NEW BEN HUR - original sound? (1 Viewer)

[ScottR]

Ben-Hur was stored properly, as most of MGM films were.

 

[Vincent_P]

Arthur:

How do you know what condition the 65mm negatives for BEN-HUR are in and how much restoration they may or may not have required? Have you inspected them yourself?

As for the IB Technicolor print used in the SPARTACUS color timing, the supplement on the Criterion DVD specifically states that said print had been "approved by Stanley Kubrick". You'd have known this if you had the "inclination" to watch those supplements. If you choose not to believe Criterion and Robert Harris, then fine. I do.

Vincent

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

They were not shot with the same film stock as Spartacus, North by Northwest, The Alamo, Polyanna, etc. It appears they both missed the window of opportunity for disaster. I'm glad.

Why are you so convinced that Robert Harris provided Criterion with inapporpriate color reference?

Regards,

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I heard a tale that he wanted Spartucus to be released full-frame 1.33:1 for "video" and that Criterion had to talk him out of it...

 

[ArthurMy]

Why am I so convinced that there is a wrong color balance? Because it doesn't look right. I've stated that I saw this film over twenty times in its original roadshow version in 70mm. It never looked like that in 70mm. I never saw it until years later in 35mm and cut, and it didn't look like that in 35 either. And, as I also posted, I know two collectors who both have 35mm IB prints, both of which I've seen. They have differences between them, but neither have the color balance on the Criterion DVD.

A few people here are trying to make it seem as if I'm being accusatory somehow. I'm asking questions that should be asked, and I'm receiving answers that are not convincing to me. So, I'll remain unconvinced. I mean, really, both Ben-Hur and King of Kings (and presumably other large format films of those two years in question) escaped being shot on that particular negative stock, while Spartacus was the only one that didn't escape being shot on that large format negative stock? Okay.

And no, I haven't inspected the elements for Ben-Hur, nor do I need to. The fact that a new DVD off those elements is coming out, and the fact that no one has mentioned that they had to go through the same sort of intensive restoration that Spartacus did, would lead me to believe that the negative was in decent shape. If Universal did such a horrible job of storing their negatives, why are there so many nice-looking Universal transfers from that era?

There is no reason to carry on this discussion, and I'll stop. It's really no answer to any of the questions I'm asking to say, "did you listen to the supplements? So and so said this, so and so said that," especially when those comments refer to the laserdisc edition. This is a fascinating topic to me, and rather than others being interested in it, it just seems to get certain people's hackles up.

I'm simply thrilled that all these other large format films seem not to be in need of the extensive work that was required on Spartacus, Vertigo, My Fair Lady, and Lawrence - I'm happy that, for whatever reasons, we're going to be seeing some great transfers of interesting large format movies, like the '62 Mutiny on the Bounty, the new Ben-Hur, and whatever else is in the works.

 

[DeeF]

One of the reasons, I think, that Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia had to undergo such extensive restorations, is that the originals had been chopped down over the years, particularly LoA, into more palatable lengths.

I'm not certain, but I don't think this ever happened to Ben-Hur.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Arthur,
I think some of the frustration you may be detecting in our responses stems from the fact that you are making up straw man arguments and responding to those rather than the actual content of people's posts. The most recent example: This would be a pointed question if the issue of how Universal stored their elements had ever been broached in this thread. Certain productions from 1959-1960 were shot on a film stock that, faded horribly in a manner not anticipated by the filmmakers or studio. Other productions, thankfully, were not. It is no more complicated than that. That's why Spartacus needed the restoration it got. They also restored a few cuts due to censorship from the time of the film's release.

Lawrence of Arabia did not have the same problems that Spartacus did, and its restoration was therefore carried out in a very different manner.

Also, the whole sequence of first saying that you have neither the time nor inclination to check out an 8-10 minute featurette that would answer many of your questions, and then challenging the information provided by those who somehow did muster the energy to actually do so comes across as disingenuous even if it was not intended that way.

Regards,

 

[Mark Anthony]

Arthur my best advice would be to send Robert Harris a pm with specific questions, i'm sure he'd be gracious enough to answer and may well know the current state of the film materials on k of k and ben hur and what was done to them, if anything, to produce the dvd versions...as the new version of Ben Hur isn't out for another 8 months - who knows what press releases may or may not come out in the meantime about it's "restoration" from 65mm.

...as this topic interests you, I really would recommend setting 5 or 10 minutes aside to watch the featurette on the spartacus restoration, it comes straight from the horses mouth, rather than the amateur htfer's such as myself who are merely passing on information as in general they are not involved in companies doing restoration work or privy to the information you desire.

M

 

[ArthurMy]

The question of how Universal stored their negatives WAS broached in this thread. Someone said MGM stored theirs properly, and that Universal did not (or certainly that was implied). Not what I call a "straw man" argument - a term I have grown to loathe because of its abuse on the Internet.

Perhaps I will PM Mr. Harris, but I guess what I'd really like is to hear explanations from others as well, others who actually know about this stuff. Mr. Harris has his point of view and he stated it.

And just to clarify, I didn't say I hadn't watched the featurette you speak of - I said I hadn't watched it on the DVD. I watched all of the special features on the laserdisc release, and felt no need to rewatch them on the DVD. Nor did the featurette answer any of my questions, really. It only deals with Spartacus. I understand what's being said in the featurette. But, as years have gone by, and we've seen beautiful transfers from large format negatives, certain questions have come to lodge themselves in my brain. It's as simple as that.

 

[Mark Anthony]

The restoration featurette is completely different on the dvd, it goes into the new hi-def transfer, shows before and after examples and goes into the new colour corrections that were done purely for this criterion dvd release...

Another point to bear in mind is the existance of a dvd with fantastic picture quality does not necessarily indicate a well-preserved negative/main surviving element or one not needing restorative work or preservation.

North by Northwest and the Godfather are both examples of dvd's with fantastic picture quality - but both have, or did have, detereorating negatives...digital technology can work wonders for digital video releases from poor source materials, but unless work is done on the elements themselves, they are not preserved.

Equally some film's with perfectly preserved materials have naff dvd releases due to sloppyness and incorrect film element usage on the part of the dvd releasing company eg "The Quiet Man".

I mentioned about Universal having, in the past, poor storage for the film elements - It's something I remember reading and is the reason Spartacus didn't have a negative (ands many other's), hence the restoration.

MGM have great asset protection and have had since the 50's/60's- which is why GWTW, Wizard of Oz, the musical's....can all be transferred from 60 plus year old original 3 strip negatives for Warner's ultra-resolution process.

M

 

[DeeF]

Actually, a number of these negatives were destroyed by fire, including the negative of Singin' in the Rain. This particular movie was saved by performing the Ultra-Resolution process on positive safeties, and a new negative was printed.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Differential shrinkage is primarily an issue if you are recombining black and white protection masters. If the negative is in fine shape, they wouldn't need the black and white separations, so shrinkage wouldn't be an issue. Fading of Spartacus (and the other 1959-1960 era films listed in the link I provided above) was film-stock related, so that part has already been answered.

Regards,

 

[Mark Anthony]

"Actually, a number of these negatives were destroyed by fire, including the negative of Singin' in the Rain. This particular movie was saved by performing the Ultra-Resolution process on positive safeties, and a new negative was printed"

A fire can happen in even the best assett protection facility, why MGM's assett protection was so good (esp. for the time) is that it was all stored seperately so when something went up in flames, the next best element didn't -as in the case of Singing in the...

M

 

[Patrick McCart]

Granted Warner Bros. has great separations to work with, they may be able to restore North by Northwest from those. They used separations for High Society, which looks fantastic.

This is one reason why I anticipate the HD-DVD version of NxNW... the original LDI DVD looks great, but they hadn't refined their process yet (compared to the near-flawless Star Wars Trilogy, Casablanca, and Bambi)...

There's still occasional dirt visible, the negative tears are not as well concealed (like in Casablanca), and it doesn't have as much of a natural grain texture as the 2003-2005 releases. Also, the color is reddish and the contrast is too low.... here's an example:

[url=http://img223.exs.cx/img223/3627/nxnwcolor3ik.jpg] [/url]
[url=http://img223.exs.cx/img223/2503/colornxnw1ro.jpg] [/url]

(Note: I might not have the right color in the "Corrected" picture, but I just wanted to point out the tint in the original)

 

[Jay Pennington]

Arthur, I don't have any input into the color issue, but in regard to your "why is X in bad shape when Y isn't" point, my response would be "why not?" There could be any number of reasons. I don't think it's so implausible that one film would deteriorate/be abused more than another, regardless of the time frame or film stock.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

RE: singin' in the rain:

I saw a stunning 35mm print of Singin in the Rain projected at the Silver Screen in Silver Spring MD a few months back...all tell-tale signs were that it was newly struck from the most recent restoration efforts...flawless.

-dave

p.s. side-note...also saw an even more jaw-droppingly, stunningly incredible print of Fiddler on the Roof their last year. I hope to God that MGM revisits the current DVD using this new print for a new HD transfer...it was *light years* beyond the garbbled-MPEGGY/grainy mess of the current (SE and non) DVDs...

 

[ArthurMy]

I have been trying to be specific - no one really wants to hear this stuff. I'm saying that there are well-known restorations of several large format films. All those large format negatives for those well-known restorations were in bad repair. With me? Since then, several DVDs of large format films have come out and had superb DVDs off the large format elements. Again, these are not FILM restorations, and I've stated that in many of my posts in this thread. But still, those large format negs were good enough not to have needed the kind of major work that the well-known restorations needed. I can cite the already-mentioned King of Kings, the upcoming Ben-Hur, 2001, Around the World in Eighty Days (they used to say THAT negative was totally screwed up, but it did not prove to be the case, did it), and several others.

It's quite facile to say "Why not?" Only it doesn't answer the questions being asked. Believe me, I don't expect anyone here to know any real answers, because people here are not in that business and only know what they're told or what they've read.

So, let me put it another way - let's say Spartacus hadn't been restored way back when. Let's say Universal was making a SE DVD right now, off the large format elements, for the first time. Putting a FILM restoration aside for the moment, would they have been able to deliver a DVD of the quality of Around the World or King of Kings or Hello, Dolly, or any number of other DVDs off large format elements?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Possibly.

Let me first point out that the need to conduct extensive restoration work on Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, Vertigo, and My Fair Lady was not due to their large format origination, although their large format origination may have presented unique challenges in the process of restoring them.

Additionally, reviewing the link I provided above will show that Disney's flat 35mm "Pollyanna" had similar issues to the 8-perf Super Technirama "Spartacus" and the 8-perf VistaVision "North by Northwest". All three have excellent DVDs which were arrived at via different methods. "Spartacus" underwent a large format restoration from which a 65mm element was created for video transfer. "Pollyanna" had to have one of its black and white protection elements recreated from the faded negative before a new 35mm restoration element could be created. "North by Northwest" had its yellow layer fading corrected in the digital video domain without an intermediate film restoration process.

Lessons: (1) A film's history will determine what it needs in terms of restoration. (2) When creating a video transfer, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Regards,

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Yes, I played one of them back in 2003. It was clearly marked as being from the restored negative and it certainly looked magnificent on the large screen.

 

[Paul Linfesty]

This print was also screened at the American Cinemateque (Egyptian Theatre) a couple of years back. The preview of the upcoming showing was projected before HELLO DOLLY, and "demonstrated" the difference between 35mm Academy and 70mm (with screen mask opening between the two of them. (The 70mm blown-up DTS logo seemed SO out of place between the two of them).