El Cid & Fall of the Roman Empire Blue Ray Release in Germany (2 Viewers)

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire


OP and friends ordered both epics on Blu ray from Germany, and I refer you to Oliver's original response after first viewing them for the fact that El Cid is said to look, if anything, better than FOTRE.

El Cid offers more of an improvement over the DVD version. In absolute terms FOTRE still has a better color balance but it has about the same (low) level of detail as El Cid.

This should not be mistaken for a not noticable improvement over the DVD. There definitely is a noticable improvement and if this is the sole criterion for a purchasing decision the Blu-Ray is the version to get for both FOTRE and EL Cid.

 

[john a hunter]

I have just heard that Weinstein has sold its video back catalogue to Vivendi.I'm not sure what that means for the Bronston classics both released and unreleased.

 

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by john a hunter

I have just heard that Weinstein has sold its video back catalogue to Vivendi.I'm not sure what that means for the Bronston classics both released and unreleased.

I just hope that we will NOT get more HD masters like the one for El Cid and FOTRE !
Now that these two have already 'happened' it would probably be futile to expect anything else being done about them anytime soon but when Circus World and 55 Days are revisited I would expect more and refuse to buy anything that is not a significant improvement in quality over what we got with the first two releases.

It is one thing to have everything prepared and to still go through with it after all the money has already been spent but there is no excuse for doing the same mistakes again, imo.

Apart from that it has been pointed out before that usually the copyright holders are the ones who should take the proper steps to both preserve their movies and to make them available in proper quality for a release on both Blu-Ray and DVD. Neither Weinstein nor Black Hill/Spirit Media or Vivendi are the companies that should have do anything in that regard.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by john a hunter

I have just heard that Weinstein has sold its video back catalogue to Vivendi.I'm not sure what that means for the Bronston classics both released and unreleased.

I don't think that means much. Vivendi already distribute the Bronston titles on DVD in the UK through their Universal UK subsidiary and the quality is abysmal.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by john a hunter

I have just heard that Weinstein has sold its video back catalog to Vivendi.I'm not sure what that means for the Bronston classics both released and unreleased.

Weinstein only signed a distribution deal with Vivendi to distribute their catalog DVD's. This does not cover current and future film product (Basterds will be released on DVD by Universal). Weinstein had a similar deal with Genius Entertainment which Vivendi acquired this past Tuesday. I am sure this agreement was to just dot the i's and cross the t's. It will still be up to Weinstein to release any upgrades in El Cid and FOTRE or release 55 Days and Circus, so do not hold your breath.

 

Screen caps for FOTRE are finally up on DVD Beaver, and there seems to be a lot better detail and less waxiness than on the El Cid caps; bearing in mind that in motion Oliver and others' impressions were that El Cid was better... I'm confused now, because based on these caps, I feel like the quality is quite superb on FOTRE, with good contrast and rich colour palate, with only that loss of detail appearing in some of these caps. It certainly looks like a massive upgrade from DVD. I don't think the copyright holders would feel the need to redo this one, if it looks this good in motion.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews15/fall_of_the_roman_empire_dvd_review.htm

 

[Mark Anthony]

The problem is that however superior FOTRE looks to El CID, it should be among the best looking BR available, rivalling imax, due to the UP70 photographic method.

However Ben Hur turns out on BR next year, this should look as good as, and i'll wager that BH willl look much better and sharper...and that's not even making allowances for the fact the around 0.5:1 of the image is missing....

M

 

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire

Ben,
as you have written it twice now I have to point out that I never wrote that El Cid looked better than FOTRE.
I just said that El Cid was more of an improvement over its DVD version (which back then was inferior to FOTRE).

I also fail to see how the pastyness that is still very evident in the Beaver captures would bring you to think that this can be considered good enough - we are talking about a resolution that sits at about half of what is possible with this movie on Blu-Ray.
It would have helped if Gary had posted caps from panoramic shots as that would make the problems much more evident.

As Mark has pointed out: When properly done the Blu-Ray format will not be capable of doing justice to the resolution that is in the negative of FOTRE. And to add to the Ben Hur comment: FOTRE was shot with better lenses than Ben Hur and should look even better than that one.

If you want to know how detailed FOTRE could look just take a look at HTWWW or one of the recent movies with very high resolution, like Hancock or The International.

Maybe I will get lucky and be able to post a grab from a 70mm print of FOTRE, that should clear up some perceptions about how this is supposed to look. That should look impressive despite the fact that the print has even been through an optical printing step to go from anamorphic to flat - it extracts only 80% of the negative area.

Until then: The upgrade over the DVD is of course noticable for FOTRE and the Blu-Ray is now the best version available on home media, but as the resolution of the Blu-Ray is so severely limited I would not want to call it massive.

 

I can't wait for Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia in that case; but I won't hold my breath for them to redo FOTRE/El Cid; something tells me these titles aren't on anyone's priority list at the moment, while they're working on flagship titles.

Apologies for misrepresenting your comments, Oliver. My comments were designed to magically improve the image quality of FOTRE Blu Ray. Just wishful thinking I guess.

I have How the West Was Won (HTWWW), and was impressed by the image quality, less so with the movie.

However, I thought some people were worried about EE with that title? Obviously there has to be some digital techniques used, because the film had to be transferred onto a disc; but I just remember reading some people had found it distracting. Can't remember who now.

 

[OliverK]

Ben,

it is my guess that chances for adequate (from the OCN or IP) Blu-Rays of El Cid and FOTRE are slim to non-existant at the moment unless somebody who is very rich donates the necessary funds to get things done.

No problem about the El Cid/FOTRE quality. I could probably have said it clearer but I wanted to emphasize that I had expected more of an improvement from FOTRE.

HTWWW is sharpened to an imo unnecessary degree in the smilebox version. You can see that clearly by comparing it to the standard version in the digipack. It is not that visible as there is so much fine detail that the sharpened edges stick out less than they would with most other movies.

I will not comment on the movies themselves as everybody has their likes and dislikes. A certain person with a big website dedicated to movies for example hates FOTRE with a passion

 

Hey Oliver,

Yeah, liking and dislike something can be so personal, it means so little, since i only saw it once. I'm so glad you said that about the sharpness being on the smilebox version, because that's the only version i watched; I was just curious about the gimmick, had to check it out; but I should definitely go back and watch it unmanipulated for sure.

 

[Fritz Nilsen]

Went through both El Cid and Fall on Blu-ray this weekend. Having seen the caps over at Beaver there were no surprises with regards to image quality. What you see is what you get

Still, a nice upgrade from the Miriam DVDs, I suppose. They even retained the commentaries.

Some notes:
Both movies have a 50i startup logo on them, but everything else is 60i or 24p.
The movies default to German DTS-HD MA 5.1 and all menus are in German as well.
The extras disc is DVD only, and all the extras have been systems-converted to PAL.

Both covers are reversible, omitting the huge ratings logo on the front but otherwise identical on both sides. Nice touch.

 

[garyrc]

In 70 mm, in San Francisco, EL CID was the sharpest and most detailed of all the (many) 70 mm films I saw, when you take the backgrounds and the long shots into account. The color was rich and darkly beautiful in most scenes, and brilliant in others, but always plausible. The only film that had sharper close-ups was the 70 mm version of BEN-HUR, and only in facial shots, not backgrounds. Almost all 70 mm presentations in S.F. were beautiful, and significantly better than 35mm, even in cases in which the 70mm print was a blow-up from a 35mm negative

 

Thanks Gary. I kind of knew that would be the case, but I know I asked someone to confirm it, and yes its still nice to hear it.

 

[OliverK]

I saw a vintage print of Fall last Sunday and despite the usual fading the picture was spectacular due to the incredible resolution of the 70mm print.

This print was right up there with the best opf its time, very impressive.
So anybody who says the Blu-Rays look the way it does because the movie never looked that good must not have seen it with a properly projected print.

 

[garyrc]

[Can't seem to get rid of the big print ... sorry]

I should add the following to my last post: Virtually all movies I saw presented in 70mm in San Francisco, San Jose, and L.A. back in the '50s, '60s and '70s (I counted about 50, when including 70mm prints blown up from 35mm, 35mm full-frame horizontal, and 55mm) had better detail than any Blu-ray I have seen. Year of origin did not seem to be a big factor, except there was a noticeable increase of crispness starting in 1959 with Sleeping Beauty and Ben-Hur (but not Porgy and Bess, also in '59 --- and one might want to exclude Sleeping Beauty, since cartoons are photographed under ideal conditions). Even 70 mm prints that were slightly softer in perceived acutance still had extraordinarily high apparent resolution. For instance, Phileas Fogg's carpet bag in Around the World in 80 Days (1956) was so detailed that you could almost smell it. These films had a "reach out and touch it" quality, and several critics/commentators of the time used those exact words. When the Todd-AO bunch projected test footage showing two couples at a picnic on a makeshift screen to convince Rodgers and Hammerstein to make Oklahoma! in 70mm Todd-AO (they did, in 1955), either Rodgers or Hammerstein said, "I felt like I could reach out a take a doughnut," and the other one said, "And then, both girls" (remember, this was the '50s). Several of my circle were amateur photographers (& one professional). We agreed that 70 mm projection of the '60s was higher quality than we got with our 35mm double frame cameras (including a borrowed super expensive Leica), and mysteriously rivaled -- and sometimes seemed to exceed -- larger format still photography. We rightly or wrongly attributed this to the fact that, in movies, as opposed to stills, the brain was given many samples from which to synthesize a more detailed image. Several 70mm films had a super crisp etched quality. The only two 70 mm films that I know of that were re-released for longish runs in 70 mm (Ben-Hur in 1968, nine years after its premiere, and Sleeping Beauty, later) held up beautifully. Although today's film emulsions are technically much better, projection tends to be darker and smaller, and not necessarily sharper appearing. Old 70mm tended to be sparkling bright, due in part, I'm told, to the larger hole in the aperture plate, and, of course most theaters used carbon arc lamps. Arthur Knight, in The Liveliest Art, used the word "sparkling" to describe the look of 70mm Todd-AO in Around the World in 80 Days (1956). There was an enhanced sense of depth in 70mm, even though the ultra wide angle lenses that would be expected to increase depth were rarely used. All in all, 70mm projection was a far more immersive experience than we get today.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by garyrc ">[/url]

[b][SIZE=3][b][Can't seem to get rid of the big print ... sorry]
[/b][/SIZE][/b][/QUOTE]Done it for you.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Although today's film emulsions are technically much better, projection tends to be darker and smaller, and not necessarily sharper appearing. Old 70mm tended to be sparkling bright, due in part, I'm told, to the larger hole in the aperture plate, and, of course most theaters used carbon arc lamps. Arthur Knight, in The Liveliest Art, used the word "sparkling" to describe the look of 70mm Todd-AO in Around the World in 80 Days (1956). There was an enhanced sense of depth in 70mm, even though the ultra wide angle lenses that would be expected to increase depth were rarely used. All in all, 70mm projection was a far more immersive experience than we get today.

Gary - did you see Cheyenne Autumn in 70mm? That was one of the very sharpest and brightest 70mm film I saw. I remember a review in the London Times saying it seemed like you could see every grain of sand and entreating people to see it at the Warner theatre which was the only place to see it in 70mm. Other 70mm films which I remember as being especially impressive were Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, Mutiny on the Bounty and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

We have certainly gone backwards as far as cinema projection and presentation is concerned.

 

[garyrc]

Thanks, Cees!

Douglas R:

No, I missed Cheyenne Autumn in 70mm. I saw it in 35mm, and was dismayed to hear a local critic call it "Cheyenne Awful," because I liked it. The sharpness and detail you allude to is one of the things I loved about 70mm. In Ben-Hur , in close ups, and -- seemingly --- in some medium close shots you could see detail in every sweaty, gleaming pore. At the time, there was a great deal of bragging about "rare earth lenses" used in MGM Camera 65 (made by, or made to order ? by Panavision).

What is the difference between the amply exposed facial pores in brand new movies seen in theaters today, and those in many 70 mm movies in the past? In a word, brightness!

The other films you mentioned had great image quality, even if Mad Mad was not as funny as it could have been.

We haven't mentioned the sound. The 6 track magnetic sound, reproduced with tube equipment often sounded better than some rather harsh digital tracks of today. I would put the warmth and dynamics of the Around the World in 80 Days (1956) 70mm sound presentation up against any modern soundtrack. The 114 piece orchestra didn't hurt. Sadly the quality didn't come over too well in the DVD. I can't imagine them using a limiter, or dynamic range compression, but it sounds like they did. The irony is that the dynamics actually came over better in one of the two VHS HiFi versions, in which some of the soundtrack was damaged and had drop-outs! In 70 mm (in San Francisco), the dynamic swell of playful but grandiose music just before the intermission was very impressive. That was probably one of the reasons the audience clapped so heartily at that intermission. Something helped that movie play well into its second year in 70 mm at that theater, necessitating equipping another theater down the street for 70mm to show South Pacific, which was waiting in the queue.

 

[BillyFeldman]

As with Gary, I too feel there was nothing like seeing a 70mm presentation back in the day and I saw them all. You just can't explain to people what it was like. And Gary hit the nail on the head and it's amazing to me that more people don't talk about this - carbon arc projection - better brightness, better, truer bluer color than anything being shown today with today's lamps.

West Side Story in 70mm in its original run was astounding, as was Ben-Hur, King Of Kings, Mutiny On The Bounty, anything in ToddAO and, of course, El Cid and Spartacus. And the showmanship back then (totally gone today) treated these films as they should have been treated - as events. Curtains. Overtures. No advertisements. Respect for the artform and the audience.