NEW BEN HUR - original sound?

Or in addition to, rather.

If they offered a stereo track consistent with the PCM track on the last non-dolby digital laserdisc, that would be pretty great. If they did a straight repurposing of the original mix to a discrete multichannel DD or DTS track, that would be even better.

Regards,

I want the original mix preserved as faithfully as possible within the confines of the 5.1 capability of DVD.

Directional dialog, no re-EQ, no new noise-reduction. Just take that original mix, restore it if necessary given possible degradation over time, and give it to me.

I almost asked this last night, but I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest.....

The new transfer from the 70mm elements: Would that be from the original Ultra-Panavision elements at 2.76:1, or from some strange surviving Super-Panavision element at 2.20:1????

At any rate, I have yet to see a transfer from 70mm that looks near as good as the current state of the art 35mm transfers. I keep waiting.... 80 Day's is OK, but certainly not state of the art.

Hopefully, they didn't do this one on one of the older generation Spirit telecines just so they could use a 70mm element....

Ted

Just as long as we don't get *additional* cropping (to "fake" the 70mm presentation), I'd be happy with a 35mm print source. Just leave it at the proper 35mm AR...

I missed the Warner chat, I guess. This is good to hear, though. Hopefully there will be multiple sound options.

Also, the cropping on the last release was unfortunate and unnecessary. I'm with David, whatever source they use, I hope they keep it at that ratio, rather than cropping it even further.

I think Criterion's SPARTACUS (which was taken from a 65mm source) is stunning, and easily one of the best looking DVDs I have.

BTW, check this link for a great example of how badly cropped on all four side the current WB dvd of BEN-HUR really is: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/camera65.htm

Vincent

Yes, we want the original 2.76:1 AR if at all possible. Restore the original negatives Warner Bros. don't just do a digital restoration at HD video levels!

Full directionalized dialog and effects as well for the restored soundtrack!

Calling Mr. Harris! If only he and his team could work on it!

Dan

I think Warner realizes they have to do this upcoming dvd release right which means properly restoring the necessary film elements. Warner is restoring the original camera negative for the four Bogart 2 disc SE and I bet they're doing the same with Ben-Hur.

I just hope they get the original mix on there...historically their sound department doesn't seem to have the same regard for the integrity of historic mixes as the other studios (Fox, for instance carefully preserving directional dialog/mix for their Sound of Music DVD release)...

Everyone always points to the Widescreen Museum for the information on the cropped DVD. It's there, of course.

But he seems to be in favor of a cropped version of this movie for home video, less wide, but showing more detail in the center.

Just pointing this out.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx2.htm

If Warner did Ben-Hur's new transfer at 2.55:1 extracted from the max. 2.76:1 width using Ultra Panavision, it would be just right. The amount sliced off using 2.55:1 width instead of 2.76:1 makes almost no difference... it's much more important to get the full height of the image. That's what the real problem with the 2001 DVD.

As for the sound, let's hope for 5.1 reflecting the original mix. Warner did an outstanding job adapting directional Todd-AO sound for Around the World in 80 Days last year. So, I hope the same mixing house gets a hold on Ben-Hur.

Directional sound =

Marty Hart, curator of the Widescreen Museum web site, has a post to the newsgroup rec.arts.movies.tech entered last night that says about the DVD:

"This is not only good news, but you must remember who is putting this package together. I have had some communication with Ned Price at Warner Home Video and he is pleased with the new transfer. That means a LOT. Looking at the special packages that WHV has released over the past few years tells us we'll be in for a thrill. Mind you, other than being severely cropped, the current WHV DVD of "Ben-Hur" is pretty good looking. I have been anxious about this project since I was told about it a few months ago. I'm glad to hear that the news is out because I was busting a few stitches trying to keep from mentioning it prematurely.


Lastly, while I strongly support the idea of cropping "Ben-Hur" to a 2.5:1 ratio, which was the recommended shape in 1959, Ned tells me that we'll be getting more of the picture than that. I'd really bitch about it if it wasn't for the fact that these guys have done such a fantastic job on so many classic films. It is obvious that they respect the films they are working on and it shows in the loving care given to them."

quote:

I think Criterion's SPARTACUS (which was taken from a 65mm source) is stunning, and easily one of the best looking DVDs I have.

BTW, check this link for a great example of how badly cropped on all four side the current WB dvd of BEN-HUR really is...
__________________________________________________ ________

1.- Criterion's SPARTACUS DVD transfer is indeed a superb job! I only wish I could have it on hi-definition, tho.
The HD master was done from restored 65mm (70mm) film elements, so WB should learn from them on how to do a proper video transfer from such 70mm elements.

2.- This is also something I've been saying all along, and made it well known when I reviewed the DVD transfer for AVS when it first came out. I totally agree with Mart Hart's assessments!

Regardless, am really excited about the possibility of seeing Ben-Hur been given the best treatment it truly deserves when it comes to video transferring, both in terms of VISUAL and SOUND aspects...

-THTS

Wait a second, it's my understanding that whether a HD master is extracted from 35mm or 70mm elements doesn't make any difference when it comes to the quality of the DVD itself. 70mm only inherently looks better when it's projected on a large screen because it's blown up a lot less and therefore the image looks steadier and sharper. Also, the issue of the correct matting and cropping of the image is a completely separate one that has nothing to do with the elements used for the transfer.

Actually, in this case the elements ARE the reason for the cropping. What I've read (I'm sorry I don't have the source for this handy, but I have the info tucked away in my memory- it may even have been the widescreenmuseum site) is that the current "widescreen" transfers of BEN-HUR were made from an incorrectly reduction-printed 35mm element that cropped the image on all four sides. Apparently, the lab set up their equipment wrong, and while the resultant 35mm reduction was in good condition, it was badly cropped. The fact that they've went back to the original 65mm elements for this new transfer means they have access to that picture information that simply didn't exist in the 35mm element they used the last time.

Also, if a 35mm reduction is used for the transfer of most 65mm shot features, there will be cropping, as well, since the 65mm element is matted from 2.2:1 to 2.4:1 for the 35mm reduction. In a few cases, the 2.2:1 aspect ratio has been preserved within the 2.4:1 anamorphic 35mm frame, but in most cases the image is matted from 2.2:1 to 2.4:1.

Vincent

There is no doubt in my mind that, if it is done correctly, a 65mm transfer is more pleasing to look at rather than a 35mm reduction. "Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang" is a fine example, "Lord Jim" unfortunately is not. The "Lawrence of Arabia" transfer is good but the viewing experience is ruined by the over use of DVNR dirt removal.

The best DVD transfer in my collection is King of Kings, a Technirama production (if I'm not mistaken).

Just like dithering a 20 bit audio signal to 16 sounds better than a "straight" 16-bit recording, so making a A/D conversion with video at 1080P and then dithering down to 480P using sophisticated software looks better than a "straight" SD capture.

I don't mean to stand against transfers from 70mm elements here, but I'm still not persuaded that a transfer from 70mm is in itself better as some of the above posts would seem to indicate (besides, if I'm not mistaken, that was stated in previous posts by people who I thought knew a lot more than I do about these things)

Maybe, but does that mean that the picture itself is better? It seems to me that this supports what I said before, that a transfer from 70mm elements does not in itself insure better picture quality. David, you totally lost me here.

One of the things that I took away from my conversation with Mr. Feltenstein a few weeks ago is his absolute dedication to the DVD market for WHV classic films. He is a firm believer in getting it done right the first time so I can only believe that this will be the best presentation available on DVD in both the video and audio department.

Parker

Again, not to take anything away from Mr. Feltenstein, I don't believe he has anything to do with the great folks who do the actual transfers and make those decisions. I have no doubt he's as dedicated as all the people at WHV seem to be, but I really think it's time to give credit where credit is truly due - to the painstaking efforts of the tech department who are really in charge of this stuff.

I also must be looking at a different Criterion Spartacus than everyone else. That is taken from an older master if I'm not mistaken - but whatever it's taken from, while it's better than the Universal DVD, it is miles from looking as good as it could look. Spartacus should look as good as King of Kings, which someone above mentioned. It looks nowhere near as sharp or as good. We need a new Spartacus with the latest technology available. I have never forgotten what that film looked like on its initial release - it was staggering. The DVD is hardly staggering in any sense of the word, IMO.

Yesterday, I just watched a segment on Turner Classic Movies which showed George Feltenstein working with a sound engineer during their restoration efforts involving the audio track of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers". The piece also stated that Mr. Feltenstein is the producer of Warner/Rhino soundtracks. Also, Richard May who is Warner's film preservation guy was part of that segment too.

In numerous HTF tours that I've been part of at the different studios and production facilities, it's clear that film preservation work is a team effort from a dedicated group of individuals who spend a lot of time working together in doing the best job they can on any project they're assigned.






Crawdaddy

The biggest issue with 70mm transfers is that most, if not all were taken with older, non state-of-the-art telecine systems.

The new Spirit 4K Datacine originally shipped without support for 70mm, and I can't find anything that says that 70mm is available today. However, I am certainly not part of the industry. I did read that Warners bought at least one of the new Spirit 4K Datacine systems at a cool $1,000,000.00 or so.

70mm is also much more prone to issues with film buckle, do to the increased width. Perhaps the worst example of this was Fox's DVD of Oklahoma!. The IMAX projectors use air jets to control this issue in projection, and I remember a modification kit for the Century 70mm projector that did a similar thing.

If the latest generation of 4K telecine systems are being used for 70mm today, that will go a long way to realizing the potential of the large format negatives.

Ted

That's not the point you were making that I responded to. You specifically referenced the cropping, you said nothing about the image quality, and I answered you and explained why the 65mm source will show more picture information.

Vincent

You are mistaken, all you need do is watch the supplements on the DVD to see what master it was taken from- a new HD transfer from the restored 65mm InterPositive. Perhaps you are mistaken and do not have the Criterion DVD? Because if you did have it, this would have been very easy for you to verify by watching the supplements.

As for it not looking as good as it did when first projected in 70mm in 1960, given how the film was restored- an optical compositing of the 3 seperate black-and-white seperation masters which had to be unsqueezed, then registered as perfectly as possible in an optical printer and printed in three passes in order to create a new 65mm master element- there really is no way that the restored SPARTACUS will ever look quite as good as a first-generation print made from the pristine then-brand-new Technirama original negative back in 1960s would. That's not the point- Robert Harris painstakingly restored SPARTACUS to look as good as it possibly could given the condition of the elements, and the elements he had to work with, and it does look as good as it possibly can given those conditions.

And I still maintain that the resultant DVD looks absolutely superb on my 8-foot wide projection system. Since Mr. Harris was heavily involved with the brilliant Criterion SPARTACUS transfer and he posts on this site, perhaps he can chime in and respond to your claim that, and I quote, "it is miles from looking as good as it could look". I'm sure he's as surprised as the rest of us that you apparently know more about the condition of the elements and what was done during the Criterion transfer than he does.

Vincent

The Warner Brothers 5.1 re-mix of BEN-HUR judged on it's own is not that bad.. Heck, often it's quite good. But... just as OAR is big on many HTF member's radar, Original Audio Mixes (OAM?) should not be shuffled to the wayside. This is the thread starter's primary concern and is mine as well.

Warner Brothers preservation group does sooo many things right. They care about the features, and on occasion have spent some major $$ to right some previous mastering wrongs (Kiss Me Kate and soon Ben Hur). With that in mind if WB decides to retain the recent 5.1 RE-MIX, remember it is NOT the multi-channel mix which won an Academy Award, and should never be considered a definitive replacement to that mix. ..Why not offer both? Given the relatively low bit-budget of a secondary DD 5.1 or DD 4.0 track, it's really not a stretch to ask for the original mix as well.

Some Fox classics on DVD even provide the original -mono- mix(!) right along with the original stereo tracks, while WB goes to the other extreme and offers one English mix per DVD. So if they opt to do an audio remix and it's not your cup of tea- then you're just out of luck. *This* is the policy I hope they re-examine. I implore them to do it for the love and preservation of the art they strive to preserve and share (..and market) to the public.

It's not a stretch to guess HTF members and film buffs alike would prefer the original mix as audio track #2 instead of French. And finally consider this- YOUR favorite WB classic could be remixed next.

Whether or not the additional color corrections done on the Criterion SPARTACUS are "damaging" is purely a matter of personal taste. Robert Harris was using clips from a vintage IB Technicolor print that Stanley Kubrick had approved as his guide for the correct color. Since Mr. Harris is the man who literally saved SPARTACUS from extinction, I'll take his word for it re: what the film should look like over anybody else's (save Mr. Kubrick, who's no longer with us) any day of the week. Maybe you personally don't like the look, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I agree with the original jist of this thread- along with the corrected framing, any new BEN-HUR dvd should most definitely offer the original "RoadShow" mix from 1959 as a viewing option.

Vincent