A Few Words About A few words about...™ Spartacus -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[GMpasqua]

If Universal gave us an excellent Blu-ray of "Spartacus" one that met Mr. Harris' standards and everyone else on this forum, they would not be able to license the title out to Criterion in a year or so (making more money) they wouldn't be able to release the improved version in a few years (making more money) they wouldn't be able to satisfy their biggest cilents (Walmart - who's consumers want films to look clean and with no grain and if possible in Pan and Scan)

Universal is in the business to make money, how many times have you purchased "Spartacus"? since the majority of people aren't reading this forum, they will buy it, they may even upgrade but there aren't enough people on this board to compete with the sales of the Walmart consumer who is really Joe Six Pack Pan and Scan (Sony just re-released "Mackennas Gold" in Pan and Scan - this is 2010!!!! tvs are wide!!! the film is 2:35!!! (the packaging states 1:85 which is wrong - but it doesn't matter since the disc is the old Pan and Scanned version - they once issued the film in the correct 2:35 OAR on SD DVD

Well at least Sony TRIED to get it right, then struck out on each base

How many versions of "American Pie" DVD's did Universal release?

Not saying I agree with any of this, but you do not have to purchase the Blu-ray and can wait for a newer issue in the future, until then you do have the Criterion DVD

 

[ahollis]

I am not sure if Joe Six Pack wants to watch SPARTACUS. Or at least this version. Ask anyone in a Wal-Mart who Kirk Douglas was and the only correct answer would be from the greeter.

I may just stick with the Standard DVD and not up grade this time. Not sure it is worth it.

 

[snoopy28574]

I posted a message on Universals Face Book Page about my disgust with Spartacus. A more organized effort sounds like a good idea

 

[Patrick McCart]

While it'll go on my Netflix queue, I canceled this from my pre-order.

Personally, I think Universal should do absolutely nothing and simply let Criterion have their way with the film. Besides proper a/v, all the extras intact, plus better menus and cover artwork.

 

[snoopy28574]

But would criterion be given the old HD master or granted access to the inter positive Mr. Harris spoke of ?

 

[Brian Little]

What a let down. I was hoping for the beauty of the Criterion SD DVD but only in 1080p. Instead we get yet another "oh we must need to filter the film grain and make everything shiney and plasticey for the dolts who don't know better" Wal-Mart crowd. I fear for how the inevitable Back To The Future Blu release will end up at this rate. Major pass on Spartacus on Blu.

 

No Sale. The Criterion DVD will take a spin in my blu-ray player in honor of the 50th Anniversary of this fine epic film.

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by snoopy28574
But would criterion be given the old HD master or granted access to the inter positive Mr. Harris spoke of ?

Surely if they hand over big bucks to license the film then they would be allowed to do a new transfer of the restoration element.

However I don't think Criterion's datacine works with 65mm film, so they may have to do the transfer elsewhere which would increase the cost.

 

[Robert Harris]

Torsten Kaiser posted this link for the main screen of Universal's Blu of Spartacus over at Blu-ray.com making note of the message in the upper right corner.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=10166&position=20

One must find the dark humor in it.

RAH

 

[snoopy28574]

Would it not be time to scan the Seps at 8K ? Would that not result in a better picture than what can be gotten form the restoration negative ? I know we can't count on being able to play back those digital files in 2050 or something, but we can try and give it a shot. New protection elements could be made from the new scans. What parts of the film if any that can't be recombined anymore, could be taken form the existing restoration negative. Also, if we are developing technology or have developed technology to restore from original camera negative ounce unusable ( the Alamo), could this not work for Spartacus. Maybe what could not have been done from the O negative in the 90's can be done now. At least scan it before it gets any worse. Maybe one day we can make it work.

I don't understand why I see films restored on film, and then the master scanned. I used to be all for that, but if 8k gets all the info then why not scan the absolute original ? We can still make protection elements can't we ? Or can we not print 65mm from digital ? Well, anyway, we can for 35mm I know that.

Do we need more color depth for digital scanning ? Like when I use 48 bit color on my dads old 35mm negatives ?

I know I'm asking allot of questions. I intend to obtain book on film restoration and even take classes if possible. I want to know it all.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Why the seps? I'm reasonably sure that the archival elements created by Messrs. Katz and Harris would be up to the task, being less than 20 years old. And I'm pretty sure that RAH will chime in here and say that 8K is overkill, even when dealing with a Technirama element.

 

[snoopy28574]

No, he won't, because it is Mr. Harris who answered me about a year ago when I asked that question exactly, how much resolution was needed for 70 mm. I'm sure more than 8K may be necessary for newer movies like Hamlet which are large format as well.

Up to the task is not good enough. I may never get what I want, as in going back to the seps, but some movies do get that extra TLC. Gone with the Wind for example. Why not Spartacus and all the greats.

 

[Adam_S]

8k is oversampling for 35mm, and at the very least is probably equivalent to using 4k on 35mm. (that is to say 8k:65mm::4k:35mm) and 4k may be slightly oversampling for 35mm as well. greater resolution would probably have to be used for 65mm to create the equivalent amount of oversampling for 65. that said, its unrealistic to expect that 4k is going to replace HD, and an 8k scan of 65mm material yields a sufficiently sampled detailed image to not really need to worry about sampling much higher than that.

Oversampling matters, you get a better 2k image and a better 1080p image from oversampling at 4k than doing a native sample at 2k or 1080p.

the 8k scans used for Dr. Zhivago, for example, were used to scan at 8k and print immediately back to film to yield a stable film element that doesn't have all the sprocket problems of the original negative. it's a digital solution to creating a perfect analogue copy.

The 8k was then downrezzed to 4k and work was completed at that resolution. the finished product was further downrezzed to 1080p for the bluray.

The point is, that other than creating the stable film copy (uncorrected btw) the 8k was not used for anything other than to create an oversampled harvest for the 4k workflow.

working above 4k becomes a monstrous data hog. a two hour movie can be expected to take up 25 Terrabytes of information at 4k just for the data. Add at least another 50 TB to have enough room to work and you're starting to get into some massive data management issues. a film like Spartacus would probably need 100-150 TB of space in 4k. And you have to double that, at least to work in 8k. Then you run into the software issue of what's compatible to work with data at that resolution and still offer playback. da vinci's work in 4k now, but I don't think they're 8k yet. I'm very curious to hear how WB worked entirely in 6k for A star is born. I wonder if they were working with a new beta version of da vinci or had an in house software solution.

 

[OliverK]

If you want a good Blu-Ray you can get excellent results with a 4k sensor scan of the 65mm IP with output to 2k data.
That's the way it is and anything above that can get VERY expensive, especially going back to the OCN and/or seps.

Regarding Spartacus and 8k: The original taking format is 35mm 8perf and therefore a 6k scan would achieve about the same pixel density as an 8k scan for 65mm 5 perf.

Originally Posted by snoopy28574
No, he won't, because it is Mr. Harris who answered me about a year ago when I asked that question exactly, how much resolution was needed for 70 mm. I'm sure more than 8K may be necessary for newer movies like Hamlet which are large format as well.

Up to the task is not good enough. I may never get what I want, as in going back to the seps, but some movies do get that extra TLC. Gone with the Wind for example. Why not Spartacus and all the greats.

 

[Robert Harris]

This discussion has ended up with apples and oranges (or snails and oysters).

35/8 scans perfectly well at 4k.

If the reconstruction and restoration were to be performed digitally from scratch, and I see no reason to do so, as the cost would be well upwards of a million dollars, it would not be done in any of the ways mentioned in the above discussions.

RAH

 

[OliverK]

/forum/thread/300552/a-few-words-about-spartacus-in-blu-ray/60#post_3691742

35/8 scans perfectly well at 4k.

Just for clarification, that would be around 4k by 6k as opposed to 4k by 3.4k for standard 35mm 4 perf ?

 

[snoopy28574]

I guess I will just leave it to the experts from now on and do some more research. I was sure 8k would be better. Guess not.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by OliverK
I hope this post will pass by the censors or else somebody may have to reconstruct it some 30 years into the future....

Just for clarification, that would be around 4k by 6k as opposed to 4k by 3.4k for standard 35mm 4 perf ?

Precisely. The number of perfs scanned at 4k is irrelevant. It's still 4k, whether 35/3 perf, 4 perf, 6 perf or 10 perf. 4k from perf to perf
is still 4k.

RAH

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Adam_S

...And you have to double that, at least to work in 8k...

As 4k and 8k refers to the horizontal pixel count, data storage would be quadrupled, not doubled.

 

[trajan]

After looking at the screen shots at dvdbeaver, all I can say is that the bluray blows the dvd out of the water. The sharpness on the bluray is amazing! A must buy for me.