Lawrence of Arabia

[Smokey]

This movie is eye candy for the eyes. Winner of 7 academy awards, it is hailed as one of greatest movie ever made. And after seeing it in its restored version on DVD with pristine audio & picture quality, definitely agree.

Director David Lean treat arabia deserts like John Ford treat western state land scape in his movies with grand and wide scope shots that is breath taking. Accompanied with music score of Maurice Jarre, it pretty much set the mode for whole film.

This is a film for which the widescreen format is utterly mandatory :)

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lohj1tpCrj1qzxttzo1_500.png

[dean_martin]

Yeah, it's epic. Everything looks so . . . BIG that it engulfs you. I picked up a superbit copy of this when bestbuy was closing out all their superbit titles for cheap.

[Woochifer]

Sounds like this is your first time with this masterpiece.

Which DVD release are you looking at? In the U.S., there have been three different versions, two of which were not approved by Robert Harris, who supervised the original 1989 restoration.

The Superbit version that came out in 2003 is the only DVD release that Harris checked for the correct color balances and densities. It also uses the correct audio track. As with other Superbit releases, it maxes out the disc space for a higher datarate (DVD Beaver measured it at 7.89 mbps).

DVD Beaver comparison (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/lawrenceofarabia2.htm)

Unfortunately, as with most other Superbit DVDs, the Lawrence of Arabia release came with zero extras or bonus features. In order to get the bonus features, you need to track down the 2001 Collector's Edition. It was packaged as a cloth-bound two-disc digipak.

Comparing the Superbit and Collector's Edition, the Superbit version is superior in every way. Greater detail, better colors, better audio. The Collector's Edition wasn't bad, but it had a lot more visible compression artifacts and other issues with the picture quality.

The one version to avoid (but the one likeliest to wind up in a bargain bin) is the single-disc release. That one crams the entire 227 minute movie onto one disc, and reduces the bitrate down to 4.2 mbps. It uses the same flawed master as the Collector's Edition, but compresses the bitrate by about 30%.

But, none of the DVD viewings come close to the eyepopping, jawdropping experience of seeing this movie on the big screen in 70mm. One of the few movies filmed completely in Super Panavision 70, it makes most of what today passes for "high definition" look limp by comparison. Until you've seen it in 70mm on the big screen, you haven't seen it. 70mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia still make their way into various revival, festival, and university screenings. Seek them out by all means.

P.S. When you finally get around to buying a Blu-ray player, I doubt you will ever use the term "pristine" in reference to DVD ever again. :cool:

[Smokey]

Thanks guys for comments.

Wish I had the Superbit versiuon, but one have is cloth cover two disc version. Was reluctand to buy it first since I though this was single disc film version with second disc being extras and bonus features. But after reading reviews sayinng the movie is spread over two discs, went back and bought it. It also contain replica of 1962 booklet that was supposely handed out in theaters to viewers.

I have ran cross the 2002 single disc edition that have cramed whole movie into one disc, but never bought it. However PQ reviews for that edition is also pretty good because of 1989 movie restoration Columbia did.

Wikipedia say that an 8K scan digital restoration is currently underway for Blu-ray release and is expected to be released sometime in 2012 to celebrate the film's 50th anniversary. I magine that probably will be a reference bluray film once it comes out.


Sounds like this is your first time with this masterpiece.

First time on widescreen TV :)

[Woochifer]

Thanks guys for comments.

Wish I had the Superbit versiuon, but one have is cloth cover two disc version. Was reluctand to buy it first since I though this was single disc film version with second disc being extras and bonus features. But after reading reviews sayinng the movie is spread over two discs, went back and bought it. It also contain replica of 1962 booklet that was supposely handed out in theaters to viewers.

Yep, that would be the Collector's Edition. It's easy to spread the movie out over two discs, because the intermission occurs about 2/3 of the way through the movie. This leaves room on disc #2 for the bonus features.

The Superbit version actually truncates the first half of the movie by placing the break before the intermission. But, that's the only way to max out the bits for both halves of the movie, given that the first half is much longer.


I have ran cross the 2002 single disc edition that have cramed whole movie into one disc, but never bought it. However PQ reviews for that edition is also pretty good because of 1989 movie restoration Columbia did.

The reviews that compared the single-disc version with the other versions also indicated that the image quality was noticeably worse. The 1989 restoration can't help a DVD that uses less than a 4.2 mbps datarate.

The Collector's Edition, which uses the same high def transfer, also got mixed reviews when it came out. It was simply not a great transfer. That's why Sony brought Robert Harris back to supervise the brand new transfer that they did for the Superbit release. It improved things, but you can only do so much with the DVD format.


Wikipedia say that an 8K scan digital restoration is currently underway for Blu-ray release and is expected to be released sometime in 2012 to celebrate the film's 50th anniversary. I magine that probably will be a reference bluray film once it comes out.

Considering how much scanning technology has evolved since 2003, when the Superbit transfer was done, this is an absolute necessity. I saw the HD presentation of Lawrence of Arabia on HDNet (presumably using either the 2001 or 2003 HD transfer), and there's no way that master would be acceptable for a Blu-ray release. Blu-ray is unforgiving in how much it reveals. If the transfer is poorly done or outdated, it will show the flaws. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should go back to DVD, because even a bad HD transfer will look better than just about any DVD.

Having seen the movie in 70mm, the potential for this release is off the charts, since the resolution in the original source is superior to anything recently done (except for maybe a select few features shot with IMAX film cameras). Sony absolutely has to get this one right, because a lot of people have seen what this movie is supposed to look like.

Warner has done a masterful job with their classic releases. Their Blu-ray release of Blade Runner remains my primary reference disc, because it captures what great film projection is supposed to look like (i.e., preserves the micro level details, including the film grain). Keeping my fingers crossed that Sony doesn't try to overdigitize Lawrence of Arabia by smoothing out the film grain and going overboard to "fix" some of the damaged film elements in the original negative.