A Few Words About A few words about... Ben-Hur (1 Viewer)

[Michel_Hafner]

I don't know about the special problems with scanning 65mm elements of Ben-Hur (I'm sure Mr. Harris will tell us some more) but 65mm film can be scanned with modern scanners at 4K resolution or higher (not in real time and not cheaply). The quality can be awesome. Sony shows clips scanned from 65mm on their 4K digital projector and they sure are anything but soft. One has spatial detail well beyond 35mm material. Another (from "Sound of Music") looks very good as well.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I really want some light shed on this subject.

If the image softness of the new Ben-Hur DVD is unavoidable given current technology, then it's forgivable BUT the industry has to make some changes ASAP. What...are we going to watch compromised film-tape transfers in 1080P when HD DVD/Blu-ray get here that obscure detail we might have otherwise seen of all our large-format classics? How stupid is *that*?!?

If, as Michel suggests, there IS A WAY to properly transfer 65mm elements to the electronic domain that does not incur the problems we see on the new Ben Hur DVD...then what WB has given us is BAD and they need to be enlightened.

I'm all for praising WB where credit is due. But it would be a real shame if the 1080P master they have on file right now looks no better than the soft-DVD if the problem had been avoidable. If that's true, then their 1080P master is useless and in no way reflects the integrity of the print (within HD's limitations, let's not start any "since no electronic media can capture all the 65mm information then why bother at all" diversions). Why not do it *right*?

While I think WB is a great studio that does some amazing things...let's not pretend that they are beyond reproach either. For one, their intent to remix all historic mutli-channel mixes to "centerize" dialog is a shame given that they could easily provide the consumer with BOTH options on the same DVD. Their continued pattern of delivering 1.66:1 transfers in 4x3 encoding is another sign that the studio isn't perfect and has some room for improvement.

I'd love to learn more about the problems and solutions with film-tape transfering of 65mm material. Michel, thanks for your contribution.

 

[Robert Harris]

I've used Imagica scanners, which are superb pieces of equipment, and know that they're available up to 35/8, but am unaware of a 65mm model. None is listed on their website.

We're getting into a business end of digital which is not necessarily reflective of rational realities.

Pieces of equipment of this type generally need to be owned. Having another entity come between you and final results is not necessarily a good thing.

In this case, there is only one post house of which I'm aware that has a Northlight, and their book rate is $3-5 per frame.

This isn't saying that any of those frames might actually be useable toward one's final product. Its this type of thing that leads to finger pointing. Been there. Done that. Not going back.

When I'm speaking of availability, I'm speaking in terms of reality. I can have a 65mm scanner built to my specifications and delivered any time I like. Whether this would be a financially sound decision is another matter.

The real world of film restoration can sometimes be an ugly place...

and I'd still rather be back in Tunbridge Wells.

RAH

 

[ScottR]

I don't think the original sound mix would sound too pretty on most systems, since it was designed to be spread out over such a wide sound field. Even if it were reigned in some, the film is so wide visually, that it wouldn't replicate the theatrical experience....I have taken a look at the new dvd now, and I'm more than pleased with it.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Then that's a business reality that I'd like to see change over the coming years.

We used to hear the same arguments why a studio couldn't afford to produce a hi-def transfer or 16x9 and instead chose to do a standard-def transfer or reuse an old 4x3 laserdisc master. While perhaps "business realities" made some of those decisions justifiable to the studio marketing team, it wasn't exactly cause for praise from the HT community. Given pressure from the videophile community...gradually things have changed...for the better.

Hopefully things will evolve in the industry in such a way over the next decade so large-format films will get the proper film-tape transfer regardless of the political situation of which studio happens to own the elements and which studio happens to own the gear. Perhaps with DVD it's less of an issue because DVD necessitates too many compromises of its own to justify the outlay of resources, so I won't start picketing outside the WB gates just yet. But if WB decides to pass off an 1080P HD version of Ben Hur for sale that suffers from the same compromised film-tape process, there will be no excuse. I'd rather wait an extra year or two for them to wrangle out their political/financial red tape and do it right. There has to be SOME way the industry can make this work...I mean, ultimately everyone stands to gain from a thing done right.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The sound mix on Sound of Music sounds just fine in the home-theater environment. It preserves the theatrical multi-channel scenario very nicely. It was mixed for the same large-scale venue and has directional dialogue. And besides, even if personal tastes vary as to what sounds "best" in the home environment...there's no reason why BOTH soundtracks can't be provided on the DVD. It's not an either-or issue except for the fact that WB refuses to provide original multi-channel mixes. Even Disney gives you both mixes when they remix for DVD. It's not that complicated folks...there's no reason to argue for or try to justify NOT providing the orignal mix...none at all.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

As I said on page 5, post #138 of the "Ben-Hur Four-Disc" thread, "Can't wait to compare this film when aired on a "Showtime" HDTV broadcast."

It remains to be seen how a 1080P native source will look when broadcast on HDTV and that will soon give us an idea of what we will see on a high definition DVD format.

One thing for sure, it will look better than the best upconverted DVD that's blown up on a big screen and no visible upconversion flaws.

Paul

 

[Robert Harris]

One additional point in regard to 65mm scanning.

We're discussing this in the abstract. If WB were to request my advice on the subject, which they have not done -- they have fine people of their own in place -- I would advice agaiinst scanning in 65mm.

Unless there is a need for digital restoration, 65mm scanning is a waste.

In regard to mixes, I have no information regarding the mix on Ben-Hur, or whether WB might have made changes in-house. The only point that I can add is that the addition of a second 5.1 track is not a small thing, when one is attempting to keep one's transfer rate as high as possible.

Keep in mind that some 40% of resolution is based upon transfer rate.

For Spartacus, we did two totally different mixes, one with the dialogue toed in toward center as well as a full wide-proscenium mix with the full original spread. Which one works better for home video? A matter of opinion.

 

[Drew Salzan]

As I have stated on other threads, I personally prefer more centered dialogue on directional mixes. The extreme directionality of the early CinemaScope mixes in particular do not decode properly on my system because of the (unavoidable) placement of my main speakers in my 5.1 set-up. I think two mixes would be a nice compromise to satisfy everybody, if it were feasable.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The wonderful thing about future formats like Blu-ray is that they have the bandwidth to deliver mutiple high-resolution audio tracks along with hi-bit-rate 1080P video with neither aspect of the presentation (audio and video) necessitating a compromise of the other.

It can't come too soon...





Works for me...whatever makes the best looking 1080P transfer (as long as OAR can be maintained).



p.s. Paul, can't wait hear about the HD impressions. Will it be panned/scanned to 1.78:1 or do you think they'll preserve the OAR in the HD broadcast?

 

[GregK]

I understand what you're saying, but one could use that same argument for advocating pan-n-scanning to 4x3 or 16x9. Most Home Theater Forum members strive to duplicate the theater experience. This includes letterboxing when necessary as well as including original audio mixes. If one feels the need to pan-n-scan.. fine. Just be sure to also offer a version with the original aspect ratio as well. If one feel the need to centralize the dialog, change music cues, add new sound effects, etc ..umm.. fine. ...Just be sure to also include the original mix.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't think dropping the 5.1 French mix is fair to French Canadians, who receive Region 1 dvds.




Crawdaddy

 

[Ravi K]

Aren't quite a few Canadian releases different from the US versions? On the US version, the French track could be dropped in favor of the original mix, and the Canadian version could have the French track instead. And if any Canadians want the original mix, they can get the US version.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

DaViD Boulet wrote:


If "Showtime" broadcast's it, they have listened to our requests for OAR HDTV in the past and unlike HBO, have supplied many a broadcast to my highest satisfaction. Hopefully, they will continue the popular trend and I will continue to praise them for their far sightedness and effort to provide this complete work of art!

Paul

 

[TedD]

Look at the 1970 70mm reissue trailer on DVD #4 for an indication of what level of detail might have been possible.

The Northlight is certainly not a dinosour, but a relatively expensive piece of equipment that can do 65mm 5 perf to a 4K scan, though not in real time and not to a readily transportable medium.

It seems that all the hi-res scanners require a disk raid array to handle the date rate and volumes from 4K scans.

My greatest fear is that by the time the studios get around to doing hi-res scans of these 65mm films, the source materials will have even no issues with density fluctuations then they have today.

Ted

 

[Joseph Goodman]

I recall reading that Fotokem has an Imagica scanner that can do 65mm at up to 8k x 11k for an IMAX frame... I don't even want to think how expensive that would be for an entire movie, especially one as long as "BEN-HUR".

 

[Paul Linfesty]

I believe this was a 35mm scope trailer that was announcing a new 70mm release of the film.

 

[Herb Kane]

Not with WB. Unless there is a rights issue with a particular supplement or the rare case of rights issues between both countries for the same film (i.e. The Passion of the Christ) the discs (and packaging) are the same.

 

[ScottR]

Watched this with friends tonight and was blown away.....such a classy release. Loved it and I can't wait for Oz and Kong later this year!

 

[Robert Harris]

To David Boulet,

My earlier point in regard to having one entity scan a film element, a second do the requisite work on the scans, and yet another take it to a final medium was not meant to be political in character.

When we did our first short runs of digital work a decade ago on My Fair Lady, we had one company scanning, fixing and recording back to film, and another taking the film element and converting it back to 65mm.

It didn't work and it tooks weeks until the optical company would agree to sit down with representatives of the digital firm to attempt to find the cause and a solution.

This is precisely why a company like Lowry can yield so high quality a product. They not only scan the original film elements, but they have the necessary storage space and do their own digital restoration, clean-up or conversion -- whatever is necessary to the project.

There is never any finger pointing because all of the work is done at one facility, from scan to fix to record or convert to D5. All that's left for the owner to do is final color correction.

But again, this is not about 65mm scanning.

RAH