A few words about...™ The Ten Commandments -- in Blu-ray

As I find little enjoyment in on-line charges of collusion, a bit of disclosure is necessary for transparency's sake.

Five or six years ago, Paramount gave me access to the Ten Commandments elements toward the concept of restoring the film with a process recently perfected that dealt with the myriad of problems faced by the half-century plus old elements.

In most simplistic form, the original cut negative had issues with fading, occasional chemical damage combined with that of lacquer removal, and an odd set of emulsion scratches at the upper far left of the frame, which were unfortunately, not outside of protected areas.  The scratches seem to share a commonality with like marks on other VistaVision (VVLA) productions, and may have somehow been added in optical printing.

Corporate structures and people change positions, and with the creation of a new restoration division at the studio, a decision was made to perform the restoration internally.  This is fine as long as things are handled correctly.  In the end, the most important point is that a film is restored.  The secondary point is who is behind the restorative efforts.

Now that readers are aware of the film's problems, and of my knowledge of those problems, I can move forward with my thoughts as to what has been performed, and to what quality.  I have purposefully not discussed what I've just viewed with anyone at the studio, and will only do so after my comments are posted.  I may append if I've erred in any way.

The problems of fade, chemical and other damage, wear and tear on the original elements, inclusive of detritus added over the decades, have all been beautifully dealt with.  As I've not seen any mention of the facility that performed the scanning, color correction and clean-up noted on-line, I'll not mention them, but suffice to say that the work has been performed in top fashion, yielding a A+ for the facility and its personnel.

Color and density appear to be based upon dye transfer re-issue prints, which are different in overall contrast, color and black levels than those prints struck in 1956.  This isn't incorrect, simply different.  While I'm aware of partial original prints for reference, I'm unaware of a complete original.  Most have fallen to vinegar syndrome.  While discussing this disparity, it's important to note that for a modern audience, the re-issue look would probably be preferred.

Sharpness and overall resolution, as captured from the VVLA elements at 4k (6k, if you consider the negative moving sideways, but still 4k perf to perf) is dead-on perfect.  Grain levels appear normal and approximately half that of a normal non-VVLA 5248 production of the era.  I'm seeing no apparent use of DNR or sharpening.  Production dupes, with matte lines intact, are as imprecise as they were in 1956, with heavy movement between elements, and obvious rear projection.  Keep in mind that this was a very studio-bound production, with limited use of location exteriors.

I presume that Mr. DeMille was highly budget oriented, as if one has the opportunity to view the entire frame as exposed, there is little information outside of approximately 1.75:1 protected.  One is seeing the tops of sets, wires, etc.  I mention that as framing on this film is crucial, and it is framed to perfection.  The far left and right expose image, precisely as it was exposed on original prints, merely protecting around the splice lines, which on VVLA are vertical.

There is an area here, where had the studio wanted to fake a proper restoration and save some budget, they probably could have gotten away with it.

But they did not.

I'm referring to the tiny emulsion scratches that could have been "fixed" by simply affecting an overall field enlargement, thereby cropping the far left side of the frame.  Rather than taking the simple (and cheap) way out, all of these marks have been digitally painted and eliminated.

Audio, with which I'm less familiar, is presented both in 5.1 uncompressed as well as monaural.  The audio sounds wonderful.

For those who may be viewing this film for the first time, a few thoughts.  The film was created by a master-showman.  Mr. DeMille was born in 1881, a mere fifteen years after the death of Abraham Lincoln.

He directed his first film, naturally silent, in 1914.  His silent version of The Ten Commandments in 1923, was his 59th film.  By the time he hit the sound era, it was easy to lose count of his work.  It's important to recognize that fact that he was a showman-director.  His films are very much old world.  

That said, be aware that his 1956 Ten Commandments has a very theatrical feel, with dialogue that may sound old-fashioned to modern ears.  The amount of sheer history in this production is immense, and many players will be recognized as part of the early DeMille company, having worked with him in various capacities for decades.  This is a film in which bit players may not merely be bit players.

Those of you reading this are probably waiting for the final "what's wrong" with this Blu-ray.

The answer is easy.

Absolutely nothing.  If I owned the world, I would have had a three-disc set, including the 1923 version, but I'm certain there's a way for that to me remedied.

With the studio's Ron Smith calling the restorative shots, his background in the digital world comes to the fore.  His work on this film is superb.

Paramount's 1956 The Ten Commandments is everything that one might wish, in bringing what was essentially a problematic and occasionally ragged original negative, along with its early 5216 protection elements into the modern world.

The The Commandments is Extremely Highly Recommended.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by benbess 

PS Did you get to see the 1923 version included in the boxed set? If so, how did that look for PQ?

 I have not seen the 1923.