Ben-Hur Four-Disc (1 Viewer)

[Jean Paul Villeneuve]

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/camera65.htm

 

[ScottR]

See, this is why I don't get excited about new releases anymore. I wish Mr. Harris would pop in and give us his thoughts. The new version looks blurry.

 

[Paul_Scott]

would people really breathe a sigh of relief if Mr Harris popped in and told you its supposed to look softer (than it obviously can look) and have a yellowed tinge?

look at the chariot caps and what do your eyes tell you?
which image has the qualities that you would rather watch over the course of 3+ hours?
the cropping is lamentable, and its great that that aspect has been addressed and corrected, but other than that, i can't see getting excited about watching the new release- from a purely visual standpoint.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Whites don't have to be pure white. Keep in mind that the old Gone with the Wind DVD had whiter whites than the SE, but the SE was based off a Technicolor print's color timing. To me, the Ben-Hur SE looks more like a Technicolor print than the old DVD.

It's likely that WB used a vintage dye-transfer 35mm print of Ben-Hur for color reference.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Exactly. While there is some minor benefits to knowing whether the look of the new disc is the "more correct" or not, in reality one likes what they like. If you don't like the new transfer now, you won't like the new transfer even if Mr. Harris or another informed citizen made a positive statement towards the particular color saturation.

So, it's up to your personal preference. Personally, I like the new tranfer's look very much - the old one, to me, has a bit of a "dryness" to it, if you will. And it's not as if the fleshtones are green or anything.

I'll be getting the new set, and I'll be loving it. If the change in color tone distracts you and prevents your enjoyment of the film, then by all means refrain from viewing it.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Well ... After reading this thread, I've decided that the new Ben Hur is more than worth the asking price just for the outstanding included supplements. I'm definitely picking this puppy up on Tuesday.

I'm also looking forward to finally being able to view the entire movie (without cropping) in a good quality format. I'll be viewing the movie on my Infocus 4805-based 96" FPTV system Tuesday night, and am really looking forward to it. I'll probably do a direct comparison of the chariot race between the two DVD presentations on Tuesday night as well.

If the described color shift and apparent small lack of sharpness is really all that bothersome to me, then I'll just keep both DVD presentations of the movie. I'm a big enough fan of this movie that I really wouldn't mind having both on the shelf together. (Heck, I still own the Turner Deluxe VHS Widescreen box - although I'll probably *never* view it again!) I fully understand the disappointment being expressed here that the new presentation may represent a "lost opportunity" to present a definitive version of the movie on the DVD format; but like a few others have stated in this thread, we probably need to reserve judgement until we've had an opportunity to view the presentation on our own equipment.

 

[Danny_N]

My eyes tell me that in real life horses don't look as white as they do on the old DVD (and yes, I've seen Arabians like that). To me the old release looks much too cold and is the colour temp of the new one more correct.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

To me, this is probably the best film ever made and I was looking forward to the new DVD. But after reading all about the yellowish tinge and the softness in the picture, I think I'll be sitting on the fence for awhile. I might wind up biting for all the added supplements, but it's absurd that the new release will have a less sharp picture than the original one, and that the colors look so poor (judging by these screen shots). There is nothing I hate more than a soft-looking picture.

 

[Paul_Scott]

anyone know if Mike Brown is registered at HTF?
hopefully he can chime in soon on how the Arabian horses look in the new transfer as i hear he's quite acquainted with them.

 

[george kaplan]

Decide for yourself how white/yellow the horses should be:

 

[TedD]

According to all reports, it was mastered from the 65mm negative.

Now, it's very very possible that the original negative has suffered from additional fading since the original reduction IP was struck.

Also, I have yet to see a 70mm transfer that matches the sharpness of a 35mm transfer. I don't know why this continues to be a problem today. It used to be because the the SOTA telecines were 35mm only, but that has not been true for a year or so.

Ted

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Joseph, excellent comments, and as I had mentioned earlier, the value of the supplements and newly restored 1925 original far exceed the selling price making this an easy buy regardless of the PQ. That being said, even the PQ is certainly not unwatchable, as several reviewers have even suggested they prefer the look of the new transfer over the old. While it doesn't represent what I have seen from several of the theatrical screenings I have attended, it still looks quite nice, and the soft issue is only noticeable if you freeze the picture and do instant A-B comparisons... something most people would never do in their home theater environment.

It is great that we have the technology and understanding to be able to scrutinize every little detail of a transfer, and even better, when we share our findings with each other and with studios and DVD producers. I have little doubt that sites like DVDBeaver and HTF have encouraged studios and DVD producers to continually improve their mastering techniques. However, sometimes the differences are not so massive that we need to condemn a release for it's minor faults - or for that matter dismiss an older release because a newer one is marginally better.

Seeing Ben-Hur with a proper OAR, even with some flaws should be enough to make any film lover smile, and the extras should make them leap for joy!

Now if the eventual 1080p HD release shares these same PQ issues I may sing a different tune...

 

[RickER]

Why do we always have this fight? Course i love reading them, but anyway. Come Tuesday instead of READING that the color is off we can own the movie. Buy it then we can SEE how the color looks on our own displays and not off all these screen grabs. I bet it will look fine, and if your not willing to take a chance, don't buy it. But as always here we are bitching about something 90% of us don't even have yet. Now lets take a deep breath, and have a group hug.

 

[Gary Tooze]

OOOOppps - wrong thread - sorry

 

[Claes Ljunghorn]

The comparison here makes the new edition look sharper...

 

[Gary Tooze]

Best,
Gary

 

[John Hodson]

My feelings precisely; DVD Beaver is an excellent aid but I'm sure Gary will be the first to agree that it's not the word of God, simply a reasonable guide. I'll make my own mind up when I see it on my own player, on my own screen in my own environment - and all I've seen and read - including the Beaver screencaps - means that my set can't come fast enough.

 

[ScottR]

Right here on the forum five years ago, people complained that the reds were all wrong on Ben-Hur. Remember that! "NO, They are too orange." The first release had too much of a blue, cold cast to it.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Yes, many are making very good sense. We (DVDBeaver) are not the definitive word on 'buy' or 'don't buy', its just interesting to note that colors are different, the AR is much more opened up, that the 25 Ben Hur is not progressive etc.

For those very keen (and with high speed) here are 5 uncompressed PNG caps of the grabs I took. The image, on an HTPC system with no filters, will look exactly like these:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/benhur.htm

and the new DVD looks very good...

Best,
Gary

 

[JackKay]

I'm with you Gary, and I'm looking forward to purchasing BEN-HUR on Tuesday ($24.99 at Best Buy).

I hope Chuck is well enough to enjoy this new release.