Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009

#121

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 5:34am

RolandL
Roland Lataille
offline

Joined: December 2001
Location: Connecticut
Post Count: 686

I don't even know why we are discussing this as the previous two DVD releases were 2.76:1.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com

#122

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 7:27am

Jon Lidolt
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Post Count: 85

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolandL

I don't even know why we are discussing this as the previous two DVD releases were 2.76:1.

Well Roland, that's my point exactly. Warner should provide an alternative to that ribbon-like picture - the one that almost no theatre on this planet ever presented to its audience. 2.76 was only seen in, literally, a handful of 70mm theatres and on 16mm prints.

#123

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 8:23am

RobertR
offline

Joined: December 1998
Post Count: 7,967

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt

2.76 was only seen in, literally, a handful of 70mm theatres

Seems to me that those handful were the creme de la creme of theaters. Why shouldn't BR provide such a presentation? Do you think the BR of How the West Was Won should not have shown the Cinerama AR, because it was only seen in a "handful of theaters"?

#124

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 8:49am

Jim_K
offline

Joined: April 2000
Post Count: 9,385

Put me down for the 2.76 AR....Oh and a non-Box-O-Junk Edition please!

The Movie Library

#125

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 9:39am

Vincent_P
offline

Joined: September 2003
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Post Count: 1,045

The "Smilebox" version of HOW THE WEST WAS WON is actually cropped on both sides compared to the "Letterbox" version (2.59:1 aspect ration vs. 2.89:1). The reason? The Cinerama process resulted in some image cropping at the sides in projection. The Letterbox version, on the other hand, presents the entire photographed image of the three panels. It seems to me that the 2.76:1 version of BEN-HUR is more akin to the Letterbox version of HOW THE WEST WAS WON vs. the "Smilebox" presentation.

Vincent

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertR

Seems to me that those handful were the creme de la creme of theaters. Why shouldn't BR provide such a presentation? Do you think the BR of How the West Was Won should not have shown the Cinerama AR, because it was only seen in a "handful of theaters"?

#126

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 12:04pm

Robert Harris
Archivist
offline

Joined: February 1999
Post Count: 2,932

Even though aspect ratio was 2.76:1, the far sides were generally not used for much more than breathing room. The level of distortion and light falloff on highly curved screens, for which this and other anamorphic 65mm productions were designed, generally allowed for a useable ratio of closer to 2.55:1, with the rest being superfluous.

I wouldn't suggest taking a position on this without knowing what is lost and / or gained by the various ratios, clearance of splices, etc.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

#127

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 2:01pm

Jon Lidolt
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Post Count: 85

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertR

Seems to me that those handful were the creme de la creme of theaters. Why shouldn't BR provide such a presentation? Do you think the BR of How the West Was Won should not have shown the Cinerama AR, because it was only seen in a "handful of theaters"?

Even most of those "handful of theatres" screening Ben-Hur in 70mm cropped the image somewhat, whereas the 3-strip Cinerama films were shown on gigantic, deeply curved screens in genuine Cinerama theatres all over the world.

#128

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 6:41pm

RobertR
offline

Joined: December 1998
Post Count: 7,967

I'm still not sure what the objection is to 2.76, other than a subjective "it looks too wide".

#129

Rating: 0

11/21/09 at 7:14pm

Stephen_J_H
offline

Joined: July 2003
Location: Lacombe, AB
Post Count: 2,694

How about loss of resolution? 2.76:1 would yield an effective resolution of 695 x 1920, using just over half of the horizontal resolution, compared with 753 x 1920 for 2.55:1, a gain of 58 lines, which may not seem like much, but in terms of overall pixel increase in the image, it's a 1.3 megapixel image versus 1.4 MP approximately, for an actual gain in resolution of 111, 360 pixels or 8% resolution. That may not seem like much, but when you consider that an SD DVD image only contains 345, 600 pixels, it puts it into perspective. Go take a look at the American Widescreen Museum's articles about the various incarnations of Ben-Hur and you'll find that what RAH is saying is borne out. All 35mm prints of Ben-Hur were printed @ 2.55:1 anamorphic with slightly thicker framelines to preserve that AR. Then, when Warner released its first DVD of Ben-Hur, they took one of these reduction prints and reframed it to 2.76:1 to appease the OAR purists, thus losing valuable information at the top and bottom of the frame. I'm not saying that's going to happen again (Warner's QC on classics is much better than that now), but looking for a specific AR at the risk of losing image quality simply because you want to see everything in the frame seems a little too Super35 to me.

\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert

#130

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 4:21am

Simon Howson
offline

Joined: February 2004
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Post Count: 1,779

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

How about loss of resolution? 2.76:1 would yield an effective resolution of 695 x 1920, using just over half of the horizontal resolution, compared with 753 x 1920 for 2.55:1,

I wonder why this is. I don't understand why Blu-ray doesn't use anamorphic encoding, which would've gotten rid of the need for black bars all together.

Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition

#131

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 9:37am

ATimson
Andrew Timson
offline

Joined: September 2008
Post Count: 351

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

I wonder why this is. I don't understand why Blu-ray doesn't use anamorphic encoding, which would've gotten rid of the need for black bars all together.

Anamorphic encoding would only gain you resolution on a display device with higher resolution than 1080p (a very few computer monitors), and decrease it on any 1080p device (the majority of those available today).

"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others."
--Brendan Moody

#132

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 12:32pm

Jon Lidolt
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Post Count: 85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

How about loss of resolution? 2.76:1 would yield an effective resolution of 695 x 1920, using just over half of the horizontal resolution, compared with 753 x 1920 for 2.55:1, a gain of 58 lines, which may not seem like much, but in terms of overall pixel increase in the image, it's a 1.3 megapixel image versus 1.4 MP approximately, for an actual gain in resolution of 111, 360 pixels or 8% resolution. That may not seem like much, but when you consider that an SD DVD image only contains 345, 600 pixels, it puts it into perspective. Go take a look at the American Widescreen Museum's articles about the various incarnations of Ben-Hur and you'll find that what RAH is saying is borne out. All 35mm prints of Ben-Hur were printed @ 2.55:1 anamorphic with slightly thicker framelines to preserve that AR. Then, when Warner released its first DVD of Ben-Hur, they took one of these reduction prints and reframed it to 2.76:1 to appease the OAR purists, thus losing valuable information at the top and bottom of the frame. I'm not saying that's going to happen again (Warner's QC on classics is much better than that now), but looking for a specific AR at the risk of losing image quality simply because you want to see everything in the frame seems a little too Super35 to me.

Stephen, you're absolutely correct in what you say. And I loved your line "seems a little too Super 35 to me." Why isn't there a hue and cry about not seeing the entire frame of the recent features photographed in Super 35? It's the intended composition of the picture that's important, not the shape of the film frame. Haven't we figured this one out yet?

#133

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 3:22pm

RobertR
offline

Joined: December 1998
Post Count: 7,967

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

All 35mm prints of Ben-Hur were printed @ 2.55:1 anamorphic with slightly thicker framelines to preserve that AR. Then, when Warner released its first DVD of Ben-Hur, they took one of these reduction prints and reframed it to 2.76:1 to appease the OAR purists, thus losing valuable information at the top and bottom of the frame. I'm not saying that's going to happen again (Warner's QC on classics is much better than that now), but looking for a specific AR at the risk of losing image quality simply because you want to see everything in the frame seems a little too Super35 to me.

I would not want a 35 mm print cut to produce a 2.76 ratio. The super 35 analogy only holds, however, if the film was composed for 2.55 instead of 2.76.

#134

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 6:33pm

Stephen_J_H
offline

Joined: July 2003
Location: Lacombe, AB
Post Count: 2,694

If you've watched the most recent DVD of Ben-Hur, it's clear that the film was composed with 2.55:1 in mind (loads of dead space on the L/R edges). In fact, part of the reason for MGM getting Panavision to develop Camera 65/Ultra Panavision was the superior quality of reduction prints to 35mm, not an ultra-wide 2.76:1 ratio, which was actually cut down from its originally planned 2.93:1 AR by changing the anamorphic squeeze to 1.25 from 1.33. They wanted a larger ratio than the standard 2.2:1 of 65mm in order to compete with CinemaScope, but very few C65/UP fuilms were ever projected in the full 2.76:1 out of those that were actually made.

Edited by Stephen_J_H - 11/22/09 at 9:49pm

\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert

#135

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 6:36pm

Stephen_J_H
offline

Joined: July 2003
Location: Lacombe, AB
Post Count: 2,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

I wonder why this is. I don't understand why Blu-ray doesn't use anamorphic encoding, which would've gotten rid of the need for black bars all together.

Because anamorphic encoding benefits only a handful of people, being those with constant image height setups. Anamorphic encoding was a great idea when most TVs were 4:3, but unless the next HD standard is going to be even wider (Ultra-HD? Super-HD?), anamorphic encoding is pointless.

\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert

#136

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 10:30pm

John Stockton
offline

Joined: January 2000
Post Count: 258

Put me down as another 2.76:1 camper. I saw the DVD on my then, 20 inch 4:3 TV, and I would not have had it any other way.

It took many years for us to get the original 2.76 ratio properly. The Laserdisc and the first DVD were sourced from 35MM elements and then cropped on top and bottom to fool us into thinking that we are getting the original 2.76 ratio. Finally after many complaints, studio gave in and sourced the last DVD from 65 MM elements and we got to see the film the way those few elite theatres presented it in 1959-60. Please do not ruin it by asking the studio to crop it again.

For those who are bothered by the unusually thin picture, I suggest you move closer to the TV when viewing this film.

Edited by John Stockton - 11/23/09 at 12:50am

#137

Rating: 0

11/22/09 at 10:57pm

Eric Scott Richard
offline

Joined: July 2009
Post Count: 260

Agreed, John. I thought the film was beautiful on dvd....loved the framing. And that framing should be kept.

#138

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 2:08am

Ben Cheshire
Ben
offline

Joined: August 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post Count: 504

According to this site: http://www.dvdreview.com/news/viewnews.asp?id=11482

Quote:

Like “The Wizard Of Oz” recently and “Gone With the Wind” in the next few weeks, Warner Home Video has decided to give Ben Hur the absolutely best treatment possible and have scheduled the film for release on Blu-Ray Disc next November. After his boyhood friend Messala's fanatic loyalty to Rome makes him a powerful enemy, Judah Ben-Hur is found guilty of an attempted murder he did not commit. His family is banished and he is enslaved on a warship. Through his ferocity in a raging sea battle, he is able to escape and become a horse trainer. To exact his revenge, Ben-Hur decides to compete against Messala in the Roman chariot races. They race, locked in a battle to the death. Barely surviving, Ben-Hur forsakes the sword for Christ and finally finds redemption. Winner of a record 11 Academy Award, including Best Picture and Actor (Charlton Heston). Painstakingly restored and prepared for high definition, the release will arrive in a wonderful gift set with all the bells and whistles you can hope for. Though no exact details have been announced at this time, we are already excited to see this cinematic landmark one year from now.

I don't get it, though; no other site has reported it, despite my frequent spreading it around the forums... I have no idea where DVDReview got their info, but boy I hope its not another nasty rumour.

Edited by Ben Cheshire - 11/23/09 at 2:22am

P.S Tarantino has finally bested Pulp Fiction.

#139

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 2:25am

Ben Cheshire
Ben
offline

Joined: August 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post Count: 504

I think I just figured it out:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1421499/

They're putting out a Ben Hur TV series in 2010... I bet they put that in priority over the 2009 anniversary, and that's why it was delayed.

P.S Tarantino has finally bested Pulp Fiction.

#140

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 2:53am

OliverK
offline

Joined: February 2000
Post Count: 663

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Even though aspect ratio was 2.76:1, the far sides were generally not used for much more than breathing room. The level of distortion and light falloff on highly curved screens, for which this and other anamorphic 65mm productions were designed, generally allowed for a useable ratio of closer to 2.55:1, with the rest being superfluous.

I wouldn't suggest taking a position on this without knowing what is lost and / or gained by the various ratios, clearance of splices, etc.

RAH

Robert,

while I do not think that it should be the only deciding factor in the discussion about what aspect ratio Ben Hur should have on Blu-Ray it does indeed seem that projection at the Cinerama aspect ratio would usually have been the widest projected aspect ratio for Ben Hur.
I have looked up historic movie theaters in Germany and could not find even one theater that had a screen that was definitely wider than the 2.59 to 1 needed for Cinerama presentations. Do you know of any theater in the US that had a wider screen ?

Apparently Ben Hur was shown in Germany with reduced height in several theaters with a scope or Todd-AO shaped screen but I could not ascertain that it was really projected in 2.76 to 1 rather than the usual 2.5 to 2.59 to 1.

Oliver

#141

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 4:21am

Robert Harris
Archivist
offline

Joined: February 1999
Post Count: 2,932

This discussion would apply to all anamorphic 65mm productions. It appears that different optics may have been produced / tested, with varying degrees of anamorphosis, before the 1.25 was decided upon. Some of the early Ultra Panavision optics are marked 1.33 in error.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

#142

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 6:23am

Robert Harris
Archivist
offline

Joined: February 1999
Post Count: 2,932

More to specifics, there is but a single 2.76 shot that I can recall that used the entire piece of available real estate. While I'm certain that there are more, I'm referring to the upshot taken from the POV of those in the hole nearby the Big "W," all looking down at the proceedings, and forming a huge group hovering about the edges of the frame. In 35mm prints and on video, those on the sides are cropped.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

#143

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 6:25am

OliverK
offline

Joined: February 2000
Post Count: 663

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

This discussion would apply to all anamorphic 65mm productions.

Yes it does, at least for the ones where anamorphic prints were struck. With Ben Hur being the first and most successful production shown in the new format I would have expected the biggest probability to encounter information with regard to cinemas accomodating for the ultrawide picture and maybe some mentioning of venues being specially selected or built or screens masked or whatever else that could have been done.

#144

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 2:51pm

Jon Lidolt
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Post Count: 85

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliverK

Yes it does, at least for the ones where anamorphic prints were struck. With Ben Hur being the first and most successful production shown in the new format I would have expected the biggest probability to encounter information with regard to cinemas accomodating for the ultrawide picture and maybe some mentioning of venues being specially selected or built or screens masked or whatever else that could have been done.

I saw Ben-Hur at the Michael Todd theatre in Chicago and Mutiny On the Bounty at the University theatre in Toronto during their 70mm engagements. Both cinemas had flat screens, as per MGM's preference, and both screens were unusually wide. Now whether or not they were actually projecting the full expanse of the 2.76 image I can't say for sure. But my feeling is that if they weren't, the cropping was minimal. No special theatres were constructed for MGM Camera 65, they simply booked the film into existing cinemas equipped with 70mm projectors and the attendant oversize screens.

#145

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 3:16pm

Robert Harris
Archivist
offline

Joined: February 1999
Post Count: 2,932

B-H opened on Dec 23, 1959 at the Michael Todd, and ran continuously for...

74 weeks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt

I saw Ben-Hur at the Michael Todd theatre in Chicago and Mutiny On the Bounty at the University theatre in Toronto during their 70mm engagements. Both cinemas had flat screens, as per MGM's preference, and both screens were unusually wide. Now whether or not they were actually projecting the full expanse of the 2.76 image I can't say for sure. But my feeling is that if they weren't, the cropping was minimal. No special theatres were constructed for MGM Camera 65, they simply booked the film into existing cinemas equipped with 70mm projectors and the attendant oversize screens.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

#146

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 4:07pm

Eric Scott Richard
offline

Joined: July 2009
Post Count: 260

Wow! 74 weeks. Can you imagine? The only thing that would suck would be if you had already seen the film and were waiting for the next engagement! Of course, with this title, I probably would have seen it there once a week!

#147

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 4:15pm

Rob_Ray
offline

Joined: April 2004
Location: SoCal
Post Count: 272

Reminds me of the story about "The Sound of Music" playing in some town in Minnesota that apparently only had one theatre. "The Sound of Music" played even longer than Ben-Hur (at Houston's Alabama, it played from March '65 to December '66). In this Minnesota college town, the students started picketing the theatre with signs saying "Stop getting caught in the Von Trapp!"

#148

Rating: 0

11/23/09 at 4:34pm

OliverK
offline

Joined: February 2000
Post Count: 663

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt

I saw Ben-Hur at the Michael Todd theatre in Chicago and Mutiny On the Bounty at the University theatre in Toronto during their 70mm engagements. Both cinemas had flat screens, as per MGM's preference, and both screens were unusually wide. Now whether or not they were actually projecting the full expanse of the 2.76 image I can't say for sure. But my feeling is that if they weren't, the cropping was minimal. No special theatres were constructed for MGM Camera 65, they simply booked the film into existing cinemas equipped with 70mm projectors and the attendant oversize screens.

With both theatres not being specially built for Camera 65 / UP70 movies AND with flat screens I would have to guess that the screens were masked at the top and/or bottom if the were built as Todd AO venues or maybe the projection had some overscan if the screen had been built to show the original Cinemascope movies with a 2.55 to 1 apect ratio.

As for the Todd theatre: 74 weeks is a very long time and to install a permanent masking to accomodate for the lesser projected height of Ben Hur would have been the best way to show it on a screen that was built to show Todd AO movies.

#149

Rating: 0

11/24/09 at 5:27am

RolandL
Roland Lataille
offline

Joined: December 2001
Location: Connecticut
Post Count: 686

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliverK

Yes it does, at least for the ones where anamorphic prints were struck. With Ben Hur being the first and most successful production shown in the new format I would have expected the biggest probability to encounter information with regard to cinemas accomodating for the ultrawide picture and maybe some mentioning of venues being specially selected or built or screens masked or whatever else that could have been done.

Just a slight correction. Raintree County was the first filmed in MGM Camera 65 although it was released in 35mm only. Ben-Hur was the second. Also, according to Marty Hart at his WideScreen Museum web site, Ben-Hur played for three years in Rome - http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup4.htm

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com

#150

Rating: 0

11/24/09 at 7:31am

OliverK
offline

Joined: February 2000
Post Count: 663

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolandL

Just a slight correction. Raintree County was the first filmed in MGM Camera 65 although it was released in 35mm only. Ben-Hur was the second. Also, according to Marty Hart at his WideScreen Museum web site, Ben-Hur played for three years in Rome - http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup4.htm

I like the remark about all the extra wanting to see themselves in the movie :)

I mentioned Ben Hur as the first anamorphic 65mm production that was also shown with anamorphic 70mm prints. I made that distinction as I am still convinced that 35mm reduction prints really did a great disservice to the idea of a bigger camera negative bringing superior quality to the screen.

Where to Buy

Tags

Related Forum Threads

Related HT Gear & Movies

Recent Reviews

What Users Want

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis