem. Even there the UHDs are a clear step up over the BDs technically but you’ve got to deal with the revisionism in the new transfer plus the hdr grade being a bit much in places.
Man i dont get it, there are people who dont care at all, and then there are people who do care and want the original film preserved. Who are they trying to serve by making these ridiculous unnecessary changes?
@@MC-bh8ph I wish I knew. With paramount it’s only their boneheaded preferences and attempting to cater to what they feel are “modern tastes”.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader how do we convince them that people with "modern tastes" aren't buying 4k discs of 40 year old movies, they should be catering to us
@@MC-bh8ph if only we could…
Extolling the virtues of a 720x480 Laser Disc over a 3840x2160 Blu Ray because of a few fx corrections is essentially saying that you don't care about the quality of the picture . 720x480 is like watching a tenth generation or worse Xerox of an image (300K pixel vs. 8 Million) . Operating from the idea that an old VHS or Laserdisc's color timing is somehow "correct" or exactly like the film appeared in theaters is not a notion supported by evidence.
I prefer watching the LDs because of the sound and because I enjoy the format. They don’t have any of the issues of the later releases and in turn I don’t have to worry about those. On a technical level of course it’s not going to stack up to what we have today and the base 4k scans themselves look like they were well done.
If we could get our hands on those raw scans and do it ourselves without any tinkering and including the original audio mixes that would solve it.
As for color I’ve never been fully 100% behind any version. The prints and elements I’ve seen do indicate that you get a bit more depth on Temple and Crusade which is at least mostly reflected in the UHDs but Raiders still feels wildly off. The LD transfer is quite good for the format at the time and seems very balanced which I why I like it so much visually in spite of limitations. Crusade is the LD that suffers as it was Paramount’s first ever letterbox release and came out a few years before the other films got new widescreen masters. In spite of it being a bit contrasty and soft in spots it’s pretty solid and darn impressive for a first foray into widescreen video.
It also helps to have a good setup for standard def. Watching on my hdcrt with it’s incredible comb filter really enhances old discs. Similarly it helps immensely with crummy masters on later releases to hide their flaws somewhat, such as the super DNR’d Trek TOS BDs or most of all when watching the DVDs of DS9 and Voyager.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader I certainly agree with your overall sentiments about trying to get to the original presentation as much as possible (or at least having that as an option).
But in comparison to a 4K transfer (even one with the various sins you have detailed here), Standard Def, visually, is laughably and woefully inferior. It’s like suggesting that watching a more accurate presentation on a tiny screen through a tea bag could somehow be more in line with the creator’s intent.
This especially seems specious when the original creator is involved in the process of making the 4K presentation.
I know you mentioned that you may value the sound over the picture, which is fair enough. But even great sound on a Laser disc with the pitifully puny lack of picture elements in SD could not be further from the original theatrical.
I am on your side but simply see Laser discs and VHSs and other SD memorabilia as being inadequate in every way towards the idealistic crusade (as I imagine it-hell, it’s your crusade, I may be wrong) :)
@@mechanicalbug2658 I can still enjoy old SD masters for what they are and in some instances like here with the Indy trilogy I find more enjoyment out of watching the LDs via my setup than the higher res scans due to the way they were handled.
If you see an old master on obsolete formats at its full potential they can still be rather impressive. On my HDCRT, Laserdisc frequently rivals or outdoes some DVD masters and looks pretty remarkable given the age of the format or the individual disc. Plus I enjoy being something of a video archeologist. I know most people won't go that far but it is quite fun plus you learn a lot about video. I'm not claiming that LD can beat a 4K scan on a technical level but given the right circumstances the experience can be just as rewarding just without the same level of visible detail and modern abilities. Sometimes I'm willing to stick with an older release as my goto watching copy simply because its more hands off in how the transfer was done.
Admittedly I do go into far more minutiae with all Lucasfilm titles simply because I'm used to it with the Star Wars trilogy.
I don't put much stock in the PR blurb about Spielberg and Burtt supervising since they probably signed off on the master before Paramount got their hands on it plus they both previously approved or made the BD changes.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader Thank you for the reply!
While I'm impressed with your intense level of knowledge surrounding these films, this is a great set. Noone but the top one half of one percent of watchers will notice any of these changes.
That’s possible and I do admit I’m a very particular member of the audience with my knowledge of various changes and tweaks over the years. I do think the effects being changed should be noticeable to most and the encoding issues should be as well but frequently get glossed over by reviewers.
If Paramount had left the effects alone, included original audio and had proper encoding then maybe I could call this a good release even without any new extras or better packaging.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusaderFor Paramount's standards, the encoding is still pretty good overall. Paramount can do a lot worse. I wish the Indiana Jones 4K set was the worst Paramount encoding ever.
@DriveupLife22 Watchers wouldn't know because they haven't informed about all the terrible revisionist changes that take away from the original presentation. If you can't release a set that is faithful to archived presentations, then it is a terrible set. No excuses.
2:19a.m. 4/16/2024
Is this the flipping flat earth society?😂
Ok I just started this video. And based on the title I’m guessing this is a negative review. BEFORE viewing this video, my opinion of the Indiana Jones UHD set is they look AMAZING. Reference quality. I don’t think this video will change my mind but…let’s see.
I dislike the modern color grading of films which gives them a flat, waxy appearance more akin to computer animation that made them a chore to sit through. It's largely why I stopped watching new films after Last Jedi.
Last Jedi was amazing in 70mm i didn't get to see it in 70 because our local theater omnimax went digital. That movie was shot half digital half film. It was a blow up though, not shot in 65mm completely. The imax scenes might even have been digitally shot, it is hard to find out.
@@matthewgaudet4064 10-15% of TLJ was shot digitally. It was such a mess of a film that I came very close to walking out of it. I'm fortunate that I came of age in the late 1970s and 1980s when the movies were actually good and there was care and attention paid to the way they were presented. I'm so glad that Hollywood is dying right now.
I recommend the John Wick movies and Oppenheimer, as well as Sound of Freedom and The Night Comes for Us at least
Revised FX? Cool! There are dodgy shots in all four movies.
Agreed, only anal nerds like this guy pretend it's a bad thing. (e.g. "Ya gottta go frame by frame! Most people won't notice! It ruins everything! Just horrible! blah blah".
They're only dodgy when people are only told about it. Revisionism for something that was never a problem is one of the worst mentalities you can take in order to preserve the original presentation on modern video.
Wow.. you really need to get out of your parent's basement and go find a girl to kiss. Did the stories get altered in any way? No. Are they still better than the POS Indy 5 film that just came out? Yes.
I care more about maintaining a proper version of record. Yes, they were altered because to go in and change virtually every effects shot to such a degree in a sneaky manner as has been done is to go against the spirit in which the films were originally made. That’s not even getting into the presentation issues that plague most Paramount releases and the audio revisionism.
I stay with DVD 📀 because it works on my laptop and tablet.
But let's pretend 4 K would work for me.
DISC 1 ROTLA 🔵 8/10
DISC 2 TOD 🔵 10/10
DISC 3 TLC 🔵 8/10
DISC 4 KOTCS 🔵 2/10 (More than it deserves.)
Tear off sheet 📆with code for ddl of DOD. zero! TOTAL SHIGHT!