A Few Words About 'While we wait for A few words about...™ Spartacus -- in Blu-ray' (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Cheers, Mr Harris.


Your post raises a question - what's a reasonable distance?


There appear to be two sorts of viewers.


1 - Those I think of as 'immersion junkies' (not meant to be rude). They want to sit as close as possible and be completely immersed, so that the edges of the screen (particularly for 2.40:1 & co.) are in the periphery of their vision - almost a sort of IMAX effect).

2 - Those who want to be able to see the whole picture clearly.


I know that's a pretty large over-simplification, I was just wondering where you stand (or should I say sit)? Have you heard any directors comment on this (that people sit too close or too far away)?


Nailing my colours to the mast, I sit around 2.5-to-3 screen heights away - any closer and I struggle to take everything in, and I fear I'm not seeing the film the director made.


Cheers, and thanks for taking the time to respond.


Steve W

I believe people should sit where they're most comfortable. The closer to the screen the more higher resolution comes into play -- obviously.


RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

I just hope the Anthony Hopkins re-dub is sent to the extras.

?????

 

[Robert Harris]

Dear Mr. Harris, I just saw this:

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2015/08/spartacus-captures/?utm_content=buffer4b740&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


i wanted to ask, is this last comparison accurate?

If it is, could you explain please the reason for the different framing/zooming of the image?


edit: Oh, never mind. I'm sorry.

I think the author of that article, just zoomed in or cropped all images at will, to show the differences better.

The colors are surely much better, and the detail too, as much as I can see from those small images.

I'm told that more images will be added later today.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Cheers, Mr Harris.


Your post raises a question - what's a reasonable distance?

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

 

[McCrutchy]

Cheers, Mr Harris.

Your post raises a question - what's a reasonable distance?

There appear to be two sorts of viewers.

1 - Those I think of as 'immersion junkies' (not meant to be rude). They want to sit as close as possible and be completely immersed, so that the edges of the screen (particularly for 2.40:1 & co.) are in the periphery of their vision - almost a sort of IMAX effect).
2 - Those who want to be able to see the whole picture clearly.

I know that's a pretty large over-simplification, I was just wondering where you stand (or should I say sit)? Have you heard any directors comment on this (that people sit too close or too far away)?

Nailing my colours to the mast, I sit around 2.5-to-3 screen heights away - any closer and I struggle to take everything in, and I fear I'm not seeing the film the director made.

Cheers, and thanks for taking the time to respond.

Steve W

It's funny that you say this, Steve, because I feel like I'm NOT seeing the whole picture clearly unless I sit close enough to be "completely immersed". In fact, I often feel like there are many people who end up viewing a film as if it was an oversized living postage stamp on their wall. Then, of course, more distractions can enter the field of view, especially if one is not fortunate enough to be able to watch every disc in pitch black surroundings.

For the record, I probably sit less than two feet from my 50" screen, or at least enough that I could almost reach out and touch it.

 

[SAhmed]

If the forthcoming "My Fair Lady" wasn't enough we now have "Spartacus" at the talented/experienced hands of Mr Harris being "forced" upon us for 2015. Shudder to think what 2016 may bring


In all seriousness, thank you Mr Harris!!!


Regards,

 

[Dave H]

Looking forward to this!


I'll be watching this on my pro calibrated JVC RS4810 paired with a Stewart ST100 screen that is 9 feet wide at 2:35 (CIH set-up). I sit about 9.5 to 10 feet back. Room is painted and carpeted black. I love watched high quality discs of this nature as they really have the feel of watching a new film print and LCoS technology has such a natural, analog projected look to it.

 

[RolandL]

For the record, I probably sit less than two feet from my 50" screen, or at least enough that I could almost reach out and touch it.

Wow, that is close!


In my family room I have a 55 inch 3D TV we sit about nine feet which is OK but it would be better to sit closer, maybe six feet.


My home theatre room projector produces an image 138 inches wide. We sit about 14 feet from it which is a lot better viewing experience.

 

[Dick]

I believe people should sit where they're most comfortable. The closer to the screen the more higher resolution comes into play -- obviously.


RAH

For the Smilebox discs I sit way closer to the screen than usual in order to best duplicate the Cinerama experience on a 55" screen (I know, I know...). But it works pretty well, and works splendidly for HOW THE WEST WAS WON, which is simply a near-flawless transfer. What a great experience. I never saw a true Cinerama film theatrically, although I was of an age where that might have happened. My first "Cinerama" experience was the ersatz release of IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD, and I saw every subsequence release.

 

[Dr Griffin]

If the forthcoming "My Fair Lady" wasn't enough we now have "Spartacus" at the talented/experienced hands of Mr Harris being "forced" upon us for 2015. Shudder to think what 2016 may bring


In all seriousness, thank you Mr Harris!!!


Regards,

I want to see a campaign started for The Last Valley (1971), unless there's some bad news I don't know about.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

- 4k is the max needed for 70mm (okay, that bit's clear), but implicitly 4k is unnecessary for standard 35mm.

Modern 65mm negative needs about 8K when we want to keep all sharpness and detail and have no aliasing issues. Old 65mm gets more or less away with 4K from an 8K scan. That is for the negatives. Prints have inherent losses and are in this regard less and less demanding as generation follows generation.

 

[Yorkshire]

I believe people should sit where they're most comfortable. The closer to the screen the more higher resolution comes into play -- obviously.

Quite agree!


It was just your use of the phrase 'reasonable distance' - I wondered if you considered certain distances 'unreasonable'.


Thanks again for the information and for answering the questions. really can't wait for this.


Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

It's funny that you say this, Steve, because I feel like I'm NOT seeing the whole picture clearly unless I sit close enough to be "completely immersed". In fact, I often feel like there are many people who end up viewing a film as if it was an oversized living postage stamp on their wall. Then, of course, more distractions can enter the field of view, especially if one is not fortunate enough to be able to watch every disc in pitch black surroundings.

For the record, I probably sit less than two feet from my 50" screen, or at least enough that I could almost reach out and touch it.

That's...quite close!


For the record, for projection I have a 2.00:1 aspect ratio screen (you always guessed I was an awkward sod), which is 280cm x 140cm. Seating distance is 350cm, which is around 3 x screen heights for 2.40:1 and 2.5 x screen heights for 1.85:1 (I zoom in and out and move my masking for different ratios.


House of Cards is excellent, obviously.


Steve W

 

[Geoff_D]

Thanks as always for the insight, RAH.


Question: I understand that you're using multiple reference sources for how it should look, but by what practical processes are you imbibing the colour onto the negative scans? By digitally combining the relevant seps with the brightness information from the negative? Grading it from scratch? Do tell, I love all that tech stuff.


Oh, and I second the comments about using an external 4K scaler for your Sony 4K. I only have a teeny-tiny 55" direct view Sony 4K set, and as good as the internal upscaling is it rolls off single-pixel information unless I turn on the 'Mastered in 4K' setting which first requires activation of the Reality Creation processing that smoothes away grain and noise, which is not ideal. To circumvent all that jazz I got an external scaler (just a cheap lil' DVDO iScan Mini, you'll need something a bit more heavy duty!) and it's made a noticeable difference.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks as always for the insight, RAH.


Question: I understand that you're using multiple reference sources for how it should look, but by what practical processes are you imbibing the colour onto the negative scans? By digitally combining the relevant seps with the brightness information from the negative? Grading it from scratch? Do tell, I love all that tech stuff.


Oh, and I second the comments about using an external 4K scaler for your Sony 4K. I only have a teeny-tiny 55" direct view Sony 4K set, and as good as the internal upscaling is it rolls off single-pixel information unless I turn on the 'Mastered in 4K' setting which first requires activation of the Reality Creation processing that smoothes away grain and noise, which is not ideal. To circumvent all that jazz I got an external scaler (just a cheap lil' DVDO iScan Mini, you'll need something a bit more heavy duty!) and it's made a noticeable difference.

The original negatives are scanned, and the yellow dye layer is dropped, leaving the magenta and cyan, which are also both faded to varying degrees, but can be massaged into place.


To be a bit simplistic, the Y master record, which has different gamma and sizing than the Oneg is then scanned, maneuvered into position, and mated with the two extant dye layers.


There are different means of registering, but it must be Perfect.

 

[Reed Grele]

Will there be a theatrical 4K venue in or near CT?

 

[Robert Harris]

One further piece of information that I can offer. Spartacus is an extremely complex restoration, for which Universal pulled out all the stops.


Different shots / sequences in the film are derived from a mix of:


A. OCN + Y


B. Y + C + M


C. C + M + M (at a different gamma) to substitute for a missing Y


All of this must then be conformed to work together very seamlessly.


RAH

 

[Allansfirebird]

Not sure if this was asked, Robert, but is there going to be a new commentary with this release?

 

[zoetmb]

For the Smilebox discs I sit way closer to the screen than usual in order to best duplicate the Cinerama experience on a 55" screen (I know, I know...). But it works pretty well, and works splendidly for HOW THE WEST WAS WON, which is simply a near-flawless transfer. What a great experience. I never saw a true Cinerama film theatrically, although I was of an age where that might have happened. My first "Cinerama" experience was the ersatz release of IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD, and I saw every subsequence release.

If you had seen HTWWW in true Cinerama, you would know that you can never replicate the experience at home. Not even close. IMO, one can't even replicate 70mm Cinerama at home.


When I was a kid, I saw HTWWW in 3-projector Cinerama twice (at the Loews Capitol/Cinerama in NYC). That and seeing West Side Story in 70mm (at the Rivoli in NYC) and IAMMMMW in 70mm Ultra Pan (at the Warner Cinerama) were prime drivers in me later becoming a recording engineer. (I can't remember what I ate for lunch yesterday. How is it I can remember those theatrical experiences from 50 years ago? I can even remember where I sat.) Between those sweet sounding analog magnetic soundtracks and the immense screens in pristine theaters with huge audiences, it's just not something that can be replicated in the home environment, as good as they've gotten.

 

[Alan Tully]

That must have been a ton of work. Nothing at all like that, but I remember doing a telecine transfer on an old faded-to-magenta print, & doing a huge colour correction & some outrageous things with the secondry colour correction, & it didn't look half bad, but that was one shot. The same correction on the next shot was blown-out & bright green, & so on, every shot needed its own way-out correction, & this started out as a graded print. So I'm thinking the Spartacus restoration was very, very complicated , with some shots taking a good while to get right. It sounds like a good transfer of this film was maybe on the cusp of being lost.