Ben-Hur Four-Disc (1 Viewer)

[Cassy_w]

I'm buying, but I am also looking forward to seeing this in High Definition one day.

Hey Mark Cuban! How about it?!

 

[Mark Anthony]

Not only is ScottR absolutely correct about complaints about the old dvd being too orange in the red's, but with regard to the yellow tinge on the horses, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but this was shot in a hot dusty climate with the animals riding at high speed on a sandy track - its no wonder they look yellowy as they're covered in dust & sand!

M

 

[TonyD]

with all that dirt flying around maybe some of it is collecting on the horses and it really did make them look less then real white.

(we posted that almost at the same exact time.)

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Of course, that doesn't explain why they have a yellow hue before the race, nor the yellow hue that is seen in most of the scenes...

The set is great, but there is plenty of evidence that there is significant amount of yellow saturation. You can see it in skin tones, clothes, clouds, skies, and yes, the white stallions. We can all still enjoy it just the same.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I'm looking forward to seeing this in 70mm on a huge screen again... if you have not seen Ben Hur that way, you have not experienced it. The chariot race will leave you shaking.

- Steve

 

[Robert Crawford]

The question that still remains to be answered is how does this dvd look during playback at normal speed on our HT systems.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

The yellow hue is quite noticeable... whether or not is is objectionable is up to each person, but it is noticeable. The original transfer looks closer (color-wise) to the theatrical prints I've seen first hand.

Now I'm sure every HT system will look different depending on the equipment and how it is calibrated, so making comparisons based on that would be quite misleading.

On a reference CRT monitor (16x9 24" Sony BVM-D24E1WE) w/6500K color temp, the yellow hue shows up quite well. You can play with the color temp and hue to tone it down, but that also impacts the rest of the image.

I suspect most won’t find it objectionable in the least, but it's still there.

 

[Mark Anthony]

"Of course, that doesn't explain why they have a yellow hue before the race, nor the yellow hue that is seen in most of the scenes..."

Well it does explain it, because as I explained "this was shot in a hot dusty climate" which regardless of a horse race will permetate the air and the film stock throughout shooting, 1950's camera technology would have it's limitations to prevent this - even Lucas had incredible problem's in the 70's with Star Wars in Tunisia.

I would also seriously doubt that Warner Bros, who have pretty much scored a home run in almost all of their classic releases - with the exception of Tom & Jerry, would spend the vast some of money required to source, re-transfer and refurbish the film to get the transfer wrong a second time...

Am v much looking forward to purchasing this, although may well hold off on for the R2 release as the extra lines of PAL resolution will be of enormous benefit on my 82" screen!

M

 

[Paul Borges]

Looking at the screen captures, Heston sure looks bronzed now. Before he looked almost untanned. See here:

http://www.thecinemalaser.com/dvd_20...ce-dvd-img.htm

It's tough to know what it should look like. Even if you were there for the initial showings, memories a hazy.

This is probably something Warner really struggled with. Color matching can be really difficult I've heard.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Much of the film was shot in sound stages, with several scenes shot at MGM's studios in Culver City. The yellow saturation is seen throughout. However, once again this does not mean it is going to be objectionable to everyone. As some have mentioned, they prefer the 'warmer' image.

 

[ScottR]

I'm more concerned about the sharpness...that blown up screencap of Joseph looked alarmingly soft.....but, again, that doesn't mean it is incorrect.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Nils,
Until I see it on my HT, I'm not reaching any conclusions about the yellow hue. Now, if you want to make such a conclusion without actually watching the dvd first hand then that's your prerogative.




Crawdaddy

 

[Paul_Scott]

like ScottR, i think color temp isn't the main issue between these caps- softness and less resolved fine detail is.
people can work around color temp a bit to get it to their own preference (more or less) they can't reclaim information that isn't there (and that goes both ways of course)

without a/b capability, i'm sure the new CE will be very pleasing to just about everyone, but when you do a/b it with the earlier disc...well to me it just looks like the older one displays a much more impressive, dynamic level of detail (again, taking out the issue of cropping off screen information).

you would think that starting with a larger format source - that that would yield much more impressive levels of detail, but it appears just the opposite.

this is sortof/kindof the same thing that i worry about with the upcoming Oklahoma

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

IMO, the consistent 6500K like color temp from the posted pictures, of the recent 65mm movie print from the new DVD, looks more natural and cinematic, compared to the "cooler" 35mm darker contrast print of the March 2001 release.

When calibrating contemporary viewing systems today, doesn't even the "Imaging Science Foundation" use the warmer 6500K temp as the basic "standard" for viewing cinema/movie presentations? Keeping close to the derived source of a projected image.

Also, no one has mentioned the very noticeable yellow ribbon tinge to the left of the sky in the 35mm frame comparison here, when both Ben Hur and Arrius are in the boat in the ocean, where as the newer 65mm print shows a consistent sky of blue.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Robert Crawford - YGM!


Paul H. & Paul B, as Gary already mentioned in post #76, those screencaps from the Cinema Laser review have been compressed differently and they may have been captured under different conditions. They are there to show the difference in cropping between the two.

If you are unclear on the differences, you may want to ask Gary as he is better suited to discuss in greater detail why the screen caps on his site represent a fair comparison between the two transfers - and why the uncompressed PNG screen shots offer the opportunity to see exactly what is shown from the DVD.

 

[Robert Crawford]

YGM back!

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Nils Luehrmann wrote:

Nils,
"Sharpness" does not affect color temperature.

Paul

 

[Eric Emma]

This may sound like a stupid question but I'm curious as to what's no the 2nd disc, I've seen websites and things where they go over what's on the 1st(Movie), 3rd(Silent Version), and 4th(assorted Extras) but I'm curious what's on the second and how long the extra features are all together since it's 4 discs...

 

[Gary Tooze]

I suppose same could be said for any DVD (review) - all conclusions - color, audio, extras etc. Someone can tell you about a (example) Bogdanovich commentary, but for gauging its impact on you - you should hear it for yourself.

Half the reason DVDBeaver started was that I (and fellow collaborators) had purchased over 100 DVDs based on the comments of DVD reviewers... only to find that they were misleading or highly inaccurate (to say the least). I hope one day that our site, or another, can gravitate to the point where hard facts can help make purchasing determinations easier - removing as much subjectivity as possible. I like to think our captures are a start... they can factually prove cropping, non-progressive transfers, incorrect standard before conversion (PAL->NTSC), edge enhancement (zoom-in), etc

Color is subjective, I suppose, but those PNG's are exactly what this DVD looks like... and now you know what to expect. Robert is right, you should see it for yourself to fully judge whether it is acceptable to you as an individual.

Best,
Gary

P.S. Eric – the second half of the film is on disc 2

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which is all that I am saying.





Crawdaddy