DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Ben-Hur - Four Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Job]

The set I bought has two inserts - the original program reproduction and the Bible Study guide, which was written by Robert Schuller. It ties aspects of the story of Ben-Hur to different biblical passages (in a non-historical way).

 

[Jeff Job]

By the way,
I was watching part one, and noticed what appeared to be some missing frames in two scenes. The first is after the African dancers finish their performance (1:36:03) and when Judah Ben-Hur returns to Judea (1:41:34). It appears to have been missing on the previous release as well. The audio does not jump, however. Does anyone know why these frames are missing?

 

[ScottR]

My dvd inner package had bent places where it folded over...is everyone else's in perfect condition?

 

[Todd B]

Unfortunately, my packing was also poorly assembled. It looks like they were attempting to provide a slot for the booklet. However, the person assembling it folded the front of the slot incorrectly (it was also bent). As a result, the piece of packaging that is supposed to hold the booklet in place swings freely.

I wish the studios would pay a little more attention to quality in their finished product.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Great review Herb!!! Despite the "problems" of the material, your video impressions virtually reflect my own. Your comment...


...is almost identical to a post I made in aother thread.




Ted,

I want to thank you personally for doing such a great job to raise-the-bar at HTF regarding analyzing DVD video. Your review system is top-drawer and your posts (and screen shots) do us all a great service.

Cees, while your debate is valid regarding the issues of scaling possibly introducing artifacts into the signal that weren't there originally...as long as *all three* DVD images being compared were being upscaled in an identical way, it's keeping things apples-to-apples.

Also, while I think there is merit to viewing unscaled screen-shots, there is also merit to viewing upscaled screen shots...especially when "zooming in" on an area of the image that the raw 720 x 480 scan might not reveal clearly.

The issues of scaling have been discussed at length over at AVS, and the informed conclusion over there is that these days, as long as we're talking about "good" scaling algorithms like are typically used in HTPC designs, the benefits outweight any cons.

As we move forward in digital video we need to start to view digital video much like we do digital audio...and not view the native "sample points" as "the signal", but rather as a starting point for extrapoltion...which is considered necessary to approximate the analog (continuous) waveform from which those samples were derived. We oversample our digital audio to create new data to smooth out the waveform to reduce quantization noise to help reveal low-level detail, and it's precicely the same with digital video. Upscaling a 480P DVD to 720P or 1080P "smooths out" the square edges of the pixels and actually *reveals* low-level detail that's encoded in the native image, but is too obscured by the quantization (square-blocking) at the DVDs native resolution to be seen.

Just like we wouldn't criticize an audio reviewer for reviewing CD audio that had been "oversampled" neither should we criticize reviewing DVD video that's been "oversampled" (upscaled). However, Cees' points are still valid taht upscaling can affect the image...as can oversampling digital audio! Different oversampling filters can affect the final sound of digital audio in different ways...even though the process is necessary to produce sound that resembles the analog original...but exactly which "flavor" of the oversampling does the best job? That's open to debate...some oversampling filters sound smoother...some more dynamic...some brighter...some more airy...which is the right one?

But even without knowing one can say for certain than *any* of those well-designed oversampling filters sound MORE LIKE THE ORIGINAL ANALOG WAVE than the "raw" digital audio. Same is true for digital video.

What might be best is to do it all...show a comparison of the native unscaled images and then show comparisons of the scaled images...as long as the *same* scaling has been applied to each version being compared.

 

[Cees Alons]

Cees

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I've seen some *minor* effects from (good quality) scaling that may have been an issue to discuss...but nothing dramatic. Moire and aliasing and such are usually associated with poor-quality algorithms that would have no place in a videophile's home theater.

Still...I think your points are helpful in ferreting out *quality* scaling from poor-quality scaling...and also making sure that any introduced artifacts are kept to a bare minimum.

I think where we depart ways in our perspectives in is your "as meant" notion. I'm suggesting that just like raw 16/44.1 digital audio is not "meant" to be played back "raw" because quantization noise would impart too much noise, so are native 720 x 480 images not "meant" to be viewed "raw" at a 1.5 screen-width distance (roughly the THX viewing angle required to simulate a theater)...however...just like oversampling digital audio helps turn those raw sampling points into something that more closely resembles the analog original, so good scaling can do the same for video.

I'm suggesting that we consider low-res video to "be meant" to employ scaling as a matter of course to reduce quantization noise.

However, I think that given any concerns about various scaling algorithms, that viewing native catpures at their native resolition...quantization noise and all...would be helpful as well in addition to viewing well-scaled images which reduce quantization noise and better reavel low-level detail inherent in the image (detail which, on its own, would not be visible in the raw image due to quantization noise).

 

[Cees Alons]

There is a smiley.

David I don't think we really depart there from each other's views, for I think I totally agree with you. It was just in the context of those pixel-to-pixel (almost that) comparisons elicited by Ted's pictures that I felt a need to state those points. Note, for instance, that those images are NOT like 4x4 repetitions of each individual pixel, but much more "smart". In fact: sharper!
So that tells us that the algorithms must have included some edge-enhancement as well.

Again: that's fine for viewing the picture, especially on bigger screens, and I have never rejected EE per se (it's a normal tool and needs to be used - albeit with good judgement), but it dictates some caution when judging the differences of those DVD versions of the film on a PC screen based on those specific images.

On a PC screen, I always prefer to look at the "raw" DVD image captions to try to judge the quality of them.


Cees

 

[DaViD Boulet]

 

[TedD]

Cees:

My last comment on this issue will be to agree with you that scaling CAN introduce issues. .

However, I believe that the screen shots posted above from "Moulin Rouge" and "New York Minute" clearly prove the validity of the process and very clearly substantiate David's comments on oversampling and the detail hidden in the 720x480 native image.

Clearly, my results from Lanczos scaling don't support your assertion concerning Lanczos scaling softening the image. However, when one can see the edges of pixels, there will certainly be a perception of a sharper image.

As a matter of fact, I was contacted a year or so ago by a person (who shall go unamed) regarding assisting a studio (who shall also go unnamed) in improving their DVD quality by providing oversampled screen captures to assist in determining what part of the transfer / mastering process was contributing to the poor quality of that studio's DVD releases.

I subsequently supplied many oversampled images of a number of both good quality and bad quality DVD's for examination.

I don't know if it's coincidence, but I have observed a marked improvement in the unnamed studio's DVD transfer quality.

If we choose to view and assess the quality of DVD's at their native resolution and accept the results, we are doing ourselves a disservice, particularly since some of the issues may well be in the initial telecine and will afflict the upcoming HiDef formats as well.

BTW, I watched "Around The World In 80 Days" last night just to refresh my memory regarding the visibility of film grain on DVD originated from 65mm. Despite a comment about not being able to discern film grain because the source was from 65mm, I can see the film grain on every scene, and can also easily discern when the source drops by a generation or two by the increased grain in the image that is introduced by the added generation(s).

Just my $.02

Ted

 

[ScottR]

One could only guess how upset and confused people would be if Gone With the Wind had been released on dvd in its original look....."What is that yellow and brown tint to everything?"

 

[Geoff_D]

Got my copy today, and no probs with the packaging. It came with the study guide as well as the standard souvenir booklet. I've never seen the 1925 version, but it looks like I'll have to wait a little longer because disc 3 has a massive scratch, so it's going back. :frowning:

I sampled the pod chariot race ('59 version) and it's still as astonishing as ever - I was gripping the arms of my chair as I watched! The new transfer lacks that final touch of fine detail, but the extra picture information more than makes up for it. I may need to get a bigger display though, as 2.76:1 on a 32" just doesn't cut it! The movie still looked three-dimensional at times, and I love the warmer colours too. It's a good package all round, and well worth the cash.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I just picked this up... all I can say is... WOW.

The '59 version does look a little softer, but it looks more like film. My final opinion on this is that WB opted to make it look more like a 1959 print rather than a 2005 print.

As for the 1925 version... it's the best-looking silent DVD I've seen. The level of detail and perfect contrast blew my mind.

DVD of the year!


Yeah, especially since it already happened. Doesn't look like there was too much moaning about the SE's 1939-based color timing.

 

[ScottR]

The GWTW release was more of a combination of looks from 39 and 54.

 

[Ken New]

I thought you might be interested in this little known piece of movie history from the write-up on 'Ben-Hur' from the 'PlayUSA' DVD website:

 

[GeorgePaul]

Thanks for the factoid, Ken! Good thing I've never heard of PlayUSA...we're certainly not missing any info. on THAT site.

 

[george kaplan]

Hey, this could be right. Did you ever see DeMille and Wyler together in the same room? They could have been the same person, and this guy might be passing on such insider knowledge!

 

[frank manrique]

I have gotten my copy of the 4-disc Ben-Hur box set...and so far the most asinine and bothersome factor I've found while watching the entire movie is those damned FBI and Interpol "warnings" at the beginning of disc two...where the Entr'acte music SHOULD have followed immediately! This sort of an idiotic idea destroys the "theatrical" illusion. Argh!!

Warners, believe me you...I got the message the first time; no need to carp about it at every single opportunity...

-THTS

 

[Patrick McCart]

That is quite annoying. I really wish studios would always make the 2nd disc instant play when a film is split. However, the only two DVD's I've seen that have this are the Lawrence of Arabia Superbit and The Godfather Part II.

 

[Geoff_D]

Heh. I'm glad someone moaned about the FBI warning before I did. Makes me feel that little bit less of a nitpicker. It is in a VERY stupid place though.

Still, it's a great set. I watched the film yesterday and it still holds so much power, and to have this lovely transfer of it is a treat. It sounded better than I expected too.

Oh, and please don't get snooty about silly errors on a DVD site's description of the film. PlayUSA sell them, but they don't review them. As long as they have decent prices and provide excellent customer service (as Play/PlayUSA do) I don't give a rat's ass what they put. As long as I know what I'm getting, I'm happy - even if it is Cecil B. DeMille's Ben Hur.