Jurassic Park Blu-ray Comparison [2011 vs 2013 Transfer]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- This is a comparison between the 2011 blu-ray transfer of JURASSIC PARK and the 2013 3D edition transfer. It should give you a better idea of what exactly was changed, which was more than just the colour grade.
Please take into account the effect TH-cam's encoding has on the quality of the footage. This isn't true 1:1 blu-ray quality (though that is what I used while editing) but it still shows the differences pretty well.
Another thing to note is that the stretching of certain objects in the 2013 transfer is down to how the film was converted to 3D, they needed to amplify the distances between the foreground/background elements so effectively 'cut out' objects and moved them closer to the camera. This looks fine in 3D, but this is a comparison between the 2D version so I felt like I should still point it out.
TL;DW: They both look pretty good.
"Your editors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
When I first read this, I misread "Your editors" as ""You redditors"
@@brickman409 Them too!
After careful consideration I have decided not to buy the 2013 version.
@@Halbi1987 You mean 'not to endorse'
👏
This reminds me of when I take a decent photo on my phone, then fudge around with all the editor options, only to undo them all and realise the image was fine just the way it was.
Lol I can relate to this so much.
I prefer the 2011 one. That looks more realistic with a natural colour whereas the 2013 one looks like a modern movie with colour saturation
Darth Ren modern movies look quite bleak and bland. I don't know what you're talking about. I always love a little color.
Darth Ren Also, I preferred the old one anyways in almost every instance besides I like the new edits, and in low light the old one is insanely grainy, so I prefer that. Also, the old one was bright and colorful.
Me too! The new grade makes it look like Michael Bay - e.g. the orange skin tones at 1:18.
This. Why the f* is everything yellow in the 2013 version???
Its like they tried to make it look like another movie! Leave the way we live and remembered it!
When will editors realise that adding saturated filters to films makes them look less realistic, it’s why people think Jurassic World looks less realistic than the original Jurassic Park... that bullshit saturated blue filter.
th-cam.com/video/R09Iss83p2A/w-d-xo.html
How do I watch the 2013 version?
@@Nbafan2000 Get the 2013 BluRay
True, but there's other bullshit they've done as well. I watched somewhere the director talk and show about the editing of some shots, some shadows were removed and some lighting done to come from impossible angles only on certain objects just because he felt it looked cool.
100% agreed! And what makes it even worse imo if they choose to put a billion lense flares and unrealistic camera angles aswell!
To me personally, new movies have never felt more fake and that with all the advanced tech we got now, makes me kinda mad!
I think I prefer the 2011 version in almost every instance. I enjoy the more natural colors, the brighter image, and like seeing the sharpness, film grain and all, over the softened "Photoshop blur filter" of the 2013 version.
I came to comment the same thing, in real life there is no perfection, and the tone I like more in the original
Agreed
jurassiraptor yeah I agree
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Intense color grading is the disease of modern films. nothing looks real anymore.
The 2011 version looks much better. The new colour grade is hideous imho
It's much closer to the original colours though, the 2011 uses a master originally intended for DVD and standard def TV's, hence the pinkish skin tones and higher yet simpler contrast levels. Basically a trick used to make the image appear sharper on a CRT. The biggest problem with the 2013 version is the overuse of DNR but that's essentially there to aid the 3D. Anyway, rant over.
2011 is SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER!!
absolutely NOT!
in the 2018 version of this bluray, they changed it back to the 2011 version
It is a fact, that the 2013 version (3D set, I believe) is NOT closer to the original colors used in the theatrical release. I have colleagues (film enthusiasts) who happen to own multiple copies of the this first film (the actual reel used in theaters) and after watching them myself, I have to say that both the dvd and 2011 blu ray releases, are much closer to being color accurate, than the 2013 version. There's just no arguing that, unless your theater played a completely different print, with the teal and orange tint. It is possible that the limited re-release of Jurassic Park, in theaters, may have been edited with the teal and orange tint (almost a sepia wash, over the print).
But as said before, I have seen it with my own eyes (again, a copy of the actual *original* theatrical film reel) just a couple of years ago, and we had this long discussion about this very topic. We all agreed that Universal may have thought it was wise, to change the color tone of the 2013 blu ray, so it could seamlessly blend in, with modern action films (which love using the teal and orange color tinting technique). In fact, there were other films released on Blu Ray, which were also edited with a similar color "correction" technique.
This isn't a matter of sharpness, etc. Just in terms of the actual colors of the original print, being preserved, which imho, is the most natural, unless you see in teal and orange. lol
2013 kinda looks like night shift mode on iOS 10
Side Light 😂😂😂 exactly.
that's what i was trying to mean by ''it's always the dam evening in the 2013 one'' xD
Exactly what I thought
No, the 2013's Jurassic Park was set in Mexico
I am using that though
I do appreciate the wire, element removal etc, but the grain & color grading is ALOT better in 2011 version.
I worked in 3D Conversion on this. So I can explain a bit. No need to @ me about your dislikes. I completely get it. I am not justifying these changes, just explained a bit why some of this happened. So, the distorted images and bits larger than previous are due to the 3D extraction. They are bigger and exaggerated a bit as in context of a three dimensional/stereo presentation, these items would appear closer to you and more natural. As for the weird color, I suspect this was to compensate for the color shift seeing it with 3D lenses on. A problem with some of these is that when showing the non-3D version, they just render out say... the left eye and just call it good. The haircuts is simply due to having to rotoscope strands of hair. At the level we work on these, it is very tough to not only get single strands of hair, but to get them to look good in place. So since those are hard to get right, I am assuming we did not put the hair back in. And... there you have it. I was fortunate to be able to work on something that came out when I was in high school.. at the same time, yes... the 2011 version is far superior.
Obviously not in your department, but why, if you have any guesses based on your "insider" knowledge, would they include the version they used to extract the 3D version as the 2D version instead of just including the original 2D version? Thanks!
@@billyw8186 It’s a tricky thing. First off, I am pretty sure they don’t expect the casual viewer to notice. These new remasters and 3D versions usually go through some light cleanup.. dirt, wire removal, scratch removal, etc... that the previous version usually doesnt have. So they deem this one to be the best transfer. So, once they decide that this is the new color, its pretty much here to stay. Now, with the color, they work it for 3D presentation and sometimes find a mid ground for the 2D pull from it and so both presentations are closely the same so when using the one eye for 2D release, its good enough. 4k is going a similar direction. 4K UHD release has played with the colors so bad, but it will be the new permanent version if you dont have the other ones. In short, I dont want to call it laziness, but its more cost efficient to just use the one eye of color corrected 3D to pull for 2D while its already out then to go back and pull the OG release and add it to the disc. They have to burn new discs anyway, they will use what they have. Its like saying... I need sugar in my tea, but I have honey in hand and I need to open up the new sugar to use it. I can just use the honey and move on. Its a bad example, but what comes to mind.
@@grantmalone Most likely, and this is just speculation, is that whatever the presentation for in cinemas was, it was probably gamma’d up a bit to compensate. I dont personally have a 3D setup at home. But I would love for someone to weigh in to see if their version without the glasses on is brighter than the 2D presentation disc that came in the pack.
@KudzuDigital, it's great that you got to work on this conversion, which was fantastic and I went to see it five times in 2013 in the cinemas. The only thing I disagree with you is about the 2011 version being superior. It's artificially sharpened and has digital noise (which people are mistaking as film grain). The colour on the 2011 version, which is basically a decades-old DVD master in HD is not at all faithful to the warmer, brighter and deep contrast look of the 35mm prints. The 2011 is not properly white balanced. you can see this as the whites look pale pink or pale blue. In cinematography, if the whites are not balanced as per the D65 white point then all colours will look wrong. that is precisely what happens on the DVD, Blu-ray and now the 4K (as per youtube clips). The image looks pale, lacks depth and has pink and blue filter applied on it. The grasses look dead rather than the deep green shades of a tropical location such as Hawaii. There is barely any contrast between the light and dark parts of the image, which kills any depth that the lenses captured. The 3D version was a flawed attempt at capturing the original colour timing of the 35mm projected prints. The best option, I feel, would be to replicate the colours of the theatrical trailer for the 3D version, which looks appropriately warm and sunny, like it should be.
@@utthapa Your argument is valid. No matter what presentation people are preferring, I am glad it has brought a community together.
The fans need to know that this comparison is a misleading as the 2013 video transfer was created for 3D viewing. This is not mentioned whilst viewing it. The stretching of images and the missing hair strands are part of the 3D conversion process to separate the elements out. Also, the Video quality on the 3D would be displayed brighter to compensate the lenses on the glasses
And it's still looks like shit. Even in 3D
Yeah, this is also the version of the 2D Blu-ray that was solely in print for the last 5 years as well. I'm hoping the upcoming 4K remaster addresses these problems.
DaNiElBoYd100 what are you talking about? Like the original comment said, the 2013 is only the 3d version and this video is misleading as it does not specify. To this day if you go buy the 2d Blu-ray it will be the 2011 version. Also the 4k Blu-ray came out and it is a huge disappointment..
Joey Metts I guess the Blu-ray I have on my shelf is a figment of my imagination then. The 3D conversion was released in 2D back in 2013 and it replaced the 2011 release in print for years until the recent 4K release (which I heard looks a lot better but still has room for improvement).
DaNiElBoYd100 yes it is. 100% your imagination. Don't believe me? Start the movie and you will instantly know I'm right when the intro tiles shake. I have the original 2013 3d release and the 2017 collection release. In both of the 2d versions of Jurassic park in these releases it is the 2011 version. Let me be clear. THERE IS NO 2013 REMASTER IN 2D.. ONLY 3D.
2011: bright light shining in the screen
2013: it's always evening in the movie
Most of the "odd" changes are to compensate for the 3D conversion, for which this version is, (available in 2D or 3D on the Blu-ray.) The simplist thing you need for a good 3D stereo conversion is no noise. That's why they cleaned up everything. Next you need to cut out everyone and everything, rotoscope it, so you can specify how far away it all looks, creating a depth of field for the viewer. That's why characters got their hair trimmed off sometimes, so their hair didn't get trapped in the background depth, (and because it would be too tedious to cut it all out frame by frame.) And, sometimes you gotta stretch things that appear closer so that you have more background visible underneath... You know when you move your head left and right while watching 3D, the stuff up front moves back and forth too? Since this movie wasn't actually filmed in 3D, there isn't actually extra info for backgrounds to be seen differently by the left eye/right eye... so an easy fix is to stretch the foreground objects and people, and bam, you now got just a little more background info that can be seen differently in each eye. More info can be seen here: www.fxguide.com/featured/art-of-stereo-conversion-2d-to-3d-2012/
Bottom line is, this wasn't just a digital restoration of a classic... This was specifically a 3D stereo conversion for theatrical release and like a modern Marvel movie, it's gone through the ringer until it comes out shiny, and "fixed" to work in the medium.
Does shitting on the colour grading and ruining the cinematography count as adjusting for 3D?
@@jamstonjulian6947 I can tell you had no clue what on earth you were talking about 😂.
You can’t change the cinematography lmao, it stays the same as it was shot, unless the editors found an alternate deleted shot in storage at universal somewhere.
Next time get some knowledge about filmmaking before commenting absolutely anything about it.
@@jamstonjulian6947people have little to no idea that the warmer grading is actually the intended original grading, which got lost in translation over various home video releases (not to mention how inconsistent it was with magenta hues and extreme blues). StereoD even mentioned this when talking about the 3D conversion process, restoring the colour timing to how it originally was. But a lot of people fail to remember that this appears too warm to our eyes because it was intended with 3D glasses, which naturally dims it.
2013 as a 2D viewing experience has its flaws but that’s because this was curated for 3D. @ThemeParkStop nailed it in his comment. Even then, this is objectively the most faithful modern remaster we have to date, even down to the sound mix by Gary Rydstrom. I’m watching the 4K disc, making me wish we have a more faithful remaster than this third party restoration. They need to refer back to Stereo D’s remaster without the grain removal and adjusted colour timing for the naked eye. Then we’d have that definitive remaster Jurassic Park deserves and never had.
"Turn the WARMTH on this rainy night scene to 11!"
The daytime scenes look like it's constantly sunset. Don't see why they couldn't clean some of the grain in the background without effecting the brightness.
When you digitally "wipe off" film grain, the image's details, go with it.
@@badreality2 like soft crackles in the background of an old vinyl, some film grain can be beautiful. i hate this obsession with photoshopping everything til it looks fake. the great thing about JP is how real and natural everything looked.
@@dayglowjoe Pretty much all grain is beautiful, it really only ever looked bad on 35mm or 70mm blow ups, or nighttime scenes that were really poorly lit. Grain is the result you get when silver halide crystals on the film are exposed to light. That classic look really adds to the cinematic experience for me, I agree that it's too bad that people feel the need to remove the grain nowadays, not only is it part of the aesthetic, but it's essential!
I can clean the grain up (not remove but greatly reduce) and artifacts with only a RX570 and madVR. HOLLYWOOD IS A JOKE!
They probably did it to get a "better" look on the cgi dinos.
4:36 why did they stretch all the character faces and objects like a wide putin video?
I think they made the objects bigger in the foreground for the 3D effect. Just a guess though.
2013: looks like someone pissed all over the negative.
Peter Andrews I like that they got rid of the wires from the dilophosaurus and the ford being flipped. But the color was unnecessary.
😆😭
Yes
ewwwwww
@Frost there were wires on the dilo's frail to open it up and they were digitally edited out. And on the jeeps there were wires that were used to keep it steady and they were edited out. So don't call me a dufus.
Wow, the 2011 version looks so much better in every way, aside from the cables that weren't edited out.
The 2011 version is definitelly the best in terms of image photography, the natural color make the diferences on all this, de exageration on orange grade in the 3D version is very frustating.
The 2011 BD looks natural? The pinkish skin tones, lack of white balance, video noise (not film grain) neon green jungles rather than the normal deep green of Hawaii, look natural? The colours on the 35mm projected print are far warmer and properly white balanced than the 2011 BD or the past DVD, laserdisc editions. The 3D overdid on the warm tones and made it look orangeish. The actual colour timing is closer to the original theatrical trailer for the 3D re-release and the original 35mm trailer for the 1993 release. Those videos show the natural colours.
@@utthapa exageration on orange
Editors 10 yrs ago: *adds noise to new pictures shot on digital.
Editors today: *removes noise from old pictures shot on film.
Fans: "Just leave it alone, damnit."
You got it opposite right now. The 3d is literally from 2013. It literally says it in the video. Today, films shot digitally are adding grain.
2011 all the way.
Except for noise reduction
Editor: How many sunset scenes do you want?
2003: Yes
2013*
This comment just proves people will hit like on anything.
HAIR GATE. The 3D release accounts for the hair change. This would have been done purely for the stereo rotoscoping process. When they separate the two eyes, they need to cut out all the foreground elements and then offset them to create the stereo illusion. In this case, the hair would have been very difficult to rotoscope cleanly, they may even have had a note from Spielberg about the hair being noisy or causing a glitch in the 3D effect. This is likely why stray hairs were painted out.
Same reason with "stretching". Totally normal procedure. On a 3D image objects in the foreground need to be cut out and sized bigger to cover some information behind it on the flat image. This is how 3D cheat your eyes, and gives you a feeling of that you can look behind the foreground.
Thanks for this comment, finally somebody can think!
the unfortunate thing though is that these things don't look right when played in 2D, which is what a lot of people will do
Hopefully the 4k master exists in its original state for future releases, so we don't end up with a George Lucas situation.
Did they seriously use the 3-D transfer for the 2-D release? I fucking hope not
(looks like they did - unbelievable)
Also, orange and teal strikes again. These morons seem motivated to ruin absolutely everything
5:00 " _Essential visual upgrade_ " I died of laughter when I read this 😂
I just want to say, fantastic editing and pinpoint attention to detail. Thank you for this video!
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who preferred most of the scenes from the 2011 version more.
The color grading in the 2013 version is plain terrible. Feels like the sun is setting throughout the entire movie (and I'm just providing this description to put it simple). Even the white halogen bulbs in the background of a closed environment make people go full tanned.
They managed to spoil the beautiful version of 2011 with natural colors, and made that 2013 dark and with bizarre colors, undoubtedly the 2011 version is better.
that's what i was saying too. The 2013 one looks just like it's always evening in there because of the darkness they have added in. I can barely see what colour the T-rex is.
That's do to they are comparing the 2011 with the 3d 2013 one meaning it sopposed to be watch with 3d glasses and other stuff is needed I only know caused I seen what a 3d movie looks like without glasses I seen Alice in wonderland version and hobbit in 3d and removed glasses while it was playing in theaters so it's misleading 3d and bluray are not the same it's difference versions there's DVD . bluray. 3d. And the 4k version where u get a mixed in a case depends on movie meaning. Dvd 3d bluray and digital copy all in same movie case of movie depending on what's it's is
Ugh, that was horrible. They stomped all over Dean Cundey's magnificent work (and over Jeff Goldblum's hair). Excellent video comparison.
The 2013 version is just the 3D version. It's not a definitive remaster for decades to come. I'm sure the 4K UHD release is miles better.
Also, nice job! This is one of the best side-by-side comparison videos I’ve seen. Usually they go by so fast that I have to rewind and pause them to really examine them. I didn’t have to in yours.
GOD WHAT HAVE THEY DONE
Yes what have they don you ask
They messed it up big time
They are comparing the wrong version together they compare DVD with 3d version meaning last one you need to be watching it with 3d bluray or a ps3 with 3d equipment and 3d glasses to get the right look
They got so preoccupied with whether or not they could, but they never stopped to think if they should!
2013 looks like it was sunset 24/7. Awful color correction!
@@burmiester1 At that, it wasn't even corrected. Someone just took a LUT and slapped it on there.
Whether or not the 2011 version is more faithful, I prefer it due to actually being able to see what's going on in the night scenes, as opposed to indecipherable black and orange mess. It's just a lot more kind on those of us with less than perfect vision.
2013 looks like a 10 year old just photo shopped down the brightness
2013 looks awful. I'd rather watch my VHS copy.
No kidding, the colors are unnaturally warm/wrong, the picture is stretched in places and it's even edited like the Star Wars special editions (did we really need to smooth out Malcolm's hair?). On top of that, they seem to have removed all of the grain from the image, which is part of the film. What a joke.
@@burmiester1 I remember reading somewhere that the hair might have been to facilitate the 3D effect. I guess the grain might be too. I haven't seen the VHS or the DVDs in a long time. I'm wonder how their colors compare to these. When I think Jurassic Park I think warmer colors (not this much obviously).
@@keeperxiii The VHS and DVDs have similar colors to the 2011 blu ray because it's the same type of print scan used. The VHS has a far more oversaturated white balance but that's to be expected.
@@burmiester1 Thanks for the info! The older copies always seemed warmer in my mind but I guess that's to be expected.
I like the noise reduction, if they would have kept the colour grading, it would be good.
I just stumbled upon your video. Thank you for doing your homework and being meticulous and actually pausing and zooming in, I hate other comparison videos that don't take into account youtube compression.
The stretching, smoke replacement, hair combing is a direct result of the 2013 3D conversion, the noise reduction as well. Nowadays, films do their damndest to not lose grain or modify hair or stretching when doing 3D conversion, but JP was one of the first big budget conversions and they were pressed for time to get it for the 20th anniversary re release.
I saw the differences in theather and they bothered me. The streching of some elements occur due to the 3D convertion, that's ok, but the changes in color were disturbing. The brown sky is VERY odd.
the new jurassic world movies also have weird unnatural lighting too.
@@dayglowjoe All modern movies have, that's why old movies look always better.
The 2013 transfer just looks like someone in the studio said "ya know what Jurassic Park was missing? Fuckin Sepia tone!"
If they did all that editing, frame by frame, then it must have taken them 65 million years to finish this product!
they didnt. thats why some shots look darker than others.
@@thetruthchannel349 *Woosh*
I get so tired of seeing remastered blu rays where they didnt bother to correct a wide shot or color correct a close up or do noise quantization on a transitional shot and it looks like an inexperienced child did the work.
Do it right or dont bother. Thats my 2 cents.
@@thetruthchannel349 its a joke kdiot
2011- Day
2013- Dawn
The 2011 one is how the movie is meant to be
This is great to see, thank you for this!
The changes in the 2013 version were made for the Blu-ray 3D release of the movie. When you buy the 3D version you get the normal Blu-ray version on a seperate disc which is in fact the 2011 Blu-ray release of the movie. Looks like many people in the comments don't realise that. It's in the description of the video
I'm very glad that I bought the 2011 one! To be honest I didn't even know the difference until this video, it's just dumb luck that I bought the version I seem to prefer.
All Blu-ray’s are the 2011 one. The 2013 print is only on 3d Bluray
@@gex581990 The 2011 one is also included with the UHD disc.
Natural colours are the best, that is why JP's effects look so good.
2013 version looks horrible!
The 2013 transfer looks too dark, like someone just lowered the brightness level on their television.
looks hazy, like it was filmed in downtown bangkok
"Yeah, but your color graders were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Hahahahaha!!!!! Cracked me up!!!!
agree with you on the 2011 version Sick, the 2013 version seemed to dark to me, and the hair brush edits WTF??? MALCOLM AND HAMMOND NEED TO KEEP THEIR HAIR WILD AND FREE, THEY'RE NOT TRESEMME MODELS!
That was done for the 3d effect.
JurassicCollectables wrote:
,,HAIR GATE. The 3D release accounts for the hair change. This would have been done purely for the stereo rotoscoping process. When they separate the two eyes, they need to cut out all the foreground elements and then offset them to create the stereo illusion. In this case, the hair would have been very difficult to rotoscope cleanly, they may even have had a note from Spielberg about the hair being noisy or causing a glitch in the 3D effect. This is likely why stray hairs were painted out.''
Natural colored movies were Nostalgic.
Natural Colors (Mid-late 90's) : Jurassic Park, True lies, The Body Guard, Mission Impossible etc.
Bluesh tints (early 2000's): Matrix, The Rock, Gladiator (beginning of the movie), etc.
Todays movies are overly saturated, they don't have the "FEELS", they're like "MEH" , next movie....
''New Smoke Effects'' ...kinda uneccesary lol.
The ''Hairbrush'' effect, well... the more natural the better, so uneccesary too in my opinion.
the haibrush effect was for it to be better for 3d
That and the removal of grain.
The reason for "added" smoke effects was because it was easier to do that than convert the smoke on the original print. They even mentioned converting the scenes when Ellie Alan and Ian were in the car looking out through the glass was "painstakingly" difficult. If you ask me, they did a great job for the conversion despite the shortcomings they had to sacrifice for. I can't imagine how difficult this was.
Remember people. These adjustments were for the 3D version. Removing the wires though is a plus.
You’re actually getting less smoke effects for your money it seems.
@@ShMartinJo It's no wonder why they stopped making these 3D versions of movies that were originally made in 2D. It must've been a pain in the butt to do this photoshop hack job, and enlarge objects so they can occlude the original placement of the object in both left and right frames.
Aaendi It’s actually IMPRESSIVE that they were able to convert this movie alone with the added effects. And you’re right, it was very pain staking - even StereoD admitted it, especially scenes with the characters inside the cars, as they had to break the foreground and mid ground between the windows . I wish everyone would be able to see the special feature on the 3D Blu-Ray because everyone here is misunderstanding the changes (added smoke effects, color grading etc) here. The 3D experience in theatres was breath taking especially.
Thank you for your service :D We now need the 4K UHD version added to the mix :))
Ahaha, holy shit, the 2013 looks like it got the same wax treatment as the second Predator BD. 2011 looks like FILM.
Doesn't look like film AT ALL.
2011 is just an overprocessed decade+ old telecine transfer, with wrong gamma and total absence of shades of color and completely fucked up color timing. Jurassic Park on 35mm looks nothing like that piece of shit of 2011 BD, no movie ever shot of film could look like that.. worst of any Spielberg movies on the format.
@@vicks.577 Well the 2011 is still better than the orange DNRed 2013 epic fail so I'll take it.
Making Muldoon dummy thicc was an essential upgrade I'll give you that.
Agreed
2011 all the way. I get they had to remove some minute details in the 3D edition to make rotoscoping easier, but still, the natural colors, original sizing and even the little flaws of Jurassic Park are what makes the movie so perfect. And with films shot on actual film and not digital, it's film grain or GTFO.
I'll give the 2013 version this: they drastically reduced the video noise. That does improve the quality. But aside from that, I think I'll still keep my 2011 version.
As far as the stretching, I think it's part of the 3D conversion process. They just decided to use the 3D conversion for both the 3D version and the regular version. Also, whatever color grading, noise removal, and hair removal they did, keep in mind that Steven had a final say in whether or not the movie still looked the way he wanted it to look.
The 2013 is not available on 2D it’s only available in 3D
I think the '13 colours were maybe more realistic, but darker, while the '11 colours were brighter, but more artificial. The most noticeable was the stampede scene where it was all just a green blob while the '13 verison showed more diverse patches of grass that were thriving while other grass patches were dying.
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
Haha I was about to post that, but I figured it had to already be in the comments somewhere 👏
Excellent work on this comparison, btw! I wish more movies had this kind of analysis to help you decide which version to get for a movie that has been out awhile.
Editors: omg, you guys. Look at these sick new Insta filters! Too cute!
Spielberg himself personally urinated on the 2013 version, explaining why everything is yellow.
Because we all hated seeing Ian's scruffy (yet sexy) hairstyle and John's voluptuous looking strand of silky grey hair
Thank you for this! This is the perfect video for someone like me who has both an unhealthy obsession for Jurassic Park and blu-ray/dvd quality, lol.
Unhealthy JP obssession? Welcome to the club!
The white balance of this new version is so off, the haymond's white shirt looks orange lol
Damn it I've never noticed the strings before....Can't unsee that.
Really great video! I still love the 2011 more though. Hahaha Muldoons legs
This makes me glad I got my DVDs in 2011
Why the hell would they make the movie worst than before? Might as well burn my blu ray player and watch vhs.
The DVD version is so normal! That version is so much better than the Blu-Ray and 3D version.
They pulled a Predator on this
Great job and was hilarious like when you zoomed in on the guys legs LOL!!!
i prefer 2011 everything looks yellow in 2013 version
Like México in American movies
The video comparison doesn't do justice. Being a big fan of Jurassic Park and having watched more than 30 times (no kidding) and having the 2011 Bluray... I decided to get the 3D version today because was cheap.. Not only the 3D is fantastic, but these colour correction does look great.
Why do touch-ups feel the need to add a piss filter over everything. It really skews the image quality and is very noticeable
GREAT JURASSIC PARK BLU-RAY COMPARISON [2011 VS 2013 TRANSFER ] !!!
no color grading please!
I have to say, against all the comments here, i think the 2013 version looks way better.The effects and color-correction are gorgeous
It looks more modern and realistic
No, it's sunset all the time. Do you think that natural? Lol. The stretched image in some scene is really bad.
2011 is good..... 2013 is like too much orange in colour
I’m glad I have the 2011 one
2013 version is so orange, that it looks edited by Trump.
All of these changes were for the 3D conversion.
2013 version took a turn for the worst it's complete shit
Just seeing this great video now! Nifty how they fudged so many things like hair and object sizes to make 3-D conversion easier.
Did Zack Synder Oversee the 2013 Version lol
Sam Misner You get the W
This is phenomenal work! I would love to see you do another one of these comparing the new 4K UHD transfer to the 2011!
This is worse to me than the special editions of Star Wars
Blake Wilkins you mean star war special editions is bad?
Blake Wilkins your high
Blake Wilkins you are stupid. Thank god star wars special edition got rid of that stupid yoda puppet.
I’m sorry but anyone bashing the 2013 version has little to no understanding that these edits were necessary for the 3D conversion, which is something this video failed to mention. And it was made for the 3D VERSION, solely, including grain removal, if not only the colour grading, intended with 3D glasses viewing. Colour grading was actually restored to their intended look like in 1993, something that got lost in translation in home video releases (2011 is by far the best/worse example of this). And the “stretched” image is simply the result of looking at the “left eye” of the 3D viewing (as in these were intended with 3D glasses on, therefore not appearing like how we’d see it in this video).
What one COULD argue is that there has yet to be a DEFINITIVE 2D version (a more balanced colour restoration that’s warm but not too warm for the naked eye, grain retention, etc). So far, only the theatrical 1993 and the 2013 version were faithfully involved by Spielberg, Dean Cundey (DOP) down to Gary Rydstrom (soundmixer). Until that day comes, 2013 is my preferred choice. Despite its flaws for 2D viewing, it objectively still got things right that the 2011 and 2018 version didn’t.
The 2011 2D transfer is ugly edge enhanced mess with blue and pink pushed colours that does not reflect the original warm photochemical timing of the 35mm release. From strictly the perspective of colours, the 2013 3D version is more faithful. However, it's a bit too red and heavily cropped, especially in the Brachiosaur scene and some T-Rex shots. The first trailer for the 3D version (in 2D) has the best colours in my opinion. A future release would do well to use that version as a colour reference, and provide us a framing that does not chop off dinosaur heads.
It even says in an article that the people behind the 3D conversion spoke of restoring and color correcting the entire movie based on Steven Spielberg's original vision. I still think some things needs to be adjusted like the night scenes looking oddly purplish in some parts but I still much prefer the 2013's color grading .
Just keep in mind the removal of grain and hair etc was for because of 3D conversion for the 3D version only. For the 2D version, those removed elements obviously wouldn't be necessary (except the goofed-up wires).
the DNR in the 2013 version is absolutely horrible
"Hey we got rid of the wires and loose hairs"
Me: Yeah, well you messed up.
I prefer 2011
The 4K UHD needs a new rescan and touch up, it’s currently the recycled 2013 2k rescan. So the improvement was only minimal from 2013.
Was just about to buy Jurassic Park on blu ray. This video couldn’t have come at a better time lol
I got the 2011 Ultimate Trilogy blu-ray set for $8 on ebay.
@@DP12321 nice!
Best Blue ray is 2011 because it has that feeling ❤️❤️
Essential Visual Upgrade ;D
I came across this vid just today and because of it, rewatched my original JP VHS tape. Could be me not caring, but love it more than this. Digital, HD, 4K, whatever isn't always better...
This makes me so happy i kept my 2011 blu ray trilogy
I was always seeing that one hair sticking out from John and cannot believe I wasn't the only one XD
This is crazy. Friggin sacrilege! Why would they go and mess with it so much. Thanks for this!
I enjoyed the de-noised shots of the actors, but somehow, kind of seems to make the CGI more noticeable.
the 2011 version is similar to the DVD I had from nearly 10 years prior.
Goes to show that some things do not need much change.
Artistically, 2013 feels far better.. but in one of those 'The director wanted it THIS way, but the tech wasnt around in 93' type ways.
Something as simple as the lighting that people see every single day.. needs to be considered.
In 1993 everyday bulbs were 'warm', fuller-spectrum oranges. LED lights and 'blue' were considered sterile and were 'visually abrasive' to the viewer. Like blaring your favorite song, you are 'hammering home' that media into your brain.
in 2013, LED bulbs are everywhere and people are VERY accustomed to the deep, obnoxious blue and white glare. Artistically, people yearn for those 'warm' colors of yesteryear when they think about classic settings. When you drive into chicago and look left and see the dim orangeish streetlights.. you consider that area 'warm' and lived-in.
Then you go downtown where the LEDs are blasting light into every corner (of some areas).
The difference is 'warmth'. The difference isnt about visual clarity, obviously the noise reduction isnt about a blur filter underneath a 'enhance edges', because you have to consider all the angles, dangit!
The average consumer in 1993 wasnt blasting high def video thru an LCD, so bright colors and film grain werent contradictory to the source!
The average consumer in 2020 has a cell phone in their pocket that can do 1080 with no performance hit when turning on noise reduction, color enhancement.. etc. AND THEY RUN ON A BLUE LED/LCD SCREEN! The warmth is to compensate for what you are watching it on!
But that is just my .19 cents. To each their own, but I prefer warm source material on my blue-blasted LED screen. It balances out. ;)
When I watch old movies for the first time I like to watch them I how they looked way back when. I still have a original 1993 JPark dvd
This is why i watch from my DVD, but i think even Netflix has the OG version