A Few Words About A few words about... Ben-Hur (1 Viewer)

[JoshB]

Well obviously if you expect PERFECTION. Is there perfection in any DVD ever released? Seriously, If you were put in the restoration chair, what would you have done differently? Are you really that qualified?

If we constantly were worried about pleasing perfectionists, it would be years before we see a DVD release of any film, and by that time there would be a new format, and then the smae thing would begin over again.

Questioning RAH? You better have some good evidence to back your claims up before be lays the smack down.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

JoshB wrote:

And that's exactly what Ted has done. His screen is 13ft wide with a 2.55:1 ratio and using a 1080(P?) projector. He sees flaws that weren't meant to be seen by today's mainstream technology, let alone used for quality assurance purposes from the studio.

Mr. Harris should not have to justify his expertise based on this extreme type of observation.

One has to realize that color deteriorates with the years on old film, and unless you want the digital look of Toy Story, today's technology is not going to allow that kind of perfection while still keeping the film grain and other important inherent aspects of the original media.

IMO, by today's standards, using today's mainstream reproduction equipment, I agree that this movie has been "magnificently" restored, compared to the best transfer (2001 DVD release) to date.

Paul

Edit: I want to add that it is great to hear actual observations like Ted has shared. How else can the industry learn from what can be seen.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion regarding the quality of this dvd without us having to question each other's qualifications. Some of us are not going to agree on certain aspects of this dvd presentation due to different variations that affect our viewing experiences and expectations.





Crawdaddy

 

[JoshB]

This is based on what one person, or a few for that matter, have claimed. True, they may be correct, but it would take alot more for a studio to rethink its strategy and efforts in that regard, and even then admit that there are flaws to begin with, even if they could/could not be corrected. Is everyone going to have similar thoughts (and/or setups) to reach this conclusion?

Why do you think people like Peter Staddon and Charlie De Lauzirika do not post here anymore?

Ted's observations reflect what he wants to see, and what he describes amounts to perfection whenever possible. If studios viewed that advice or expectations from more people, do you really think that there work would be appreciated? They would think people are never satisfied no matter what they get, and that despite there efforts, some just want more.

I think its good to hear observations too, but some just border on what people want rather than what is possible. I too want the best quality that can be produced, but when I put in Ben Hur, I am goign into it knowing that there will be flaws in a film as old as this, but I accept that based on the passing of time, and I will not expect he studios to go back and redo there efforts because a few people are going to single out flaws. Maybe in 10 or 15 years, the flaws noticed by TedH will be corrected.

 

[Ravi K]

The difference in color and and slightly softer image in the screencaps do bother me, but its that mis-registration issue that concerns me the most. RAH, what do you make of it?

 

[JoshB]

DVDBeaver offers its thoughts, with additonal comments still to come:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/ben-hur.htm

 

[TedD]

Please note that I left out all source related comments in my criticism.

Color misregistration should not be present if the transfer was done from source elements other than seps.
Even with seps I could accept color fringing out towards the edges of the image. However, when the entire image has registration errors with a single color for roughly 1/4 of the total running time of the feature, I think that is excessive.

I have purposely not brought up the density fluctuations, color temperature fluctuations, fading, horizontal jitter, missing frames, etc. that are also all present on this DVD.

However, these problems are inherent in the source and I have no problems accepting these flaws. These all come with the territory on any transfer from 45+ year old source material.

I also only referenced "Moulin Rouge to deflect any arguments that DVD's inherently have issues with poor color registration, or that my system introduced the problem, not to compare source materials.

As a projectionist I am all too familiar with what can happen to film and I never criticize a transfer for looking like film, even if that means what some may consider to be excessive film grain, scratches, cue marks, etc.

Also, BTW, nobody's perfect. I seem to remember RAH initially defending the framing of the DVD of Kiss Me Kate, even after I posted my comparison screen caps.

I value RAH's opinions highly, but we all have different tolerance levels of certain types of flaws.

If this is really a telecine error, or if it ocurred when a new IN or IP was created from seps, then it's going to be present on any form of HD transfer and it's going to be a lot more visible to the average viewer when they are viewing an HD transfer on a 1080 HDTV.

Also, I'll guarantee you it wasn't on the prints that were exibited back in 1959-60.

Ted

 

[JoshB]

Well, at least we agree that no one is perfect.

I do agree the print has its flaws, and I am no expert by far in terms of restoration and projection, so I do find interest in what you have to say, and in the coming days and weeks, we should know more about the transfer once others have sampled it as well.

 

[Roger Rollins]

One of the interesting things about the HTF in my opinion, is that you can almost guarantee that any high profile release of an important film will bring out a wide range of opinions.

I salute Mr. Crawford for his words of wisdom and calm.

....and as always, I salute Mr. Harris, for his body of work and contributions to not only the world of cinema, but specifically, his benevolent & illuminating contributions to this forum are priceless, and something to prize greatly.

We who read posts here are fortunate to have his input and comments. Indeed, quite fortunate. His stamp of approval has often influenced my decision to buy or bypass many releases. For that I am most grateful.

 

[Robert Harris]

Many times when I read comments about problems viewed on DVDs, I come away thinking that the DVD buying public has been oversold on the DVD elixer, placed in homes by hucksters to reproduce the unreproduceable.

Allow me to answer a few of the questions that have come up regarding the new DVD of Ben-Hur, and my previous comments.

Earlier today, I sampled about 40 minutes of the film, looking at specific scenes and for specific problem areas. This was performed on a new 30" Sony high definition monitor that I use in my office.

This evening, I viewed the same material via a Runco projector on a 110" screen, and at the proper viewing distance.

I believe I tempered my earlier post to the point of being based upon our current system of image delivery.

I'll go a bit further.

I'm aware of no Rank or other scanners in use, and available today, which are capable of handling a large format image with high quality.

This means that one of two things must occur.

Either one scans a large format element on what is essentially a dinosaur of a machine, or one creates a reduction element for scanning on one of the latest generation set up for standard 35mm.

If one scans large format, one can end up with a nicely rendered, but imperfect image, normally with less detail than can be reproduced from 35mm. This image will generally appear softer than a like image based upon the same scene photographed on 35mm 4 perf.

To create a 35mm element one must run the large format element through an optical printer, with its own inherent loss. With anamorphic 65mm one's difficulties are futher exacerbated.

Among the many problems here, dealing with an almost half century old Eastman Color original, inclusive of fade and wear, is that taking a film like Ben-Hur and releasing it on any home video format is much like attempting to place 110 pounds of sand in a five gallon container.

No matter what you do, it isn't going to fit.

The new transfer of Ben-Hur on DVD has problems, to be sure.

Among them are an overall softness of the image, occasional flickering, occasional color contamination and some shot to shot color problems.

But being aware of the film elements, the methodology of squeezing as much of Mr. Surtees' pictoral information onto a home video mechanism as possible, as well as the limitations of that process, leads me back to the truth.

Any home video incarnation of Mr. Wyler's film is but an ignominious pipsqeak when compared to the original.

I need to get a bit more information regarding the actual process used in the creation of the new release, which will help answer a few more points, but overall, in a normal viewing environment, I'm not having any more problems with Ben-Hur on DVD than I do with any other large format film.

I don't advocate viewing Mr. Wyler's work in this fashion, as I don't advocate the same of Sir David Lean's.

The last time that I saw the chariot race sequence was a few years ago, courtesy of Panavision, who screened it for my son, who had previously only seen the film on laser disc and in a 35mm dye transfer magnetic print.

For any lover of film, this is a life-altering experience.

Seeing Ben-Hur on a large screen in its original process confirms Mr. Wyler's work as one of the seven wonders of the cinematic world.

Even if Warner Brothers were to do a proper Camera 65 theatrical re-issue of Ben-Hur, it would only be available to a small percentage of the population.

In order to make it as wide-reaching as possible, it could be run on a special basis, once or twice a week, at IMAX theatres around the world. It could also run continuously as a special venue presentation for tourists in Los Angeles or Las Vegas.

There are enough quality 70mm theatres around the world that a closely controlled distribution, keeping prints in top shape and making certain that necessary levels of projection were within parameters, would certainly be successful.

I would love to see John Wayne's The Alamo, properly reconstructed and restored, continously available at the IMAX theatre next to The Alamo.

The bottom line is that our expectations, especially when oriented toward our current video systems need to be tempered with reality.

The new Ben-Hur on DVD is still a nicely packaged paperback version of something very special. Nothing more.

Could it be sharper on current DVD? Possibly. Could the image have a steadier color resolution, without occasional pumping? Possibly. Would it take several million dollars to get there. Certainly.

Would the un-downrezzed version of the current transfer look superior to what we're seeing on the DVD?

Most assuradly.

As a DVD, and acknowledging the problems involved, Ben-Hur is magnificent.

Frankly, I wish I was back in Tunbridge Wells.

RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

Crawdaddy

 

[Mark Anthony]

Mr Harris, it amazes me that so many years into the home theatre explosion and the continual raising of the bar for what is acceptable on a home video product that Rank et al haven't manufactured a better quality 65mm film scanner in recent years...is it just due to the cost and sale-ability of said item, due to the low number of original 65mm features, or is there some technical reason behind this?

BTW Tunbridge Wells is approx an hour's drive from me, and well worth a visit!

Regards

M

 

[Joe Caps]

AAAAH. I like the picture on the new Ben Hur. by Far the best picture quality we have had for this title.
The sound is another mater, not just the pulling in of the dialgue toward the center, but the bad remixing from the raw tracks. The high end seems to be gone, the bass artificially pumped up. Horrifying.

 

[Cassy_w]

RAH is the man. May I have your children, sir?

 

[Robert Harris]

To Mr. Anthony...

How many roundabouts between you and TW? I've never been able to get the hang of them whilst sitting on the wrong side of the car and driving on the wrong side of the road.

To Cassy_w...

Is this an offer to take over tuition payments?

 

[Mark Anthony]

Fortunately there is a good stretch of motorway between Hertfordshire and Kent, perfect for giving the Aston Martin or Bentley a work-out! Although those r-a-b's are a pain even to us locals, as there's probably at least 20 to endure over that stretch!

On a side-issue Mr Harris, have you been involved at all in supervising or approving the new anamorphic transfer of Vertigo thats appearing in the Universal Hitchcock DVD collection next month?

M

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I think Barbara Streisand was horribly mis-cast as Dr. Octopus.

Wait...I might be getting them confused.

Yes New York/
It's really us/
Barnaby and/
Octavius

All the friends of Mr. Hackl are/
Feeling that Spidey's spectacular

Sorry, I just saw a production of "Hello Dolly!" in Stratford, Ontario a couple of weeks ago. I have resisted the temptation to post the lyrics for "Webbing Down My Back" and "I Put My Metallic Pincer In".

Regards,

 

[Robert Harris]

I know nothing about the new DVD of "Vertigo."

 

[TedD]

Well, here are a couple that are capable of doing 65mm at 4K resolution:

http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/northlight.html

http://www.cintel.co.uk/docs/milleniumii.pdf

I can't say whether or not they are in use in Hollywood or not, however. It looks like the northlight is not, however.

Ted

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Thanks for your remarks, Mr. Harris!

Shortly after your Lawrence restoration came out, the one nice AMC theater in Dallas at the time had a series of 70mm screenings of MGM classics, including 2001, Doctor Zhivago, West Side Story, and Ben Hur. Words can not fully describe what it is like to see those movies on a big screen--especially the Chariot Race sequence in Ben Hur. The movie Gladiator pales in comparison.

Thanks again,

- Steve