A few words about... Ben-Hur

There you have it.

If it's good enough for Mr. Harris, it's good enough for me.

I'm one of the unfortunate ones who never got to see this on the big screen. Maybe the studios will take Mr. Harris's suggestions for a limited release cause I would definitely wait in line for this one. I guess I'll have to settle for this new DVD.

Thank you Mr. Harris....was waiting for that confirmation.

Thanks for confirming what I observed during my dvd viewing experience.




Crawdaddy

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I was going to buy the new release sooner or later regardless (I own the initial DVD release and while it's not a great presentation, I can live with it) but your recommendation has whetted my appetite to acquire the new release sooner rather than later.

Mr Harris, thank you for your valuable comments...

I seem to recall reading a few years back that the Ben-Hur original elements were in need of preservation/restoration.

Do you happen to know if any of that work has since taken place, or does this title look as good as it does thanks to digital wizardry rather than refurbishment of original elements?

There was also some scepticism about the quality of the sound re-mix and the adjustment of dialogue to the centre channel, to your ears does it sound like a job well done and any idea if it differs from the 5.1 track on the first dvd?

Regards

M

Glad to hear that the elements are now in great shape and that the sound gets the thumbs up!

Thanks once again for your time

M

While I would have preferred a DVD release including the original multi-channel historic sound mix preserved in the 5.1 configuration (as Fox did with T.S.O.M), I agree that the current disc is spectacular.

On my 106" screen, this new DVD presentation shines and is one of the most authentic-looking "film like" DVD images I've have the priviledge to view. there is not hint of "digital glare" or "Processing" to mar the film-like grace of the image...the "bloom" of the film print is preserved as is the ultra-fine film-grain structure. It's just gorgeous. I really felt that I was seeing projected film...as close as the Standard-Definition DVD format is capable of delivering in the HT environment.

Can't wait to see this in the future in HD. Hopefully then WB will have the courtesy (respect) to also include the historic mix. Though RAH is right that not many of us have 40 foot wide screens...that doesn't mean that the "effect" of directional dialogue following the actors on-screen isn't worth preserving in the HT environment for those who choose to look *and* hear a film replicated as close to its original form as possible. In most front projection systems, the left/right speakers are either immediately to the left/right of the screen, or below, or behind...which maintains the character of "following the actors accross the screen" very nicely. Those with smaller video displays or with the left/right front mains placed much farther away from the screen may find the center-locked dialogue of the new mix more pleasing.

In any case...Great DVD and I look forward to the future Hi-def version *almost* as much as I look forward to seeing this film projected in a theatrical screening.

Agreed that selling the DVDs in the lobby is a great idea...

dave

The RAH seal of approval. Nuff said.

[wipes tear] Can't wait to see this new copy, hopefully at the weekend.

Hey all!

This is one of the films that I saw bits and pieces of as a kid on TV, (P+S, of course) but have never seen the whole film. These threads are really making me want to check it out!

d

Mr Harris,

Care to post your viewing environment / equipment / screen size?

I have no issue with your assessment of color, detail, or sound but I'm not sure that this is a "magnificent DVD".

Better than any preceding version? Definitely.

Magnificent? Finest representation? Not hardly, at least not on a large screen with a 1080 FP. Mild to serious color misregistration issues take me out of the moment in a number of scenes.

And certainly not compared to the stellar DVD renditions of films like "Moulin Rouge".

I'll really be interested in Frank Manrique's opinions on this.

I'm still glad to have the new version and all the extras, but the projectionist/perfectionist in me is certainly not satisfied with the on-screen result.

Just my opinion and my $.02.

Ted

Questioning RAH? Sacrilege

after prefecing the following by saying i've not had a personally history with this movie on other video formats, or even having seen the previous dvd on the system i have now, i still can't help view the image on the new CE as 'nice' but unspectacular.
i will avoid the issue of color temp as my display is not set to the recommended 6500K anyway (fwiw, i thought the colors on display looked fine, maybe a wee bit pumped in the reds, but no big deal).
the only real frustration i have with it is, it just doesn't look as well defined as i would expect it to given
1) its the second effort on this format by the studio and benefits from several years of advancements in encoding, authoring, and transfering
2) unlike the previous transfer, this one is derived from elements that are almost twice as large( and therefore should have greater density of fine detail) as the original. yes the added information that was cropped out of the earlier transfer would eat up some of this room, but it just seems that if the 35mm reduction print could find a level of detail with that 65mm original, so should this new transfer, but going by the screen caps previously posted in another thread, as well as what i'm seeing on my screen, that clearly wasn't the case.
the image looks filtered of fine detail, especially in medium and long shots of which this film has plenty.

like i said, i don't have access right now to the earlier dvd. but i did just a few days earlier watch Fox's Man InThe Grey Flannel Suit, a film from the same era as Hur (probably a few years earlier iirc) and its framing is an almost as wide 2.55. comparing Hur to that one, MITGFS, while nowhere near as good a film, looks far more impressive (to me, on my system) with a much higher, finely resolved level of detail and generally a more stable, solid look all around.

for long time fans of the film, i can understand being excited at finally having the full frame rendered in an anamorphic transfer that makes larger viewing finally bearable, but otherwise, the image i see looks pretty middle of the road. especially for such a widely popular epic.

My guess is that RAH is putting his comments in terms of the DVD's presentation in comparison to the film print's intended look.

In that regard, I think some healthy discussion is in order...not to challenge anyone on their impressions, but to clarify exactly how the *film print* is *supposed* to look. The registration issues are a good point to be raised. What about the lack of fine detail and "snap" that the older DVD seemed to have? What about the "pumping" of contrast/color timing?

Naturally, some film-related issues are avoidable and there comes a point at which one should leave certain artifacts alone...even ones that may be age-related due to concerns about compromising other aspects of the image were they modified. However, some of the particular issues folks have seemed don't typically fall into the "intended by the director" film-artifacts camp we normally welcome (like fine film grain or modified color saturation).

I know RAH also praised the Hello Dolly DVD which I also loved but found a tad "soft" in the HF-detail department...but having never seen a projected print I couldn't determine if the softness was a reflection of the look of the print (intended and ok) or a process of DVD mastering/filtering. Can anyone remember...was Hello Dolly also a 65mm film-tape transfer or taken from a 35 print?

In any case...I'd be curious RAH if you'd care to elaborate on some of these points to help educate everyone in the process and ferret out what are both false and valid expections in our minds regarding this particular title...Ben-Hur. Your (RAH) understanding of film and your (presumably) greater familiarity with the look of the 65mm projection of Ben-Hur would help to clear up a lot. Also...knowing the nature of the video system which you used to judge the merits of this latest DVD would be of value. For instance...was it a wide-angle system or a smaller screen (in other words, was it capable of revealing whether the DVD preserved fine detail or not to enable you to compare against the film original)?

We'd love to hear more!

dave

What exactly is the point of comparing a 1959 65mm film with a 2001 35mm anamorphic film, in terms of picture quality? I might as well compare Spider-Man 2 to Hello Dolly!

Even if they took the original camera negative, fed it through a 6K scanner, had an army of digital restoration technicians, and did a direct NTSC MPEG II stream from that, it's still a DVD. However, what's important is Warner Bros. properly maintaining the film.


The DVD is coming out on my birthday, so I couldn't ask for better timing!

If you are referring to the most recent rendition of this film and trying to compare it to Ben Hur, then you might as well compare night and day. Two COMPLETELY different films by a long shot in every aspect, and if I'm not mistaken, Moulin Rouge is only a few years old, and from a pristine print. Why not say LOTR or The Matrix?

No offense, but that's a pretty poor comparison to use.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the film ever intended to be shown in that regard? The film is nearly 40 years old, and we are lucky to have the print in as fine shape as we are seeing it in the new DVD. They have made it available, at least from what I have seen, the best they can with available elements. Any defects are either the result of the flaws in what they have available, and it is something that cannot be corrected or available technology does not allow them to do so.

If we all thought that a film like Ben Hur would not have some sort of wear in the print, we would not go into the film expecting anything other than that. Some sort of degradation is evident yes, but it hardly takes the viewer out of the film. Unless, while viewing it, you look extremely close in a handful of scenes (in a 40 year old, 220 minute film), then hell I could spot a few flaws here and there on even the most modest set up.


Well obviously if you expect PERFECTION. Is there perfection in any DVD ever released? Seriously, If you were put in the restoration chair, what would you have done differently? Are you really that qualified?

If we constantly were worried about pleasing perfectionists, it would be years before we see a DVD release of any film, and by that time there would be a new format, and then the smae thing would begin over again.

Questioning RAH? You better have some good evidence to back your claims up before be lays the smack down.

JoshB wrote:

And that's exactly what Ted has done. His screen is 13ft wide with a 2.55:1 ratio and using a 1080(P?) projector. He sees flaws that weren't meant to be seen by today's mainstream technology, let alone used for quality assurance purposes from the studio.

Mr. Harris should not have to justify his expertise based on this extreme type of observation.

One has to realize that color deteriorates with the years on old film, and unless you want the digital look of Toy Story, today's technology is not going to allow that kind of perfection while still keeping the film grain and other important inherent aspects of the original media.

IMO, by today's standards, using today's mainstream reproduction equipment, I agree that this movie has been "magnificently" restored, compared to the best transfer (2001 DVD release) to date.

Paul

Edit: I want to add that it is great to hear actual observations like Ted has shared. How else can the industry learn from what can be seen.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion regarding the quality of this dvd without us having to question each other's qualifications. Some of us are not going to agree on certain aspects of this dvd presentation due to different variations that affect our viewing experiences and expectations.





Crawdaddy

And comparing Ben Hur and Moulin Rouge based on quality is not extreme? To me, that is a pretty radical comparison based on what is present in both releases.

I'm not saying that RAH has to defend his position at all. I think you disinterpreted me. My observation is hardly extreme, but it is only what I drew from TedH's statement regarding how Ben Hur doesn't hold up against a film like Moulin Rouge. RAH states that "Warner's new DVD of Ben-Hur is the finest representation of the film possible via current video technology.

A magnificent DVD of a magnificent film."

The best to date using current technology. Thats all. This doesnt mean its going to be perfect, but nonetheless a stellar presentation given what they have to work with.


When Ben Hur was made, I'm sure they never intended it to be shown on home video, or DVD for that matter. If so, and if it was to have the lasting appeal and following it still has, then perhaps proper care and treatment of the film materials would have been assured. Look at how some 40 year old (or even 20 year old) films look because of such neglect, or how they could have looked (based on restoration comparisons) if they had not been restored when they were.



Were they intending ALL to see it this way? If most had this type of setup, then they would make sure that such quality would be assured. Do recent releases reveal such flaws when examined on 13 ft screens? LOTR and SW EP1 certainly do, and they are only a few years old. Ben Hur is 40, and restoration can only save so much. If some flaws are visible, even when examined up close, then maybe they are there because they could not be corrected. SW was shot digital, but even if it was transfered to DVD from the digital files is everyone going to be able to benefit using whatever setup they have? no. Is TedH going to be able to spot flaws using his? Apparently so. But will everyone else? Do studios consider this at all times when producing or restoring DVDs and films respectively?


The flaws he sees that today's technology weren't meant to see, as you claim are there, are there and if they could have been corrected then they would have been, and if they were not even if they were able to, then its an oversight on ther part and I will accept that. But so many films can be judged this way that, ater restoration, they still have there flaws. Nothing can be perfect, no mattrhow you cut it. There will always be the perfectionist who notices something, no matter how small the detail. Studios can only do so much, and if they don't, then its either neglect on there part, or nothing can be done. Should Ben Hur be on par with todays most modern releases? Yes, because all should be able to enjoy the best way possible. Is it always possible to do this? No, of course not.

If I had a similar setup, I'm sure I would spot these flaws. But am I going to sit down to a film's video presentation (that I know immediately will not be "perfect") and begins to fault it? No. Would I immediately claim that the studio came up short? No, unless said flaws were capable of being corrected.

There can never be perfection in Ben Hur's case, because the only way to have it that way would be to travel back in time to 1959 and transport that negative to 2005. That would be perfect. How can you expect perfection (especially in comparison to a film like Moulin Rouge) after 40 years? The technology didnt exist back then to preserve all aspects of it, but they are avilable now to make corrections as best as possible.



This is based on what one person, or a few for that matter, have claimed. True, they may be correct, but it would take alot more for a studio to rethink its strategy and efforts in that regard, and even then admit that there are flaws to begin with, even if they could/could not be corrected. Is everyone going to have similar thoughts (and/or setups) to reach this conclusion?

Why do you think people like Peter Staddon and Charlie De Lauzirika do not post here anymore?

Ted's observations reflect what he wants to see, and what he describes amounts to perfection whenever possible. If studios viewed that advice or expectations from more people, do you really think that there work would be appreciated? They would think people are never satisfied no matter what they get, and that despite there efforts, some just want more.

I think its good to hear observations too, but some just border on what people want rather than what is possible. I too want the best quality that can be produced, but when I put in Ben Hur, I am goign into it knowing that there will be flaws in a film as old as this, but I accept that based on the passing of time, and I will not expect he studios to go back and redo there efforts because a few people are going to single out flaws. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, the flaws noticed by TedH will be corrected.

The difference in color and and slightly softer image in the screencaps do bother me, but its that mis-registration issue that concerns me the most. RAH, what do you make of it?

DVDBeaver offers its thoughts, with additonal comments still to come:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/ben-hur.htm

Please note that I left out all source related comments in my criticism.

Color misregistration should not be present if the transfer was done from source elements other than seps.
Even with seps I could accept color fringing out towards the edges of the image. However, when the entire image has registration errors with a single color for roughly 1/4 of the total running time of the feature, I think that is excessive.

I have purposely not brought up the density fluctuations, color temperature fluctuations, fading, horizontal jitter, missing frames, etc. that are also all present on this DVD.

However, these problems are inherent in the source and I have no problems accepting these flaws. These all come with the territory on any transfer from 45+ year old source material.

I also only referenced "Moulin Rouge to deflect any arguments that DVD's inherently have issues with poor color registration, or that my system introduced the problem, not to compare source materials.

As a projectionist I am all too familiar with what can happen to film and I never criticize a transfer for looking like film, even if that means what some may consider to be excessive film grain, scratches, cue marks, etc.

Also, BTW, nobody's perfect. I seem to remember RAH initially defending the framing of the DVD of Kiss Me Kate, even after I posted my comparison screen caps.

I value RAH's opinions highly, but we all have different tolerance levels of certain types of flaws.

If this is really a telecine error, or if it ocurred when a new IN or IP was created from seps, then it's going to be present on any form of HD transfer and it's going to be a lot more visible to the average viewer when they are viewing an HD transfer on a 1080 HDTV.

Also, I'll guarantee you it wasn't on the prints that were exibited back in 1959-60.

Ted

Well, at least we agree that no one is perfect.

I do agree the print has its flaws, and I am no expert by far in terms of restoration and projection, so I do find interest in what you have to say, and in the coming days and weeks, we should know more about the transfer once others have sampled it as well.

One of the interesting things about the HTF in my opinion, is that you can almost guarantee that any high profile release of an important film will bring out a wide range of opinions.

I salute Mr. Crawford for his words of wisdom and calm.

....and as always, I salute Mr. Harris, for his body of work and contributions to not only the world of cinema, but specifically, his benevolent & illuminating contributions to this forum are priceless, and something to prize greatly.

We who read posts here are fortunate to have his input and comments. Indeed, quite fortunate. His stamp of approval has often influenced my decision to buy or bypass many releases. For that I am most grateful.