Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or..... - Page 5

post #121 of 311
11/21/09 at 5:34am
I don't even know why we are discussing this as the previous two DVD releases were 2.76:1.
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Ben-Hur [Blu-ray]
$42.49 at
See it »
post #122 of 311
11/21/09 at 7:27am


Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL View Post

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.
Reply
post #123 of 311
11/21/09 at 8:23am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt View Post




 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"?
Reply
post #124 of 311
11/21/09 at 8:37am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt View Post




 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"?
Reply
post #125 of 311
11/21/09 at 8:49am
Put me down for the 2.76 AR....Oh and a non-Box-O-Junk Edition please!
Reply
post #126 of 311
11/21/09 at 9:39am
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 View Post




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"?


Reply
post #127 of 311
11/21/09 at 12:04pm
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 
Reply
post #128 of 311
11/21/09 at 2:01pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post




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.
Reply
post #129 of 311
11/21/09 at 6:41pm
I'm still not sure what the objection is to 2.76, other than a subjective "it looks too wide".
Reply
post #130 of 311
11/21/09 at 7:14pm
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.
Reply
post #131 of 311
11/22/09 at 4:21am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H View Post

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.
Reply
post #132 of 311
11/22/09 at 9:37am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson View Post



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).
Reply
post #133 of 311
11/22/09 at 12:32pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H View Post

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?

Reply
post #134 of 311
11/22/09 at 3:22pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H View Post

 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.
Reply
post #135 of 311
11/22/09 at 6:33pm
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
Reply
post #136 of 311
11/22/09 at 6:36pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson View Post



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.

Reply
post #137 of 311
11/22/09 at 10:30pm
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
Reply
post #138 of 311
11/22/09 at 10:57pm
Agreed, John. I thought the film was beautiful on dvd....loved the framing. And that framing should be kept.
Reply
post #139 of 311
11/23/09 at 2:08am
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 Parker - 11/23/09 at 2:22am
Reply
post #140 of 311
11/23/09 at 2:25am
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.
Reply
post #141 of 311
11/23/09 at 2:53am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

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

Reply
post #142 of 311
11/23/09 at 4:21am
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.
Reply
post #143 of 311
11/23/09 at 6:23am
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
Reply
post #144 of 311
11/23/09 at 6:25am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

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.

Reply
post #145 of 311
11/23/09 at 2:51pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK View Post




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. 
Reply
post #146 of 311
11/23/09 at 3:16pm
B-H opened on Dec 23, 1959 at the Michael Todd, and ran continuously for...

74 weeks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt View Post



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. 


Reply
post #147 of 311
11/23/09 at 4:07pm
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!
Reply
post #148 of 311
11/23/09 at 4:15pm

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!"

Reply
post #149 of 311
11/23/09 at 4:34pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt View Post



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.
Reply
post #150 of 311
11/24/09 at 5:27am


Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK View Post




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


Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Ben-Hur [Blu-ray]
$42.49 at
See it »
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or.....