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

[TedD]

Not how I would describe it. The Laser Examiner's opinion certainly mirrors my own opinion of the transfer of the 1959 version. It also hits the nail on the head concerning the cheats that the studios allow the transfer and mastering houses to take in the name of expediency.

I'm just hoping that the issues with this title are related to the downconversion for DVD and are not the result of transfer problems. (But somehow I doubt it....)

OTOH, the silent version is an outstanding transfer, including some amazing digital color enhancement processing that was performed to make up for the color gamut limitations of the original 2 strip technicolor sequence.

Ted

 

[Kevin M]

Regarding this comment from Mr. Harris:

Which mix was used for the 5.1 track on Criterion's Spartacus? The full spread I assume.

EDIT: I wanted to be a bit clearer, since I assume that the 5.1 track is the full spread then is the 2.0 surround track the more centered mix or is it just a downmix of the 5.1 full spread mix?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ok,

After all my pontificating on the subject I actually sat down and *watched* the new Ben-Hur disc this past Saturday... Not just sampled a few specific scenes...but actually *watched* the movie. My dad and I had a grand old time: We watched the 1925 B&W Silent version, had a bathroom break, and then launched right into 1959 Heston epic. The experience was emotionally moving--in no small part to the outstanding image quality on this disc.

Breathtaking.

Film-like.

Natural.

The image was so velvelty smooth, it just oozed with film-like naturalness. The preservation of fine-film-grain and excellent compression maintained the "mist" effect that one enjoys with real projected prints which breathes life into the image. It was beautiful. And while this image didn't have that last degree of sharpness seen on the previous disc, the image had a greater sense of depth...one rarely experienced on the DVD format.

I have to say that the new Ben-Hur ranks up in my top-10 most "film like" DVD presentations.

Questions about optimal film-tape transfers for 65 mm and color balance are still valid and worthy of discussion, HOWEVER, they in no way negate the BEAUTIFUL presentation on this disc or undermine Warner's wonderful effort presented here. Those questions are healthy for discussion as they may help ensure that Ben-Hur's high-definition presentation is the absolute best that it can be. But I echo RAH's assertion that given DVD's resolution limitations (vertical resolution being further reduced by the 2.7+:1 aspect ratio), the image on this disc can be enjoyed in the context of a Standard Definition presentation without reservation.



Thanks Warner for continuing your great effort to bring our beloved classics to home-video in the best manner possible, and I look forward to purchasing this title yet again on Blu-ray when it becomes available.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Wasn't it released in 1959?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Rather than getting the rest of the world to change the historical release date I decided it would be more convenient to edit my post...

:b

 

[Haggai]

While we're at it, regarding historical release dates, the Fred Niblo-directed silent version of Ben-Hur is always listed as a 1925 release.

 

[GerardoHP]

David, I'm really jealous that you have a dad who would sit through two such movies with you. I can barely convince the people I know to sit through one such epic.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Gerardo,

Here Here.

My dad is an awesome movie buff. In fact, I get my love of films from him. This past weekend my mom went out of town so I said "hey dad, want to come down and spend the weekend watching movies?"

We watched four classic sci-fi films on Friday (couldn't believe how gorgeous my old Image copy of This Island Earth looked on DVD...much better/more detailed than many modern DVD jobs) and then on Saturday before he left we vowed to watch the silent version of Ben-Hur...and after it was over we both looked at each other with that special "what's one more 4 hour epic???" grin...



But I feel your pain. The usual response I get when trying to talk the S.O. into watching a movie after dinner is "didn't we just watch a movie last week?"...



We need to band together! Any movie buffs in the College Park/DC area want to be on my "movie buddy" list?

 

[RickER]

I miss going to the movies with my dad. We have not gone in years. Dad is only 65, and you would think he is 85. Wont make the trip to town, and had a bladder like a peanut. He couldn't sit through Ben Hur if he tried.

 

[Dave Mack]

I've gotta thank my late dad for getting me into the older stuff. He was always like, "That's good but check out what came before..." in whatever genre was applicable.
We also always saw a film on New Year's eve in the theatre which was great.
Last film we watched together was ST:Generations, (on TV) and it still resonates for me as he was sick at the time.

Dave, it's great that you and your Dad watch flicks together. I miss doing that.


dmack

 

[DaViD Boulet]

RickER,

What I've done lately is throw my projector and stereo receiver/extra pr of speakers in the car and set it up at my dad's house when I've gone to visit. Bring the "theater" to him and he can take all the bathroom breaks he needs. That was actually one of my justifications for getting a front projector...it was portable and I fantasized that we could have 'movies on a white sheet' nights at my folks' house whenever I felt the urge to lug the gear (2-channel audio is just fine for these events). Definitely worth the aggrivation of the set up time. Last weekened was the first time my dad made a trip to *my* place...and hopefully not the last.

Dave,

those are some great memories...I can relate to what you're talking about--I wouldn't have had any experience with older films had it not been for my dad's influence exploring all genres on those Sunday afternoons. Maybe we should start a "movies and our dads" thread...

 

[Patrick McCart]

Here's the point I was trying to make earlier...

Because of both DVD's being roughly the same aspect ratio, but the new edition having more picture information, an area on the 2001 disc will have more pixels than the 2005 disc.

[url=http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/6956/bh20011qv.jpg] [/url][url=http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/2333/bh20053ok.jpg] [/url]


Oddly enough, when I was looking for a sample, I discovered that there are messy splices visible in the old DVD that are gone in the new one.

In Photoshop, I attempted to make the 2005 DVD look like the 2001 DVD by only manipulating the color, brightness, and contrast...

[url=http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4716/bh2001b7me.jpg] [/url]
[url=http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/8691/bh2005b3ps.jpg] [/url]

So, my conclusion is that the old DVD mainly looks sharper and more detailed because someone fooled around the color and contrast. Once you adjust the 2005 DVD, it makes the old one look soft.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Correct. Hopefully in 1080P there will be enough pixels that the visible losses become less significant...though Ben-Hur is really a good argument for a "constant height" HD format that keeps a constant 1080P vertical-resolution and increases horizontal pixel count to match the exact aspect ratio of whatever is required...

 

[GerardoHP]

My partner's classic line: "But it's almost 10 o'clock. If we start a movie now we won't be done til midnight!" :rolleyes

 

[Hal Masonberg]

This may have been mentioned already, and if so I apologize for the repeat, but I just received the British Blu-ray Edition of Ben-Hur (3-disc). While scanning through to get a look at the film, I noticed what appears to be a restoration mistake. It's in the outdoor scene where Masala asks Ben-Hur if he spoke with the local people and Ben-Hur says he did and that most agree non-violence is best. Masala asks, "Most?" Ben-Hur answers with something to the effect that some people don't agree, that they're bitter, etc. Masala asks for their names and Ben-Hur refuses and claims that they're not criminals but patriots. When Masala responds with "Patriots? PATRIOTS?" he leans forward (on the second "Patriots!") and the tip of his nose disappears. Yep. It looks as if the character leaned into an area of the frame that was being painted over. It only lasts a second, but it's there and it is distracting. Have others commented on/noticed this? It's a bit hard to tell from the below frames, but watch your disc. It's there and I would guess it was an oversight.