Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[EllissonWatson]

So there's a reason I've held off on this all these years.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A bit of selective DNR, or use another element lower down the chain which doesn't resolve it as much, perhaps?

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second.

Kubrick didn't want us to see the scotch tape, I think we're all agreed on that.

But it's there, so how do we explain it? As far as I can tell, the only possible explanation is that he knew it would be lost by the time we got to the cinema print stage.

Now a lot of people are saying we have no right to use CGI to obliterate the tape, because that's not what Kubrick wanted. Check.

But who is prepared to go the whole hog and say we shouldn't be scanning and mastering the film at a resolution which shows detail he clearly didn't want us to see?

And why are we so keen to see a remaster with more detail, when the one we have already shows more detail than SK expected us to see, to the film's detriment?

Steve W

[42041]

The original 70mm prints were presumably printed from the camera negative. As such, they would have outresolved anything blu-ray is capable of, so all these little defects would have been plain to see in the cinema.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

The bulk of Warners Kubrick releases date back to the 2007 era work which was designed around DVD and HDDVD. Like Blade Runner and others these resulted in compromised blu releases that have yet to be corrected. It is certain that there is already a new Clockwork master out there, just that WB has yet to issue it. Every title save for Lolita and Barry Lyndon needs a complete overhaul and the return of their original sound mixes.
As for 2001 it gets a bit more complex. A smilebox alternate would be lovely but a great deal of work would have to go into presenting the image properly. The intended color timing is not on the BD and detracts a bit from the experience I think. SK only approved the Criterion LD and MGMs first pass lacked the correct color which they fixed on their CAV box later ported to DVD and given a 5.1 discrete track.
The WB 5.1 also removes the original large format sound panning across the screen channels that is still present in the older copies.
The best version I've seen was a 35mm copy pre-Warners processing that had a narrowed version of the old mix and that older color look that better evokes the 1968 production. I haven't yet been able to see the 70mm version but it is my understanding that WB struck a new copy which they used to make the new transfer we have on disc in addition to screening prints and DCPs.

It can be done properly and probably will be as RAH suggested but I freely admit it's quite frustrating when films made with such importance given to picture and sound are continually flogged in substandard inaccurate copies time and time again.
Eyes Wide Shut is the worst offender. The print is night and day different experience.

That aside, I'm still beside myself waiting for Spartacus to make his return and finally put my Criterion disc to rest.

I'm hoping someone has made a LD-to-DVD conversion, from a top of the line LD player, for the Criterion LD of 2001 due to the reasons you've stated. Especially since Kubrick signed off on the color timing for the transfer.
For SPARTACUS return properly to Blu-ray even with the Restored Blu-ray release on 10/6 Tuesday/Tomorrow since it's 1:14am my time, still a good idea to keep the Criterion release since it has differing extras.

Criterion DVD = http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=261#1
Restored Blu-ray = http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=17478#2

I've been waiting 5 years for this release. Longer actually since I used to own the HD DVD, the barebones Universal DVD and the Criterion DVD.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second.

Kubrick didn't want us to see the scotch tape, I think we're all agreed on that.

But it's there, so how do we explain it? As far as I can tell, the only possible explanation is that he knew it would be lost by the time we got to the cinema print stage.

Now a lot of people are saying we have no right to use CGI to obliterate the tape, because that's not what Kubrick wanted. Check.

But who is prepared to go the whole hog and say we shouldn't be scanning and mastering the film at a resolution which shows detail he clearly didn't want us to see?

And why are we so keen to see a remaster with more detail, when the one we have already shows more detail than SK expected us to see, to the film's detriment?

Steve W

All I can think of is color timing.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Nonsense. Not sure what he saw, but the current disc does not look film-like and when it has been properly restored and scanned at 4K+ for Blu, it will look on level of Lawrence, Spartacus and some others...then I wonder what he will say?

Ok, you know better than Soderbergh. :roll eyes: How many films have you made and Oscars have you won again? I forgot. How long have you worked in the business as a writer, director, cinematographer, and editor? You can disagree all you want, but what he said is his opinion, so it can't be "nonsense."

I think that says it all.

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by 42041

The original 70mm prints were presumably printed from the camera negative. As such, they would have outresolved anything blu-ray is capable of, so all these little defects would have been plain to see in the cinema.

But many of us have seen the 35 and 70 in cinema, and did not notice the seams.

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

since Kybrick signed off

If he and Ted Hooper collaborate on a film, I'll be first in line.

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Ok, you know better than Soderbergh. :roll eyes: How many films have you made and Oscars have you won again? I forgot. How long have you worked in the business as a writer, director, cinematographer, and editor? You can disagree all you want, but what he said is his opinion, so it can't be "nonsense."

I think that says it all.

Uwe Boll has made scores of films, too.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

But many of us have seen the 35 and 70 in cinema, and did not notice the seams.

Must've been proper projection with a fully lit bulb? I believe I've seen it 35mm projected but don't hold me on that. It was a slightly more beat up print and this was 12 years ago. So, my recollection of it is a bit hazy and I would say I'm more used to how the film is presented from the Blu-ray due to my frequency of watching it.

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

If he and Ted Hooper collaborate on a film, I'll be first in line.

Fixed the typo.

Best to use multi-quote.

[JacobTyler1994]

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...us_blu-ray.htm

Using an iPhone so you will have to copy and paste. It appears Dvdbeaver has reviewed the remastered edition. What do you all think? Is it time to throw away the old copy and get the new?

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by JacobTyler1994

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...us_blu-ray.htm

Using an iPhone so you will have to copy and paste. It appears Dvdbeaver has reviewed the remastered edition. What do you all think? Is it time to throw away the old copy and get the new?

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by JacobTyler1994

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...us_blu-ray.htm

It appears Dvdbeaver has reviewed the remastered edition. What do you all think? Is it time to throw away the old copy and get the new?

Wait for Michael Reuben to properly review it and also Caps-a-Holic.com to have accurate comparison shots.
It was past time to sell or "throw away" the old copy as soon as it was announced Universal was doing an absolutely extensive restoration to make the film appear as it did when first released. With the best elements available.
Anyone and everyone who owns the 50th Anniversary Blu-ray and all various iterations of it through different releases should sell theirs and honestly buy the Restored Edition.
This should've been asked barely into the start of this thread and not the day before release.

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

And I just ran out of thanks.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second.

Kubrick didn't want us to see the scotch tape, I think we're all agreed on that.

But it's there, so how do we explain it? As far as I can tell, the only possible explanation is that he knew it would be lost by the time we got to the cinema print stage.

Now a lot of people are saying we have no right to use CGI to obliterate the tape, because that's not what Kubrick wanted. Check.

But who is prepared to go the whole hog and say we shouldn't be scanning and mastering the film at a resolution which shows detail he clearly didn't want us to see?

And why are we so keen to see a remaster with more detail, when the one we have already shows more detail than SK expected us to see, to the film's detriment?

Steve W

I trust you've read the HTF interview with RAH about My Fair Lady? It's an issue which comes up surprisingly regularly when dealing with original negative materials, and not just for tricks of the trade that are now revealed but for shots that were perhaps less than optimal to begin with (dupes, out of focus etc) which stand out even more when worked on at 4K.

You've directed this question at me before using the Godfather wire removal as an example, but I'm not the one who could or should answer it because there are people out there who have to deal with these decisions as part of their day job and they're best suited to answer your query.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I trust you've read the HTF interview with RAH about My Fair Lady? It's an issue which comes up surprisingly regularly when dealing with original negative materials, and not just for tricks of the trade that are now revealed but for shots that were perhaps less than optimal to begin with (dupes, out of focus etc) which stand out even more when worked on at 4K.

You've directed this question at me before using the Godfather wire removal as an example, but I'm not the one who could or should answer it because there are people out there who have to deal with these decisions as part of their day job and they're best suited to answer your query.

By the way I rejoined HTF and they welcomed me back with open arms. Even a lot of them told me I was missed. I wasn't even banned, it was them changing forum software so many times and my user account being lost in the fray.

Now I'm debating if I should buy the R2 UK SE DVD or be patient for the CC DVD of SPARTACUS is on sale. I know CC is going to have to fork over even more money for the full-blown remaster for their own Blu-ray which I feel they damn well should (no bartering for trying to get the intricate restored remaster on the cheap!). They better use two BDs for it including proper compression and to be honest I'd rather have them wait to release it in 2~4 years because of Universals effort. Honestly I'd be in no rush to buy a CC Blu-ray right away since it'd mean even more sales for Universals Restored Blu-ray which they've rightfully earned.
I want people to buy Universals new release, especially if they've owned the waxy DNR slathered 50th Anniversary, since they flat-out deserve the money for their time and extensive effort into this lovely restoration. This time they've rightfully earned my support and approval for their dedication. (Also great idea to keep the CC DVD too AND own this one as well!)
Especially for Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz involed in said restoration. Huge kudos for the both of them and all the people who've made this a reality. Thank you Universal & Co.!

One more day until SPARTACUS: 55th Anniversary (to the day of its Worldwide Premiere!) Restored Edition is on Blu-ray!

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I trust you've read the HTF interview with RAH about My Fair Lady? It's an issue which comes up surprisingly regularly when dealing with original negative materials, and not just for tricks of the trade that are now revealed but for shots that were perhaps less than optimal to begin with (dupes, out of focus etc) which stand out even more when worked on at 4K.

You've directed this question at me before using the Godfather wire removal as an example, but I'm not the one who could or should answer it because there are people out there who have to deal with these decisions as part of their day job and they're best suited to answer your query.

Just to be clear, it's a completely open question. I have no idea what the answer is. But we do appear to be hell-bent on extracting every last ounce of information from OCNs, when we also keep getting examples of where directors expected - even counted on - the final print containing less information.

So I'm not saying we shouldn't extract every ounce. But I am saying we shouldn't just extract every ounce then shrug our shoulders when we see imperfections which we were never meant to see. I think it's a legitimate debate to have, but one we're conspicuously not having.

Do you have a link to RAH's MFL article?

Cheers.

Steve W

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by Pecker

So I'm not saying we shouldn't extract every ounce. But I am saying we shouldn't just extract every ounce then shrug our shoulders when we see imperfections which we were never meant to see. I think it's a legitimate debate to have, but one we're conspicuously not having.

Do you have a link to RAH's MFL article?

Cheers.

Steve W

Studios are getting better at scanning from original negatives. One thing is grain management, some people love seeing a ton of grain that would never have been seen from prints, the director & cameraman would have had a fit if they'd seen rushes/prints so grainy (& I just can't remember seeing grainy pictures at the cinema). Also, scanning the original means they have to grade the picture, colour/contrast from scratch, & if they're not careful, they can radically change the look of a film, teal/orange, very cool look, that sort of thing, a lot of colourists won't even have been born when these films were originally released. Most of the time studios make a very good job of it.

My Fair Lady link:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...-my-fair-lady/

[obscurelabel]

Still off-topic, but two things that I will mention in regard to the front projection on 2001 showing up too much detail, that I never see discussed anywhere:

1) When a print is projected in a theater, the light is diffused all the way from the projector to the screen, then bounced off the screen then diffused all the way back to your eyes, quite possibly over 100 feet or more in total. I don't think I have ever seen anything that describes or measures how much detail is lost in this process, but it has to be something, and I think it must be significant.

2) It's true that film can have 4k-8k or whatever resolution, greater than BD, BUT keep in mind that a typical theater screen is thousands of times larger than a film frame. I haven't done the math, but I imagine that by the time the image is blown up to the full-size screen, the effective resolution per square foot on the screen is substantially less than what one would see on a high-def TV (this may be an obvious point but I never hear it brought up in this context).

Whenever I see any discussion of removing wires, etc. because of increased resolution, I never see these things discussed. I usually see the print vs. negative issue (losing resolution because of generational loss), but never any of these two things. I may be completely wrong, but I would love for someone who knows more about this than me to confirm or refute these points.

[42041]

That is absolutely not the case, based on every 70mm print I've seen. That's why you have a lens to focus the light, after all... A projected 70mm image will be sharper and higher resolution than 1080p. I wasn't around to know what the Eastman print stocks of the 60s looked like, so unless they were exceptionally soft (and I've read nothing to suggest they were) you should still have gotten something at the very least comparable to 2K digital projection, which is more than enough to reveal all the seams here.

[MifuneFan]

It's too bad this isn't getting a limited theatrical screening nationwide, I'd love to see it on the big screen.

[42041]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It's too bad this isn't getting a limited theatrical screening nationwide, I'd love to see it on the big screen.

I don't live in NYC, but I would be amazed if there isn't some repertory theater in that city that will show it.