Universal's Spartacus (1 Viewer)

[Steve Schaffer]

I'm thoroughly convinced that Spartacus on HD DVD won't look any better unless further restoration is done on the source print and and a new HD transfer is struck.

We know that Sony already had a better source print for FE than the one that was used for the first BD release--we've seen it on the Superbit version.

So for Universal to re-do Spartacus would involve considerably more expense than that incurred by Sony for FE.

It should also be pointed out that FE had a reputation for being one of the best pq releases on SD, Spartacus did not. There isn't anything wrong with the HD Spartacus release that isn't also wrong with the SD release, whereas the original FE release was in many respects inferior to the SD versions available at the time.

 

[TonyD]

i would guess that the criterion dvd is god for sd dvd, but using the same transfer on hd dvd has allowed us to see what is wrong with it.

looks fine on sd but the strengths of the hd format lets all the weeknesses of the transfer to be seen.

 

[john a hunter]

While the transfer has its problems, the HD-DVD is considerably better than the Criterion when shown on a 1080 display and I for one don't begrudge its purchase.

 

[Douglas Monce]

The HD DVD on this is clearly much sharper than the SD. Even than the Criterion release. All you have to do is look at the mpaa logo in the title sequence to see that. However the color is off compared to the Criterion. Watch the opening titles where in some cases the statues are a muted salmon color when they should be green.

I thought I read that the Criterion release was actually the same transfer as the SD and the HD DVD Universal release. They just gave Robert Harris the chance to come in and supervise digital color corrections. At least thats my understanding.

I too read that the real problem with this title in HD is the fact that a modern 70mm telecine device was not used for it, as they are VERY rare and very expensive. A better approach for this title might have been to go with the method used for Grand Prix.

Doug

 

[MatthewA]

I am of the opinion that 4k scans (at the minimum) are the way to go for large-format titles. Consider that the transfer equipment for 65mm is archaic.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I agree but only if a modern scanner is used, which seems to not be the case for this release. I've heard there is a quality modern telecine machine at Fotokem that can handle 65mm elements, but that it is cost prohibitive.

Doug

 

[LarryH]

So they have built or acquired a machine which is too expensive for anyone to use? That must be embarrassing.

Seriously, if not for Spartacus, then for what?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well the machine maybe more for transferring effects shots than doing whole features on. It may also not be a dedicated 65mm machine but switchable between 35mm, super 35, 65mm. But I'm not sure. Robert Harris maybe able to speak more authoritatively on this.

Doug

 

[OliverK]

They have a machine that has been used on most large format Fox movies, scanning was done mostly in 4k. As it is done on a frame by frame basis it is a very lengthy process and an expensive one, too.
I spoke to them at the end of last year and they were in the process of doing an 8k scan of a movie that should hopefully be out in hidef soon.

Oliver

 

[MatthewA]

When did Fox use it? Some of their large format films look a little soft on DVD, including South Pacific which was taken from a 4k scan (but the roadshow version looks sharper for some reason).

 

[ppltd]

Sony took the heat because of their own over hyping Blu-Ray. Expectations where set so high by the Blu-Ray camp that when the initial releases came out they could not meet the hype. Add to that, the initial HD DVD releases were given very good reviews, and after everyone had been told how much better Blu-Ray was, well, so much for hype.

Sony's exagerations of what to expect from Blu-Ray took the heat off of the HD DVD releases.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

SD DVD's (SuperBit) looked better than the BD version of "T5E".
All HD DVD's look better than their SD DVD counterparts (except maybe "Traffic").

Too badd! I wish there was a BIGGER backlash against poorly transferred HD titles (on both formats). Some people even brag about how good their messed up 1080i transfers look! :-0

 

[OliverK]

I know for a fact that they used it at least for Cleopatra, South Pacific and the Sound of Music. And it is for sure that the recent 70mm copies that were also made during this process were very detailed in the case of South Pacific, Cleopatra and The Agony and the Ecstasy.

Why that does not lead to a better looking DVD of the Agony and the Ecstasy or South Pacific I don't know but what I saw on the cinema screen was definitely way beyond what is possible on HD.

So let's hope that Fox will someday start to release these in HD and do them justice.

 

[OliverK]

Funny thing is that Spartacus has now disappointed me in three versions already:

the Criterion DVD was OK, but suffered from edge enhancement

the HD-DVD is from the same master with strange color timing, the same EE and not much added detail

the 70mm print I saw was also a disappointment - as I was told it was among the lesser versions of this movie out in 70mm and this was indeed very evident to me

No luck with Spartacus :frowning:

 

[MatthewA]

Agony & Ecstacy looked great in 70mm at Widescreen Weekend 2005, but Sound of Music looked incredibly soft with subdued colors, almost out of focus at times. There was apparently another TSoM 70mm print screened at the AMPAS's 75 years of Oscar festival in Beverly Hills that looked like the hills really were alive. I would also like to see Fox's large-format films on Blu-Ray. 2008 would be the perfect year to do the Rodgers and Hammerstein films in Blu-Ray, as it is the 65th anniversary of their first collaboration; but I can wait for them to at least restore the Todd-AO Oklahoma first.

 

[john a hunter]

the HD-DVD is from the same master with strange color timing, the same EE and not much added detail

No luck with Spartacus :frowning:[/quote]

But what about the vastly better colour saturation and sharpness. The HD DVD has its problems but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!

 

[OliverK]

John,

the HD-DVD is what I would recommend for buying when somebody wants to get Spartacus and deos not have it yet, so it definitely is my choice for the best representation of the movie on shiny little discs - you see we can agree on this

But there is a difference between just better than DVD and a very good HD-version, like with Grand Prix for example.

First off, the colors while they are more pleasing to look at are not really what the director and cameraman intended the film to look like. I saw the 70 mm print and the Criterion DVD has color timing that is more faithful to that print - Spartacus was not intended to look like Ben Hur.

Regarding the other parameter you mentioned you might have a look at the DVD to HD-DVD comparison thread where Spartacus is also featured - there certainly is not vastly more detail or sharpness to be seen on the HD-DVD if you want to say so. A comparison was also the first thing I did when I got the disc and saw that it looked so subpar for an HD-DVD - I put in the DVD, too and did a few comparisons which turned out disappointing as I had feared.

Oliver

 

[Cees Alons]

I happen to be very glad I bought the HD DVD of Spartacus, because when I wanted to compare it to the SD DVD I owned, that last one didn't play anymore.
Not on any of my DVD players (including various DVD-drives in PCs).

(It was the 1998 Universal version, apparently one of those DVD-rot batches of way back then.)


Cees

 

[OliverK]

The HD-DVD certainly is a spectacular improvement over not having the movie at all !

 

[Cees Alons]

Cees