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

[Michel_Hafner]

#Unless there is a need for digital restoration, 65mm scanning is a waste.

I think that's the central point here. To get a pristine DVD and later HD DVD WB really needs to make the decision to restore the film and make a digital archival master (plus film outs for the salt mine), just like they did for "Wizard of Oz" etc. When I talked to a Northlight guy at IBC he claimed their scanner costs less than a 4K Spirit datacine. That was the 35mm version. 70mm might cost more. But buying a Northlight to do a good job sounds like milk money when you see what WB etc. put into marketing campaigns for their latest film which might be a pointless dud that crashes. If Ben Hur has color registration issues, well WB knows how to handle these already. It's the central problem of their 3 strip Technicolor restorations.
The issue is obviously mastering for video versus mastering for restoration at film quality. The latter will have to happen sometime given the film's importance. Once 4K workflows are more established and costs have come down it's almost a certainty it will happen.

 

[TedD]

Yes, but every day that passes means that the original elements have suffered additional fading and degradation.....

Here is a short blurb on bigfoot:
http://www.dmnforums.com/cgi-bin/vie...e.cgi?id=34661

The following makes for some fascinating reading regarding the trials and tribulations of film restoration:

http://millimeter.com/mag/video_first_person_restoring/

just my $.02, as always.

Ted

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Interesting. They did the Indian clip I saw on the Sony 4K projector. Superb sharpness. On a 4K DLP it would look even sharper and have better contrast.

 

[Robert Harris]

To TedD...

Aspect ratio has nothing to do with film gauge, ie. any large format element may be opically printed to 35/4 in any shape or anamorphosis desired.

Lines per mm. has nothing to do with film gauge. A film shot on 65mm 5250 in 1961 may have fewer lines/mm than a 35mm production photographed on the newest Eastman stock, but one has nothing to do with the other.

The 40 or 50 year old 65mm originated production will still look better on screen than the newest production on 35.

RAH

 

[TedD]

Oh, but it does. If todays 35 mm film stock can resolve twice as many lines/mm as a 1960 65mm film stock, than the advantage to digitizing directly from 65mm at a lower resolution all but dissappears as far as resolving power when compared to optically printing a 35mm reduction and digitizing from that.
Obviously todays 65mm film stock will beat the pants of of todays 35mm film stock, but that's not what we are discussing here.

If I had an ideal printer with the best possible optical system, I could reduction print that old 65mm film stock to a modern 35mm film stock with a a minimal loss of image quality.

Note I never said anything about a 70mm release print in my comments and there are many reasons for using 70mm in projection, not the least of which being the ability to deliver more light on the screen with less heat stress on the film in the gate. However, the rectangular shape of the 70mm aperture actually makes it more difficult to deliver the circular light cone to the gate without either edge falloff, or wasting a lot of light.

One carbon arc lamphouse designed in the late '50s actually tried to fix this problem by using a cylindrical condenser lens to conform the round image of the carbon arc gas ball into an eliptical shape so as to deliver more light to the film area and waste less on areas of the projector casting and gate assembly.

Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

TedD...

What I'm saying is that there is no difference between the stocks (35/4 v 65/5 or even 16).

It is only the magnification factor which comes into play.

When it comes to projection, the prime format during the era in which it was used, was VistaVision, which gave a steadier and more balanced image than 35 or 70.

 

[RobertGr]

To Mr. Harris


First off let me give a shout out to the Lafayette Theater in Suffern, over the past few years their classic film program has been outstanding. Last seasons showing of EASTER PARADE was a winner on the big screen and I look forward to their rare showing of SCROOGE starring Alastair Sim this holiday!

I am hoping they will show KING OF KINGS 1961 someday bravo to Pete A.


On Ben Hur thanks for your thoughts Mr. Harris. I ordered it as soon as it was announced and it is the best home video version of this great film.

I am hoping Warners does the same GREAT job on QUO VADIS when that sees the laserlight of the DVD player!


Mr. Harris have you seen the new restoration (or most recent on A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH?

I am still waiting for SONY to release the DVD which they pulled from their release schedule a year or so ago!


Best
RobertGr

 

[TedD]

Except that VistaVision was almost always projected from 35mm reductions, with the exception of a single special venue (Colonial Williamsburg). But I don't disagre that an IB Tech reduction from a VistaVision large format negative delivered an amazing image.

Unfortunately, Royal Theaters in Hawaii which exibited all the Paramount films all had 2.0:1 screens and showed all films at 2.0:1, cropping the sides of Scope films and the top/bottom of flat films.

There were less that a dozen horizontal VistaVision projectors ever manufactured, with maybe one or two VistaVision features shown in the horizontal format and only for premiere engagements.

To me, the perfect projection format that would have been the absolute cat's meow for projection would have been Technirama. VistaVision frame size + a 1.5x anamorphic lens. Now, that would have been absolutely spectacular!!!

Managing the mass of 70mm films with mag tracks on them to keep them from exibiting side weave and bounce in the gate was always a bear. At the Cooper Theater in Denver( Cinerama House), we always cleaned and coated the gate runners with ZeeKote after every reel.

(Ran the same print of Star Wars in 70mm for over a year.....)

Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

TedD,

HTF readers may be unaware that a single print could (and would) run for a year or more in a single large format venue -- in many cases with a 35 backup held in the corner of the booth in case of emergency.

For films in need of reconstruction, we generally seek out these backups, which would have been the uncut version of the film, and usually in Eastman Color and magnetic only.

My hat is off to you and your crew for doing superior work in the field of projection engineering.

While there are still quality projectionists out there, all too often we have a 17 year old attempting to check focus, whilst making change for Goobers at the same time.

Its becoming a lost art.

RAH

 

[RobertR]

So you're one of the people responsible for my wonderful experiences at the dear departed Cooper, Ted (It's unforgivable that it was demolished)? What years did you do work there?

 

[JPCinema]

I curious as to whether anyone knows of the progress of the DVD of the 1962 "MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY" another wide gauge film which Warners had mention was being prepared for release.
. Will the original aspect ratio be retained?
I remember the big impression the scope of the film had on me when I saw it upon original release at the age of 11.

 

[Stephen PI]

I saw this film during the month of my 15th birthday in March 1963 in 70mm at the Royalty Theater in Kingsway, Holborn, London and I recall quite clearly that they did not exhibit it in Ultra Panavision. Can any other Brits on this forum confirm my good memory on this?
This film is a big favorite of mine and although I have no information on it's progress I am confident that Warners will give it the same attention as "Ben-Hur".

 

[TedD]

Robert:

I was in Denver (and Boulder) from 1976 to 1988. I worked at many of the theaters there, but my favorite was the Cooper, followed by the Village in Boulder and the Continental also in Denver. All three had deep curved screens, The Cooper had Century 35/70's and the Continental had Norelco 35/70's, the Village was 35mm only with Simplex XL's. Even though the Village was 35mm, it still had a 50"+ wide screen with a throw of only 75' or so.

From 1988 to 1990, I lived in Minneapolis and worked at the Cooper there.

In 1990, I moved to the DFW area and gave up active projectionist work to concentrate on my primary career.

Unfortunately, by this time, the downward spiral in projection quality had pretty much taken over. Even while I was working in Minneapolis, our shifts were cut back to nights and weekends only. During the week, a manager operator system was used.

Ted

 

[TedD]

Stephen, how do you know it wasn't Ultra Panavision? Unless you were in the booth and saw the lenses on the projectors, It would be very hard to tell. Some theaters cropped a fair amount off of the sides of the image.

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/200...panavision.htm

Ted

 

[Stephen PI]

Hi Ted, you may very well be right what you say and I am ofcourse open to being corrected. I seem to recall from the titles that they did not have the wider familiar dimensions of CinemaScope. I was going to the cinema two to three times a week then and so I was fairly concious of screen dimensions.
Were any 2.20 versions specially prepared for regular 70mm equipped theaters or did they project in UP and mask off the sides?

 

[Robert Harris]

Stephen,

Ultra Panavision was projected via two different means.

A standard UP70 print with a normal 25% anamorphosis was used for flat or near-flat screens, and would normally be projected anywhere from 2.55 to 2.75

These prints would be projected with anamorphic lenses to unsqueeze the image.

A totally different set of 70mm prints were also produced specifically for venues with highly curved screen (Cinerama type).

These prints would be optically produced (from the same original negative) to totally unsqueeze the central portion (50% or so) of the image, and then add additional compression to the sides.

These prints, which were called "rectified," were projected with a standard spherical lens. The extreme curve of the screen (sometimes with a setback of 17 or so feet from front to rear), would remove the anamorphosis as a natural event, making the image look correct.

Which means that it may have been difficult to surmise from either the screen or by looking back at the booth, precisely what was being projected.


As an aside, for those members who are not aware of Mr. Pickard's background, he is one of the finest audio technicians in Hollywood, with a number of years spent in the British film industry.

He knows of what he speaks.

RAH

 

[Stephen PI]

Hello Robert, thankyou for your detailed response. I thought the Royalty in London was only equipped for screening regular flat 70mm prints only. The Empire, Leicester Square was MGM's big London theater and they ran "Ben-Hur" correctly. I saw it in 1960.
Am I correct in saying that there were no standard flat 70mm prints made from films made in the early sixties in UP?
What kind of print was made for the screening I saw of "Ben-Hur" at the County Museum in Los Angeles a few years ago? Was this a standard 70mm cropped print made for the reissue in the late sixties?

 

[Robert Harris]

To the best of my knowledge the only "flat" prints of UP70 productions were those created from a c.1969-70 dupe for Ben-Hur.

All else should be either standard 1.25 squeeze UP or "rectified UP."

RAH

 

[Stephen PI]

Thank you Robert, and for your flattering comments.

 

[Douglas R]

Stephen - just to say that I also saw MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY at the Royalty, London but I'm blowed if I can remember anything about the ratio! All I remember is that the 70mm print looked fantastic. I think MUTINY was shown prior to the Royalty being converted to a Cinerama cinema, where I later saw MAD WORLD.