Roman Epics - Quo Vardis, Fall of the Roman Empire, El Cid etc on DVD? (1 Viewer)

[Dave Scarpa]

"Billy do you like to watch films about Gladiators?"

 

[Danny_N]

Region 2 DVDs from France ... Unfortunately, they just don't look that wonderful

While not comparable to recent DVD releases of old epics like for instance Warner's wonderful King Of Kings, the French releases of El Cid, Fall Of The Roman Empire and 55 Days At Peking look decent enough to my eyes. The German releases seem to use the same source material as Douglas R also said. Note: these are not the roadshow versions and so they don't have the overture, intermission and exit music. Also, the French DVDs have forced subtitles, the subtitles on the German discs can be turned off.
The Japanese DVDs of El Cid and Fall Of The Roman Empire are also very good. Comparable to the European versions, although the colours look more faded. The Japanese FOTRE does not feature the roadshow version either. The Japanese El Cid does have the overture and exit music but strangely enough not the intermission. I would avoid the Japanese 55 Days At Peking. It's missing the intermission like El Cid, but it does have the overture and exit music (actually song by ?can't remember?). However, the picture quality is not very good when compared to the European release.

To give you an idea of picture quality, you can find some screenshots here:
The French Fall Of The Roman Empire: http://www.geocities.com/hitch_fan2001/pics
The French El Cid: http://www.geocities.com/hitch_fan2001/pics2
Small comparison between the Japanese (top) and French (bottom) release of 55 Days: http://www.geocities.com/hitch_fan2001/55days.html

 

[Stephen PI]

I cannot seem to get any information from Miramax on the status of these films in the US. Judging from the descriptions of the foreign releases it doesn't look good. I asked for home video and Miramax replied unless you have a contact name, there is nobody that can help and that's their company policy. I think this whole thing stinks. It is obvious they don't seem to care about the product. The laserdiscs that Image Entertainment issued in the nineties were excellent and they were re-issued later with their original 4.0 audio mixes and sounded marvellous. I thought the picture for the "El-Cid" laserdisc was awful that Miramax and Martin Scorsese produced. If only a company like Warner were involved, we might get results that resemble the level of excellence of "King of Kings".

 

[Alistair_M]

Danny

Thanks for the screen grabs. Very enjoyable.

Anyone on the HTF know anyone at Miramax? Does Miramax read this forum? We need to know that something is happening.

I've just been reading about the new film Troy coming out next year. Looks good. Often there's a bandwagon of interest when a historical film is released - so maybe we'll see the 50s/60s historical films released around the same time as when Troy appears on dvd in 2004.

 

[oscar_merkx]

that is a real possibility that these dvds might come out at the same time

 

[frank manrique]

Patrick McCart,

Bravo! Finally somebody else besides...ahem...me self (actually, a very savvy individual regarding these matters coached me about this very subject sometime back) understands that Ultra-Panavision shot films (Ben-Hur, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Mutiny On The Bounty, et al) were and need to be projected around 2:55:1 rather than the in-camera AR of 2:76:1...

-THTS

 

[Bill Burns]

I'm afraid that simply isn't the case, Frank. Moving from the negative Aperture to the full supported projection Aperture does not reduce the aspect ratio of Ultra Panavision (see below). You and others may like them at 2.55:1, and many theatres in fact matted 2.76:1 to 2.5:1 (see my earlier post) for purposes of convenience (primarily due to screen size limitations), but the films were shot for and recorded at (allowing for anamorphosis) 2.76:1. This is how they should be presented on DVD. The same principle holds true of Bridge on the River Kwai, which Robert Harris has explained elsewhere was seen theatrically at 2.35:1, but has been presented on DVD at its full negative ratio of 2.55:1 for the first time (I haven't confirmed that with further research, but I'm more than ready to take Mr. Harris' word for it, given his experience with the director).

I'm personally uninterested in what theatres do to a film; I always want a film presented as filmmakers preferred (at their full supported projection Aperture, their full safe Aperture -- again, see below, where I detail this a bit more), not as a projectionist or theatre manager preferred. I already covered this earlier, but you do not shoot large format unless you hope the film to be seen, at least in its reference form ("ideally," in other words), in a way that captures the character of that large format production -- it's cheaper and much easier to shoot four perforation 35mm if four perf 35mm is all anyone will ever see.

At 70mm, Ultra Panavision films are 2.76:1. A few, such as Mutiny on the Bounty, were even seen theatrically at 2.76:1. See my references to The Widescreen Museum for further details, particularly what I covered regarding the Ben-Hur fiasco on home video.

The Ultra Panavision epics mentioned here, and all UP productions, should be allotted their full large format negative ratios on DVD: 2.76:1. This is not achieved by matting (apart from moving, as a transfer must, from full negative Aperture to the projection Aperture, a slight reduction from the exposed Aperture of the film for the hiding of splice lines and other anomalies, one which creates a safe "projection" size that still yields the same 2.76:1 AR -- this can be found in the spec lists mentioned in my earlier post); it's achieved by returning to an original large format element.

 

[frank manrique]

Bill,

Is not a question of liking 2:55:1 over 2:76:1; rather, it was the manner in which Ultra-Panavision films were actually projected for a wide variety of reasons (and don't forget that 35mm reduction prints were "letterboxed" in the 2:55:1 ratio and not 2:76:1. How do I know this? Well, I own a few 35mm, IB Tech, 4-track mag odd reels from what originally was a roadshow print of Ben-Hur, my all time favorite movie, so is relatively easy to check).

When queried at depth some time back by yours truly, Marty Hart, Curator of The Widescreen Museum, personally conveyed to me that this was so, and that the original photographic lens used to shoot Ben-Hur, which now resides in TWSM, clearly exhibit inscribed "safe" areas for both 2:55:1 and 2:35:1 aspect ratios (this lens added a 1.25x anamorphic squeeze to the image).
I might have misunderstood some of this, although I still think that I have a good grasp on basic idea. Yet if I am in error...well, am truly willing to learn more.

Anyway, I far as I know, back then maybe only one or two theaters in the entire country could project in 2:76:1, or so I been told. You cite instances were it wasn't so. At what theaters and in which cities did you see these films projected in 2:76:1?

Actually, this subject is rather moot since we're not dealing with theater projection...we're really dealing with VIDEO playback, yes?

Now, if video versions of Ultra-Panavision films like Ben-Hur would have been transferred directly from 70mm (65mm) elements having a 2:76:1 AR (no such luck!) won't be as bad as using low contrast 35mm IP elements for the actual transfers since using the latter route valuable image definition is lost due to video being a much lower resolution medium than film, particularly when the latter is wide gauge 70mm.
The Ben-Hur DVD transfer, for example, would look far better had they used an aspect ratio 2:55:1 rather than 2:76:1 from the 35mm IP transferring elements even if would have incurred slight side cropping and, since more vertical resolution would have been retained, a greater valuable amount of overall image quality would have been attained.
Remember that for the most part we're still dealing with standard video signals, which are way below in resolution content than even Hi-Def signals -let alone film!- thus definitely need and can use all the help they can get...

-THTS

 

[AlanP]

How about
"THE EYGPTIAN"
"SOLOMON AND SHEBA"
"THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII"
"SAMSON AND DELILAH"
"HANNIBAL"
while they are at it ???How about

 

[Bill Burns]

Frank -- I covered most of this in posts #17 and #18 above; I think you'll find the detail behind my objections to matting these film in those posts. Rather than attempt a lengthy debate (I slip into those rather easily, and I somehow doubt very many people have an hour to read my longer posts! ), I'll try to concisely demonstrate the problem with "2.55:1 is better" with a link:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide...isionspecs.htm

The short of it is this: the negative Aperture of Ultra Panavision is 2.072" x .906". This yields an aspect ratio of 2.86:1 (they erroneously say 2.76:1 on the site; the math yields 2.85867 ... :1, which rounds out to 2.86:1), but might well reveal splice lines and other problems. There is therefore, of course, a recommended projection Aperture, here taken from a 70mm "Roadshow Print" spec: 1.912" x .870" ... and with a calculator, you'll find this Aperture, reduced in its overall image area, is 2.76:1 (or so the link says; I actually get 2.747, or approximately 2.75:1, likely the reason why so many sources name a 2.75:1 ratio for MGM Camera 65 and a 2.76:1 ratio for Ultra Panavision).

The Curator of the TWM is my source, as well, and the above link is from his site: he states in his Ultra Panavision section that Mutiny on the Bounty was screened, in 70mm, at 2.76:1. He also states that Ben-Hur, while often projected matted to accommodate screen size limitations (as I explained in one of those earlier posts), was printed for a full 70mm aspect ratio of 2.76:1, as per the UP spec, and enjoyed that ratio in its initial release despite the particular toll it placed on theatres to display it "without curtailing screen height." It was later seen more widely in 35mm reduction.

This is a matter of what one person likes and another doesn't, insofar as some see an artistic imperative that others do not find, and without the filmmakers here to say whether that imperative exists, both positions are opinion, neither are truly fact. I believe the evidence favors one side, one opinion, rather heavily, but others may disagree. As I stated earlier, I want a large format film to be sourced from large format for home video for a variety of reasons (which I've discussed in other threads, but which are self-evident when one sees a well-produced large format-sourced video transfer), superior visual fidelity and overall resolution chief among them. I've seen too many reduction-sourced element transfers on home video to think they hold up as well as original elements. This is why studios have gone to the great expense of large format-sourced video masters for Lawrence of Arabia, Vertigo, Spartacus, and so on. And on an original Ultra Panavision 65mm picture element, the correct projection ratio (the fullest supported ratio -- again, Frank, I'm just repeating myself here; this is in my earlier post) is 2.76:1. 2.55:1 needlessly loses picture information. If your source is a 35mm reduction element, your correct ratio is greatly diminished -- as I explained in earlier posts on this thread! Posts #17 and #18 really, honestly do address this stuff above.

As to the argument that video is video is video, and wouldn't it be better to use all of those pixels/scan lines we waste on black bars, or even a few more that we'd otherwise waste on really thick black bars by zooming into the picture a bit -- that same philosophy, in the days of laserdisc (before 16x9 formatting), was specifically used to justify P&S transfers. I heard it more than once: "resolution is so low on video anyway; if we cut this 'Scope film from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1 and fill the screen with it, the image we have will be sharper, because we're using the entire screen! Precious resolution isn't wasted on blank, black bars. Who the heck can make out anything in a thin 2.35:1 strip across the middle of an NTSC set?" This ignores what a good projector and line doubler can accomplish, but moreover it ignores the very pleasing experience even those of us with nominal screen sizes (32" in my case) could derive from the specific compositional balance of the film's original frame. On DVD, director Roger Donaldson used that very same "don't waste pixels" philosophy to justify changing his 2.40:1 film The Recruit into a 1.78:1 film:

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_...recruit/1.html

The Curator of TWM chronicles what projectionists and theatre managers often decided to do to unique films intended for a ratio they couldn't fully support. He was pleased with the results of this compromise. Home video eliminates the need for compromise, and should therefore return to the fullest supported projection spec, thereby offering what is, in most cases, the first and foremost composition framed by the filmmakers (as Donaldson proves above, there are always exceptions). As I said in my previous post:

I'm personally uninterested in what theatres do to a film; I always want a film presented as filmmakers preferred ... not as a projectionist or theatre manager preferred. I already covered this earlier, but you do not shoot large format unless you hope the film to be seen, at least in its reference form ("ideally," in other words), in a way that captures the character of that large format production -- it's cheaper and much easier to shoot four perforation 35mm if four perf 35mm is all anyone will ever see.

I went into the specifics of Ben-Hur in post #18. Return to an original negative, protect to the projection Aperture for your master, and you should have, with the proper telecine and care, a beautiful 2.76:1 image (after flattening the film from its anamorphic original) that does not rely on matting or cropping to achieve 2.76:1. I don't know if the current DVD did this or not. A cropped or matted 2.76:1 is a faux 2.76:1. A matted 2.55:1 is a compromise from the projection Aperture spec cited on TWM (see the earlier link, and please read the sections I cited in post #17 for the full info on all of this). 2.76:1, without matting or zooming, in an image that reproduces the visual information contained within the projection Aperture of the original negative frame, is the best we can do. Why do less?

Believe me, Frank, you and Patrick are far from alone in thinking 2.76:1 just isn't right. I believe earlier mistakes with Ben-Hur on video (reduction sourced and then overmatted, most likely) are largely to blame for this persistent, and erroneous, belief. But if TWM's info is accurate (and given the specificity of the above link, I presume it is), 2.76:1 was protected for projection as the preferred 70mm image area, and given that the film was shot for 70mm, so too should it be sourced for home video (I differ with the Curator, again as mentioned earlier, regarding the notion that large format was very often used primarily as a means of improving four perf 35mm; he may have seen some magnificent reduction prints in his day, but I do not buy the notion that studios would pay for 70mm, and filmmakers burden themselves with shooting 70mm, if neither party felt or hoped the film would ever be shown 70mm. This expands to cover large formats in general, usually printed to industry standard 70mm. The Curator moves back a bit in this argument himself when he speaks of the lament of some of the people behind Raintree County that it was never shown in 70mm. Why add insult to injury today? Why preserve, at home, something less than the ideal when the ideal is achievable?).

If the attitude is that video isn't film, so who really cares, we're all spending our money in the wrong place around here, and indeed 50 million plus DVD player owners in North America are kidding themselves. I don't believe this is true; DVD can and does brilliantly suggest the depth of true film, and I say that as a former die hard laserdisc enthusiast. DVD is a quantum leap for home video. HD-DVD will be the pinnacle for ... well, a long time, until 4K home video products are a reality, I dare say. But aside from the resolution gain we'll see in a couple of years with its successor, DVD is a format of unparalleled film fidelity which sets a standard for what comes next. But had it continued the old VHS "movies for the masses" philosophy of cheap and quick (35mm reduction sources because they're cheaper, cropping and matting so folks don't complain ... a philosophy with which we still struggle, in some quarters, as folks continue to complain about the appearance of any black bars on their screen), DVD would be relatively useless, a golden kennel for a mutt. It'd be "good" for video-sourced product alone. Happily, though, unlike VHS, and even unlike laserdisc, DVD came out of the gates swinging, with a number of large format releases sourced from large format (laserdisc also did this to wonderful effect on a few occasions, such as Fox's Todd-AO reissue of Oklahoma!), and I dare say largely due to the fan demand built by Criterion in the mid-80's, the legacy of laserdisc's latter days, a legacy of fidelity to the visual character of the films they represented, was met and improved upon still further. Columbia/TriStar was sourcing their DVDs from HiDef downconversions right out of the box in 1997 (to limited markets at the time). DVD is stunning -- let's not undersell it. And the only reason it's stunning for film fans is fidelity, pure and simple, a fidelity several steps beyond what laserdisc could, at its best, offer (component D1 masters encoded as native component offer superior color delineation and frequency response, a digital format offers much greater image stability and accuracy than analogue could, what with its persistent noise and tendency to lose finer detail ... etc.).

To matte Ultra Panavision (any film made in UP) is to arbitrarily remove image area protected for the 70mm projection spec. To source from cropped 35mm (as all 35mm prints were cropped per the reduction spec for the smaller image area print) is to remove, primarily for financial reasons, the audience from the original by yet another, unnecessary, step.

I don't mean to come down hard on anyone who feels that reduction is fine, matting is fine, or anything is fine. It's all opinion; it's all about what we like as film watchers. But if fidelity to source is the name of the game, these pictures need to be presented as 2.76:1.

And there I've written another diatribe. Sorry. Between posts #17 and #18 above, and now this one, I believe I've covered the matter as I see it. I urge everyone to consider why they buy DVDs, and if it's to approximate, as best the format can, what filmmakers intended audiences to see, I urge them to guard against any "well, it's good enough" ways of thinking. If the format can do more to bring us closer to that filmmaker's intent, if it can get us to B, let's say, but settles for C or D, that deserves criticism, I think, not endorsement.

Roland's screen shot comparisons in post #19 suggest great fidelity to filmmaker intent in MGM's 2.76:1 The Greatest Story Ever Told, and so it is to that I offer praise.

But seriously, Frank, I appreciate opposing viewpoints and I certainly endorse the debate about these matters. But when I get started, I can write a blue streak, and I fear that's not of much use (and here I've done it again!). I hope the above expresses the matter sufficiently, along with my earlier posts (and I again encourage everyone to read through the relevant sections at TWM, which I listed in post #17; if any of TWM's info is wrong, a further discussion of why it's wrong would be of value, but according to that info the above is fully supportable).

One last time: theatres showed some of these at 2.76:1 (approx.), according to TWM (read the site! Read the site! Forgive the very vague Armageddon reference). Others cropped them to accommodate screen limitations, and still others received 35mm reductions for projection. Most filmmakers would protect for all of these, but favor the format's native spec, which in this case is 2.76:1. Do we support the least, or the best, of these options when creating our DVD product?

 

[frank manrique]

Bill,

I absolutely have no problem with 2:76:1 AR projection. Where do you get the idea that I do? I always have loved the Ultra-Panavision 70mm format, the only 70mm anamorphic format ever used by film makers. Heck, I love all of the 70mm spherical formats as well!

Tell 'ya what...should I ever find an old ANAMORPHIC 70mm print of Ben-Hur (regardless of fading 'cus all those prints have turned color as far I know), I'll attempt projecting it at its 2:76:1 ratio on my 12 foot wide scope screen (will need the proper primary flat lens in back of the anamorphic element and correct aperture plate size in order to attain that ratio from the present throw distance, though) from a Norelco Todd-AO AA2 35/70mm projector and Christy lamp house. We'll see what comes out of that little exercise.

As far as HT video gear go and what I use to base my opinions about video transfer...check my system configuration at AVS; it isn't quite run of the mill...

-THTS

 

[StevenFC]

Has anyone mentioned "Land of the Pharaohs?" I fear that it will also be overlooked for a DVD release. It's one of Jack Hawkins more unusual roles.

 

[Bill Burns]

I absolutely have no problem with 2:76:1 AR projection. Where do you get the idea that I do?

I have no clue where I picked up such a horrible idea! I'm happy to find myself in error, Frank; 2.76:1 or bust!

Steven -- absolutely. That's a CinemaScope feature, isn't it? As a 1955 picture, it'd be correct at 2.55:1 if so. I'm personally very eager to see the UP films Raintree County and Mutiny on the Bounty make their way to disc at 2.76 (wait, that rhymed, but that wasn't my intent! My alliterative allowance is spent), and of course The Fall of the Roman Empire; in their many formats, though, all of the epics of this period continue to fascinate, and all are eagerly anticipated (perhaps, if TWM is right, one day a return to The Robe, this time at 2.66:1 from negative elements or perhaps a new interpositive from a new dupe negative* -- I believe, from TWM's info, that it's the only CinemaScope film made with the expectation that the sound channels would be carried on separate film, and so the only one correct at 2.66:1? I'd love to see it absent EE, for that matter, but the current DVD is of pleasant quality; speaking of which, as mentioned by others here, The Egyptian, featuring a couple of the same stars found in The Robe, would also make for a wonderful CinemaScope release).

* I suppose what I'm advocating is a new restoration.

 

[Alistair_M]

Any news on special editions?

I'm most interested in:

Fall of the Roman Empire
El Cid
Quo Vardis

With the theatrical release of Troy coming - now seems a pretty good time!

 

[Michael Elliott]

For those who can play R3:

http://www.xploitedcinema.com/dvds/dvds.asp?title=2504

 

[JPCinema]

I did just get today "El Cid" "Fall of the Roman Empire" and "55 Days at Peking" in a boxed set for $45 from Korea. (Region 3)
They are all in 2.35:1 and Dolby 5.1. "El Cid" and "55 Days at Peking" have the overtures. The sound is great except for "55 Days" which is really tinny sounding especially during the opening credits and I'm not sure why it is so weird sounding. But its nice to have these films until they come out in R1.

 

[StevenFC]

I have GOT to get me a region-free player!