Same. The box set is such a weird mix. I already have a few of those movies and have zero interest in 2 of the films. Guess which two lol.

$127 on amazon.ca now.

Wtf I would have bought it. How can they sell things for so much less in Canada than the us? Crazy. Guess I’ll wait for a stand alone release.

@@chrisd6736 I think it was because the Canadian version didn't come with digital copies of the movies.

@@chrisd6736 2 reasons, one because it didn't come with digital copies like he said and two, it could have been a minor mistake. I notice in canada they tend to make that mistake with lots of new 4k releases, either that or they give a discount on purpose. Jaws 4k for example wad only 19.99 canadian on day one and it came with a digital copy. Then a few days later they bumped up the price.

Andrei Barbarosa- Wow that’s crazy. Ya I don’t use the digital copies anyways so could care less if my disc comes with one.

Jerry Maguire and ALOTO now watched, absolutely stunning. Mr Smith next.

Ya I have no interest in owning jerry macguire in 4K lol.

I never saw it in theaters projected in 70mm, so I can't compare, however, I have read that 35mm has approximately the resolution of 4k, while 70mm is akin to 8K. This might be why 35mm films released on 4K disc look perfect, while 65/70mm films perhaps still have room to improve (ie. via a future 8K release)? Just speculation on my part, but your comment made me think. Side note, I am blown away by this Lawrence 4K disc. Truly spectacular even on my 55 inch QLED.

@@GuitarGuy5000000000 Actually 35mm is 12-14k resolution while 65mm have 18-20k resolution.

@@GuitarGuy5000000000 Regarding the resolution of film and it's equivalent in digital it's not a simple question to answer. Films "resolution" used to be calculated by what was called "resolving power", expressed in "line pairs/mm". (Now it's used the MTF...). "Black lines next to white lines" This resolving power is a result of several camera variables, including the film emulsion and the lens themselves, etc. For this example I'll just use the film emulsion. Regarding all the film's studied, a good AVERAGE resolving power is about 65 line pairs/mm. The equivalence to pixels can be done in two ways. You can attribute each line with a pixel and so you have a minimum of two pixels per mm. One pixel for the black line, another for the white line. Another way is to count how many elements are necessary to distinguish two pairs of lines, here you'll have a minimum of 4 pixels equivalency. Now for the conversion between a 35mm film and it's digital resolution equivalent. The film's dimensions are about 35mm width to 24mm height. If using the minimum 2px equivalency and average film resolving power we have: 35x65x2=4550px 24x65x2=3250px So Resolution is: 4550px X 3250px≈14,8 megapixels This is a theoretical, optimal average film resolution. In reality we will have about 60-50% of that resolution. 7-8 megapixels. Which is, as you said about the resolution of UHD. And a little less compared to "real" 4k (12Megapx). So, Laurence of Arabia still has an interesting potential to provide an even more engaging presentation if an 8k-10k restoration occurs for a future 8k digital format.

@@Poraqui I really appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge! Fascinating.

Because it's NOT a Hollywood film. Produced by Horizon Pictures, a British company. Which is fine since T. E. Lawrence was British.