Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or..... - Page 7

How many DVD versions I have to buy? I already have the HD broadcast version.

 Has a release date been set for Ben Hur on blu ray? 

No.  I would guess Christmas 2010 or Easter 2011.

Maybe it's good that we don't get BEN HUR this year. Therefore, we'll get a 51st anniversary edition. That precedent will allow the creation of 52nd, 53rd, 54th, 56th, 57th, 58th and 59th anniversay editions of upcoming titles, eliminating the ridiculous need to wait for a divisible-by-five anniversary.

Sounds good to me, Dick!

I like your thinking

Didn't Universal try that with The Jerk?  



If it works for Ben Hur I'll take it!

The last version was just called the Four Disc Collectors Edition.

They could release it next year and call it the same thing, just put it on Blu-ray.

Except they probably wouldn't need four discs, given how narrow a ribbon the film occupies on the screen. ;)

I just don't see why the releases need to coincide with anniversaries. When I shop for DVDs I don't wander around thinking about what films are celebrating anniversaries.

True, but it gives them an "excuse" to reissue a film that's probably been issued several times already, and it gives them a built-in marketing "hook" - not to mention an angle for picking up some free press coverage.  (Newspapers and TV stations line up interviews with suriving cast and crew members, sometimes the studio arranges a little bit of a publicity tour, there are can be talk show spots depending on the actor and the film.  Our fondess for round numbers makes the life of a flack easier and maybe moves a few more discs.  I can't really see that as a bad thing.) 

Regards,

Joe

How many surviving cast members are we looking @ with Ben-Hur? Haya Harareet (Esther) and Terrence Longdon (Drusus)? Anything included as special features will be archival or modern commentary by film historians. Just release the damn thing as soon as an acceptable quality master is created. As far as acceptable goes, it should be as good as it can possibly look.

Simon asked a general question about why the studios tend to tie releases to signficant anniversaries, and I offered a general answer, not a specific comment on the Ben-Hur situation.  And interviews with cast members was only one of the reasons I suggested.  The others still apply in terms of it being easier to get free press when a release coincides with a "significant" anniversary since this gives people  a reason to do retrospective features, especially on slow news days. 

Regards,

Joe

I realise it was a general comment, but my response was directed at the stupidity of waiting for anniversaries to release catalogue product. While it might temporarily goose sales, the real key to getting solid sales out of catalogue titles is releasing quality product and properly publicising it.

Which is your opinion about the "stupidity" of waiting, but the studios have marketing data to back up their strategy which also includes releasing a quality product while properly publicizing the release.

As a consumer, I don't like waiting for a release if it's ready to go, but as a business manager I can understand marketing strategies that the studios uses in releasing their products.



Crawdaddy

Can anyone give information on how this film has been restored. Did they scan the seps at 4k ? Is going to be the best that they can do ? I just cant wait to see it. Any info will be dearly appreciated. Thanks to all who have answered my questions since I have been following this forum. I have learned allot, and been wrong allot too. But I love learning. And I will be sure to support the bits by ordering through amazon via this website. Providing the transfer is worth an upgrade.

I hope they fix a sound problem with the opening of the film.  on bothpast dvd releases, at least one scene the star appears over bethlehem is a remix. 

In the theater and on all past releases,  a chorus appears very loudly with the first note of that music,  on all dvds,  the chorus slowly fades in, ruining the effect.

 

The first dvd also had a frenchlanguage track that was NOT a remix, and there the chorus was correct.

Last I heard Warner was working with the camera negative.

I would also expect them to scan at a higher resolution than 4k, lately most work on 65mm seems to be done at 8k.

 

Butt I thought this was vista vision, 35mm spun horizontal through the camera. I thought Mr. Harris indicated 4k was quite fine for the format. If memory serves he corrected me in wanting 8k for vista vision. Im confused now

Ben-Hur is MGM Camera 65 aka Ultra Panavision, a 65mm shooting format with a 1.25x anamorphic squeeze, yielding an image with an aspect ratio of 2.76:1 printed to 70mm film with 6-track magnetic stripe audio. Given what Warner did with Blade Runner, this will likely be scanned at 8K.

no, it is not Vista Vision, it's 65mm vertical negative shot through an anamorphic lens yielding an aspect ratio of around 2.76:1

 

65mm vertically has a native aspect ratio of around 2.2:1

 

vista vision, which was a horizontal negative, is 35mm film with a larger exposure area and an aspect ratio of around 1.78:1 or 1.85:1

 

65mm can also be pulled horizontally, exposing a much larger area, we call that IMAX.

Quote:

VistaVision is precisely what people have been shooting on 35mm still cameras for decades,  A normal 24 x 36mm image, yielding a 1.5:1 aspect ratio.

 

RAH

 

 

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS was filmed in Vista Vision.  Which is what I think Mr. Harris is referring too.  But since Warner scanned A STAR IS BORN at 8K then I would think they would do it for this film also.  I am interested in finding out what aspect ratio Warner is going to present BEN-HUR in.  There were a lot of complaints about the laserdisc being in the 2.76:1 as it looked like watching a ribbon.  I believe the DVD was more like 2.55:1, but I could be wrong.
 

Both DVDs thus far have been 2.76:1. The problem with the original "flipper" disc was that Warner extracted a 2.76:1 ratio from a 35mm element which had been printed at approximately 2.5:1, thus cropping the film vertically and giving very cramped headspace to the compositions. There are some sources who suggest that the appropriate A/R for this film is 2.5:1, as this was what the post-roadshow 35mm prints and the 1969 "flat" 70mm reissue prints were printed at. There is also evidence in terms of the shot compositions themselves that the film was shot with a rough 2.5:1 ratio in mind, hence lots of dead space on the left and right edges. Of course, Warner is mindful that many will blindly insist that the film be 2.76:1 or nothing. To see what I'm talking about, check out Martin Hart'srather thorough analysis of the most recent Ben-Hur DVD and comparison with the first version. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/ben-hurdvd.htm

I hear you Stephen.  I have looked over Martin's extensive information and I thank him for every bit of the information.  I just don't remember the last DVD being as bad as the Laserdisc, then that might have been the transfer. 

Afaik A Star is Born was scanned at 6k.

 

Mutiny on the Bounty and Battle of the Bulge were already released on HD-DVD (the second one also on Blu-Ray) and both were released with the full width of 2.76:1, so I expect Ben Hur to be in the same format.

 

I think it would be a nice gesture on behalf of Warner to also release Ben Hur in a 2.55:1 or 2.6:1 version but I am not sure they will actually do that as they would need an additional DL Blu-Ray for that. I consider 2.6:1 a good compromise as it seems that many theaters that were equipped to show MGM Camera 65 / Ultra Panavision 70 were using screens with an approximate aspect ratio of 2.6:1, wider screens seem to have been extremely rare.

 

I have the the two DVD incarnations and the LD by the way and they are all very close to an aspect ratio of 2.76:1, although the first DVD version was missing information on all 4 sides - it would probably have been closer to a 2.55:1 aspect ratio without the cropping at the top and bottom.
 

I guess this isn't coming out for Easter 2011 (WB already missed the 5oth anniversary too)

I'm guessing this will happen in Oct when the studios usually release the big important catalog box sets

 

by the way...where IS the 1962 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty"  ??????

I was in the wrong thread and thought we were talking about the ten commandments. Im reading up on both films as they make their way to blue ray. quite embarasing.

The first DVD would have been around 2.50:1 had Warner not cropped the height to 2.76:1. That's the AR on the original 35mm reduction prints, apparently.

 

I'm sort of hoping for a 2.55:1 Blu-Ray. Sticking to full area is nice, but How the West Was Won is unbearable on a 46" HD monitor unless it's the Smilebox version. Ben-Hur was at least shot to allow for 2.55:1 framing, as were the other Ultra Panavision/MGM Camera-65 films.

Im hoping for 8K as well bein this was shot in 65mm. As for aspect ratio to be honest im just not worried. I have the first issue of this film the flipper disc.It looks horrible. If I can just have a major improvement in picture clarity im going to be happy. If I had it my way the blue ray would show all the image that appeared in theaters, at the widest that is. But that is wishful thinking. As long as they archive it at 8K allowing for future releases in other ratios, were doing good as far as i am concerned.