Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[42041]

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.

I don't care if Kubrick's ghost tells me the 2001 blu-ray is superior to a mint 70mm print Experienced filmmakers (even the ones that don't make terrifically ugly movies) are still bound by that pesky thing called reality, where even a 35mm print made from a 35mm o-neg, properly projected, looks better than blu-ray possibly could, being forever bound to its (compressed and chroma-subsampled) 1920x1080 pixels. Though, of course, print stocks will have a tough time matching the contrast of a Kuro.

[Geoff D]

The heck of it is I'm not some rabid 'error corrector' who wants everything fixed because the wires and the rough edges and flopped shots and out-of-sequence continuity problems etc have simply become part of the experience with certain movies for me. But when it comes to things that were expressly intended to be fudged by the time it got to a final theatrical print or weren't seemingly visible on any pre-print source before having been ruthlessly exposed on video, I'm fine with them being altered.

[Trax-3]

Dye-transfer is notoriously soft, yet one can see single hair on actors heads here, even on a crappy filmed-off-the-screen Youtube video. Yet some people want us to believe that if they were dangling from a wire it would be magically hidden.

Gone With The Wind ... screentest of a 35mm Technicolor print - YouTube

[GasmaskAvenger]

Judging by the DVD Beaver screencaps, the restored blu-ray is a HUGE improvement.

What is there to complaint about?

[dcarty]

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.

One of my favorite movies of all time. I was fortunate enough to see the 1992 restoration twice on the last true 70mm curved screen in town, long gone unfortunately, and I'd love to see it again. Hoping to see My Fair Lady when they screen it in a few weeks.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

Judging by the DVD Beaver screencaps, the restored blu-ray is a HUGE improvement.

What is there to complain about?

The 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-ray disc/HD DVD transfer I take it?
We're also complaining the screenshots would be better off on Caps-a-Holic.

EDIT: Turns out I DO have a $5 Best Buy Reward Certificate! Hoping Best Buy will have it in-store at the Soquel location so I can use the certificate on the Restored Edition. If not I'll be very disappointed if it isn't in-store.

[MikeZ.]

My copy just arrived. Will post the digital code FS after midnight.

What time zone for that BTW ?

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

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/

Having spent half an hour reading that I think they have the same questions I posed, and tentative answers which touch on the problems raised.

A superb read.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The heck of it is I'm not some rabid 'error corrector' who wants everything fixed because the wires and the rough edges and flopped shots and out-of-sequence continuity problems etc have simply become part of the experience with certain movies for me. But when it comes to things that were expressly intended to be fudged by the time it got to a final theatrical print or weren't seemingly visible on any pre-print source before having been ruthlessly exposed on video, I'm fine with them being altered.

Geoff, I think my point is getting just a little missed.

If there's an 'error' on the OCN which would have been covered in the transfer to print, and it fits your criteria, and you remove it because you've spotted the problem, okay.

But how sure are we there's nothing else in there we're revealing which we shouldn't be covering up; something we just haven't spotted.

Or even something that's not a problem, and doesn't need covering up, but just that level of softness was the look desired.

If we ever present a DVD, Blu-ray, or UHD showing more than would be seen on a good print, we risk doing that, don't we.

Are we serious about seeing 'what the director intended'? Really, absolutely serious?

Or is it something to which we pay lip service when it suits us, but where we'd rather see a gloriously detailed image for eye-candy, despite knowing a director would never expect us to see that?

It might sound like I'm making a statement, but I'm asking a question. Perhaps with more emphasis on one side, as it rarely gets a look in.

Steve W

[Leonidas King]

What a major freaking difference with this Restoration.

Now I can finally pick this up!

[MikeZ.]

Looks great.

[Pieter V]

DVD vs Blu-ray vs new Blu-ray

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...d_multiID=1988

[Blu Cider]

Huge improvement. Was the old BD and HD DVD made from the Laserdisc master?

[infiniteCR]

Absolutely incredible difference!


Mr Harris, congratulations!! You've *saved* this movie.




I wish people would realize that you don't need new standards like 4K blurays to get night and day differences like these when competent people are at the helm using the tools already available.


Tomorrow night is looking very good

[MikeZ.]

I'm seeing grains of sand on my screen ?!? The 7.1 sounds pretty incredible as well.

[Opips3]

I'm interested Spartacus.....later remastered and restored edition 55th anniversary on new bluray.

Recharge I feel it

[infiniteCR]

Did you already get yours



Envy

[MikeZ.]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

Did you already get yours



Envy

Yes. From Bull Moose.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Geoff, I think my point is getting just a little missed.

If there's an 'error' on the OCN which would have been covered in the transfer to print, and it fits your criteria, and you remove it because you've spotted the problem, okay.

But how sure are we there's nothing else in there we're revealing which we shouldn't be covering up; something we just haven't spotted.

Or even something that's not a problem, and doesn't need covering up, but just that level of softness was the look desired.

If we ever present a DVD, Blu-ray, or UHD showing more than would be seen on a good print, we risk doing that, don't we.

Are we serious about seeing 'what the director intended'? Really, absolutely serious?

Or is it something to which we pay lip service when it suits us, but where we'd rather see a gloriously detailed image for eye-candy, despite knowing a director would never expect us to see that?

It might sound like I'm making a statement, but I'm asking a question. Perhaps with more emphasis on one side, as it rarely gets a look in.

Steve W

I did have another very long winded response to go here but I'll just simply say: I'm happy with the "lip service" thing. If that means I don't belong with the true film-loving cognoscenti who wrap themselves in reels of 35mm every night then so be it.

[Pieter V]

FYI - Northlight film scanner has been used: 6K scans. Outputs 4K signal and further workflow 4K as well.