Ben-Hur Four-Disc (1 Viewer)

[Christian L.]

@Gary Tooze:

What I really miss in your comparison review is that you didn´t mention the very apparant softness (the older DVD is a lot sharper) of the new DVD, which leads to missing details, compared to the old DVD. Also the new transfer has a certain "yellowness" i really don´t like. You can clearly see that in the scenes with the horse race.

I really must say that i´m not overly impressed what Warner has done with the new DVD. More image, but it looks a lot less hi-def than the old transfer.

BTW: This is just by looking at the screenshots you provide, i currently don´t own the DVD myself, so i can´t double-check it.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Yes, we also didn't mention that you don't like the yellowness... regardless that this may possibly be the way the film is supposed to look...

Regards,
Gary

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Oh, no, here we go again. Just like the Witness bitchfest. Judging by Mr Tooze's frames, it seems plain to me that the new transfer is softer and is a bit oversaturated.

I will kill any man who disagrees.

 

[Damin J Toell]

There's no way to seriously compare the detail of the transfers from those resized and recompressed screencaps (with all due respect to Mr. Tooze's site).

DJ

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

While this is often the case with individual screen caps, but when both screen caps are created and treated exactly the same way, then comparisons can be made - which is why DVDBeaver is such a magnificent resource.

As for the new transfer, the picture does look softer. Some strong evidence of that is with the screenshot of the roman soldiers marching past the goats on the hillside. This is a good shot to compare detail as it is filled with very thin small objects, like the hair of the goats, the grass on the hill, and the detail in the rocks. In this cases, the older transfer shows more detail, but not enough to be alarming. The color issue is what troubles me the most.

I've seen Ben-Hur on several occasions in theaters, twice in 70mm, and one of the most striking moments is seeing those brilliantly white Arabian horses... not yellowish white.

Regardless, Warner deserves a great deal of credit for releasing a true OAR edition with a jaw dropping collection of extras. I'd pay twice the amount this set is selling for just for the supplements and the original 1925 film so this is still an easy purchase decision for me.

I'm sure Warner will revisit this classic for an eventual HD release, and perhaps if they receive enough feedback on the color issue we may finally get to see those amazing white stallions in 1080p.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Until I see this dvd on my HT setup, I'm not ready to say that there is a color issue with this dvd release.





Crawdaddy

 

[Gary Tooze]

Yes we can compare the framing and color discrepancies. Nils is corect in that they were all taken under exact software settings and conditions (balance - 0, forced weave, 90% compression - using same software).

We review many older 4:3 films or non-anamorphic so they are kept at native resolution (720 or 768), but reducing *some* caps from 960 to 800 can effect their sharpness appearance slightly, but never to a degree that causes the results to be totally dismissed. It has been obvious to me in the past year of doing many 100's of comparisons that many anamorphic transfers have softened the image OR the original non-16X9 editions were falsly sharp with either some edge enhancements or other form of digital manipulations. This started a couple of years ago with my complaint of "An Affair to Remember" being much softer in 16X9 than 4:3 letterbox. At that time I received no support for my findings.

I have no explanation for it, I am only reporting that it happens. Stamping '16X9' enhanced' on a DVD package is not always a seal of improvement in all areas. I can post uncompressed and non-resized caps to prove same. But bandwidth costs money so we make minor adjustments to suit viewability and the Net. Look youself at an uncompressed bitmap and compare to a jpeg at 90% - Through our experience these don't factor into conclusions at all. They are as good as duplcates and it has no bearing at all on color, aspect ratio, contrast, moiring, black levels, edge enhancement, digital boosting... not to mention audio, extras, liner notes and many other DVD details that we report in our reviews/comparisons.

Well Robert, I have seen it through my HT setup and it looks exactly like my screen caps. Whether that is corect or not is better discussed by Bob Harris or some more familar with the original color (like Nils and those who have seen it theatrically - hopefully fairly recently).

Personally, I would only consider color an 'issue' when it is inconsistent in a release, with violent shifts and totally out-of-wack balance. I watched this DVD(s) on a 53 inch and some scenes on HTPC and it looked fine - we will never know exactly how it once looked, regardless this is a great package.

Regards,
Gary

 

[jim.vaccaro]

Colin, don't get me wrong, I usually find your reviews to be quite decent indeed, and have made alot of blind buys based on your video/audio quality analysis (and been happy with what I've gotten, too)! Just thought this one ommitted one or two key things about this great film.

 

[Brent Avery]

At this point, after just watching the new 4 disc CE on a 107" 2:35 screen it apppears quite good overall. I personally like it over the original and don't find it oversaturated enough to be even slightly concerned and whites look very good as well. There was the odd instance earlier in the film with the appearance of a faint yellowish vertical band on the left side for a short while but otherwise I'm glad I bought it. I cannot see any obvious loss of detail either and it actually looks like an improvement if anything. Well, to be fair I will be watching the earlier version this weekend but I doubt my observations will change. The audio also seems more detailed than before from what I could discern.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Gary,
I've also seen this film theatrically and more than once, however, I always thought it best to judge a dvd's presentation on my HT setup before making final conclusions about PQ issues. Your site does a great job and this is no knock against your work, but there have been times that after viewing some dvds on my setup, I've came up with a different opinion than what was posted in your reviews. At times, people see and hear this artform called film differently, especially when film is presented in a home video format with different HT equipment.





Crawdaddy

 

[Christian L.]

Gary,

before i get into details for this particular title, i just wanted to mention that DVDBeaver is my first source for comparisons, because you always set very high standards and i also do A LOT of my dvd purchases cause of your throughout and honest methods of comparing, which no other site for me really can match. I can´t thank you enough for that.


I shouldn´t have mentioned the "i really don´t like" part, because you are right, it´s not about what I like best.

However, based on "what i see" and "what i can remember back from the theatres", i don´t remember orange horses in the horse race back then (it´s not very natural) and practically every screenscrap of the new edition has this expressed yellow tone in it, it´s apparent in every shot and even if i´m not a 100% sure, i am very sure that this isn´t the way the film was supposed to look back then. If this has changed now, well, then there´s not much we can do about it, but i found it important to mention it.

 

[Paul_Scott]

hmmmmm.

i had only caught this film once before (watched one Sunday on TCM on a 32" set), enjoyed it, but didn't catch the fervor that it inspires in so many other people.
however, the hype for the new release got me to thinking about it recently and i've been curious(kind of anxious actually) to watch it again and was all but ready to pick up the CE this tuesday, but after seeing those screencaps i feel like someone just slammed on the brakes.
Now i realize that there is cropping between the two that is readily apparent, and i generally am an OAR martinette- but the difference in resolved detail between the new release and the earlier release is akin to the differences between an early Columbia title and a remastered superbit.
on a direct view set under 50" maybe this more refined detail is a wash, but on a really large screen, i'm sorry but it is going to make a difference. especially in my circumstance since i try to maintain a constant height vaiable width set up- wider but softer is defintely less enticing than slightly less wide but sharper.
the package sounds great, but i don't think i would be watching the silent version anytime soon (or anytime before the 50 or so other discs i have to catch up on), and given that i generally prefer a 'cooler' color temp on my pj, the warmer look of the new release is just another strike against it (for me).
in fact looking over the two caps here (and on Garys site) the difference between the releases looks to me like the difference between 6500(which is what you are supposed to calibrate to) and 7800 (which is what i actually calibrate to)

and while it is very cool that Warner maintained the extreme OAR, in this case the more 'sparkling' transfer appears to be the earlier one.

of course this is all just the opinion of a casual fan of the movie

 

[Gary Tooze]

Thanks for all the kind words and support. We strive our best to keep a consistent standard so that the screen caps can speak for themselves. I know I don't thank them eough, but we have a veritable army of contributors who help us create these comparisons. Maintaining a standardization feels like a full-time job at times.

What it boils down to is what you can accept (more to Robert's point), personally, for yourself. My experience is that if you watch the DVD, after 5 minutes you are useed to the color balance IF it is consistent.

Damin is correct about the sharpness factor. Often a (compressed or uncompressed) screen cap can appear sharper when if fact it is simply brighter. Brightness boosting is rampant in DVD production, so when a company adheres to the original, and often darker, appearance - they can be condemned for loosing sharpness. So again, it's up to you what you want to see. I've been viewing this Box for the past few days and it is great. I think I might have bought it even if there was no Feature film.

I love Wyler's cinema - perhaps the most relatively unknown great director in Hollywood history. What I wrote for our Director's Chair:
Best,
Gary

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

This is true, but in this case, the new transfer is brighter, so if anything it should appear sharper, but it is less so then the original transfer.

You can see more evidence of the yellow saturation in the screen shots where the sky is shown. The previous transfer shows a natural blue sky, the new transfer shows the effect of the yellow saturation leaving the sky looking washed out with a hint of yellow. The skin tones are also now off, having an unnatural/sickly yellow hue to them.

I can't say enough on how wonderful the extras are, and having this epic classic in OAR is a big plus, but the PQ, specifically the color, is disappointing.

Even so, this is an amazing set, and while not perfect, the transfer is still a pleasure to watch.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

[c](cropped and enlarged)

OLD TRANSFER





NEW TRANSFER[/c]

 

[Paul Borges]

Did they use the same print for the old and new transfer? Maybe the print they used for this 65 mm transfer is not in great shape. Just wondering?

 

[Seth Paxton]

Man, that isn't a minor difference at all. It's also tough for me to believe that the version with what appears to be lower contrast and a color shift was the way it was originally presented.

I would also question the source used. Something is fairly different and it doesn't just look like a minor color shift or brightness factor.

 

[Paul Borges]

Ok, read Post #19 of this thread. The old dvd used a 35mm reduction print. It could be Warner did all they could with the 65 mm print.

 

[Steve Christou]

Still waiting for my 4-disc set to arrive, but looking back at my old screenshots of the previous dvd of Ben-Hur, it didn't look too bad at all even if it was cropped. I hope all this talk of the whites turning yellow just turn up in a couple of scenes or maybe it depends on each persons individual settings. If the colors on this new version look like dull murky shit I'll have to keep watching my old copy, and keep the set for the extras. I just pray it isn't the case.

 

[Will Ryan]

Did WB remaster BEN-HUR directly from a newly restored 65mm I.P. element, or is this still the same 2.55:1 35mm I.P. being used with more image shown, a digtal "restroation", and passing it off as true 2.76:1 version? If someone has a few frames of an original (and red) 70mm or 35mm 2.76:1-scope Tech release print, we could tell for sure if the CE DVD release is on the money.

Will