WB: Fix framing problem with BEN-HUR!

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Patrick McCart, Apr 30, 2002.

  1. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    [​IMG]
    Need I say more?
    (The full color part is what the DVD looks like. The entire frame is what it's REALLY supposed to look like.)
    CORRECTION:
    The DVD should at least have the already existing picture, plus the full height. 2.55:1 would be just as good as 2.76:1. WB: This would be a great excuse to make a 2-disc SE from restored 70mm, plus a DTS soundtrack. I'll actually buy this one again for a true restoration.
     
  2. Dan Hitchman

    Dan Hitchman Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's an eye opener! C'mon Warner Brothers!

    Dan
     
  3. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is the ratio, image-wise, of the dvd?
     
  4. Mark Anthony

    Mark Anthony Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The DVD is in 2.70:1, but it was transferred from a 35mm source at around 2.3-2.5:1 (which was not in the original camera aspect ratio) and then further matted to achieve the 2.70:1 image, hence why (as the screen grab from the widescreen museum shows) there is image missing from all sides.

    Ben Hur was photographed in MGM Camera 65 aka Ultra Panavision 70, which has a 65mm negative ratio of around 2.75:1, it was shown thetrically in 1959 both in this ratio and at a matted 2.55:1 due to the type of screen needed - the current dvd represents neither aspect ratio, and is matted.

    MA
     
  5. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, I was disappointed when I heard about this as well.

    I'd rebuy if it was done right.

    I think Warner's DVD of A Star is Born also has a similar problem. It is rather obviously overmatted.
     
  6. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
     
  7. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. Agee Bassett

    Agee Bassett Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am grateful for the existing DVD. However, I would like the original image, color, and sound as conceived by Messrs. Wyler, Surtees, and Milton. Consider this another sale if so released.
     
  9. Larry Sutliff

    Larry Sutliff Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would also repurchase this if restored properly.
     
  10. John Stockton

    John Stockton Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2000
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patrick
    Thanks for posting that frame. When the DVD first came out I complained and complained about this very same issue but the general response in this forum was that the DVD framing looks good enough. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    This film needs a proper presentantion utilizing the entire (%100) original 70 MM anamorphic frame. One of the reasons we get these cropped pictures with films shot in 65 MM, is because the studios are not willing to go to the original 65 MM elements , rather they merely take a shortcut and use a cropped 35 MM element. In the case of Ben-Hur, they further butcher the frame by cropping the top and bottom to fool us into thinking that we are getting the original 2.76 ratio when nothing could be further from the truth.
    I am glad that other people such as yourself have realized the travesty commited to this film.
    Warner Brothers if you are listnening Please use original 65 MM elements or equivlant to redo this DVD. Minus the overscan, the ENTIRE FRAME shown above, all the way to the edges, is what should be visible when seen on home monitors.
     
  11. Gui A

    Gui A Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2000
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Robert_eb

    Robert_eb Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was the laserdisc framed correctly?
     
  13. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    No video release has correctly shown the correct 2.55:1 aspect ratio. All letterboxed versions were overmatted to be 2.76:1 from a 2.55:1 source.
    Ironically...only the P&S version includes the full height of the frame!
    MGM correctly presents their 35mm source for It's A Mad MAd Mad Mad World at 2.55:1 on their DVD. The extreme sides are cropped since it's 35mm, but the presentation is exactly how the reduction print should look... Of course, they just HAD to leave off the overture and desaturate all the color from the opening credits. [​IMG]
    The Greatest Story Ever Told is 2.76:1 from 65mm and at least has ALL of the proper presentation. Ironically...the film isn't very good. (IMO...for a better Jesus bio-epic, see Jesus of Nazareth...which is fantastic.)
     

Share This Page