In reply to Blue Straggler:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> Have you read Kevin Brownlow's biography of Lean? He tries - and manages - to remain impartial to all of Lean's work, apart from Lawrence, which he is unashamed to praise to the high heavens.
Yes, I have seen Brownlow's excellent book. And I agree with his assessment.
>
> I'm not sure that people really need to be told that "vast scenes with huge numbers of extras" in a 1962 film were "all for real. No CGI in sight" but hey ho.
I said that because I suspect that quite a lot of modern moviegoers have no idea how much more difficult Lawrence was to shoot then than it would be now. The 70mm camera was huge and very heavy, and the whole thing on the dolly would have weighed much more. All those rails in the sand must have been very impressive technically. The other huge difference was the film. Very slow, requiring use of arc lights in low light, and many scenes are very skillful day-for-night. The lab costs were astronomic so they would have had to have been very sparing on the numbers of takes.
>
> Thanks for making me aware of this new release. Genuine question though@ what does this 50th anniversary restoration bring that the restoration carried out around 1989 and viewed by me circa 1996 in the glorious Lumiere (or Luminaire?) cinema in central London, lacked?
The registration and sheer quality of course. With the picture locked solid. perfectly clean, and with one of the highest resolution super panavision frames I've ever seen, thanks to the new digital process. It's also been very well re-dubbed (though the original would have been virtually as good, but again, not so clean).
>
> The Wikipedia article states just
> " the new 8K scan has such high resolution that when examined, showed a series of fine concentric lines in a pattern reminiscent of a fingerprint near the top of the frame. This was caused by its melting in the desert heat when handled by the film workers during production. Sony had to hire a third party to minimise or eliminate the fingerprint artefacts in the new restored version"
>
Yup, they've said it.
It probably looks even better than the original.