Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Good discussion, but allow me to add a bit of clarity.

4k is always 4k, and it's a high enough resolution to capture everything we need in films of the era.

Keep in mind that 4k is the measurement from perf to perf. Although Spartacus may be thought of as 6k, it's actually the double frame that brings the 6, as in 4k x 6k.

When we properly scan 65mm productions, it's 8k, but the film (and I'm speaking in rough terms here) is twice as wide, so the actual scanning resolution is still 4k. As with the projection of a 70mm print, it's the necessary enlargement of the frame to the screen, that's half as much, which makes the grain appear much finer.

Go beyond 4k, and you've added a bit of over sampling for classic era films, but all work and data throughput, is still at 4k resolution.

If we had the infrastructure to move 6 or 8k data, what one would begin to see are the amoeba, swimming between, and gently feeding in the grain.

Also, virtually all current feature films are still finished, and projected, at 2k. Whether shot on film, or as data.

RAH

That's because there's is a double standard: with DCPs and scans we talk about horizontal resolution: 2K, 4K, 6K, 8K

with (U)HDTV we talk about vertical resolution: 720p, 1080p, 2160p.

This generates confusion....

We should express the full resolution to have "the full picture", no pun intended

[Geoff D]

Thanks RAH, though it's safe to say that the Spartacus image as we look at it here got 6K in the horizontal dimension and 4K in the vertical, no? It's just that those dimensions are inverted when talking about the actual scanning res which goes horizontally across the perfs.

[Illy Scorsese]

If anyone sees this in-store(Target, FYE, Best Buy, Walmart), please let us now...

I'm hoping to pick this up in store today.

Thanks.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For all the concerns about resolution and so forth, I think from 2K upwards it's a case of rapidly diminishing returns anyway, even with 8/35 large format it seems, though I'd love to get a gander at some 65mm 4K shots to compare to the 1080p equivalent of those.

I think I'm fast coming to the same conclusion.

I've seen some shocking film prints over the years. 1080p, resolution-wise, is far better than pretty much everything 35mm that I've seen, and (this is just me, I know others have different limits) I've never thought colours or contrast look poor.

Can we get a bit more from 4K? Well, from 65mm/70mm, etc, yes. Is it going to be a massive step up like SD to HD? Not even close, and often I suspect not particularly noticeable.

Normal 35mm material? Not impossible it'll be a tint bit better, but I can't imagine, and haven't seen any evidence that it'll be worth any sort of upgrade or double dip on a Blu-ray Disc. Unless the latter was a poor example to start with, or course.

Steve W

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I think I'm fast coming to the same conclusion.

I've seen some shocking film prints over the years. 1080p, resolution-wise, is far better than pretty much everything 35mm that I've seen, and (this is just me, I know others have different limits) I've never thought colours or contrast look poor.

Can we get a bit more from 4K? Well, from 65mm/70mm, etc, yes. Is it going to be a massive step up like SD to HD? Not even close, and often I suspect not particularly noticeable.

Normal 35mm material? Not impossible it'll be a tint bit better, but I can't imagine, and haven't seen any evidence that it'll be worth any sort of upgrade or double dip on a Blu-ray Disc. Unless the latter was a poor example to start with, or course.

Steve W

You still need >2K in the transfer stage to get all that lovely oversampling action going on but yeah, I'm struggling to envisage where 4K can go as a software medium based on this evidence, hence the push for non-resolution related enhancements like HDR.

With the last part of your post in mind, what worries me is the amount of overbaked shite that Universal and Paramount have put out over the last few years: what if those bad Blus are usurped by a lovely new transfer on UHD BD only? My resolve would be sorely tested by a spanking new UHD-only box set of the Star Trek films, say.

[Rory]

Just got it from Amazon and have looked at several scenes. Of course, it now looks fantastic on Blu-ray and also sounds much better than it ever has before. There's not much else I can say except I look forward to watching it again as I haven't for many years. This is the SPARTACUS I've been wanting to watch since Blu-ray's began.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You still need >2K in the transfer stage to get all that lovely oversampling action going on but yeah, I'm struggling to envisage where 4K can go as a software medium based on this evidence, hence the push for non-resolution related enhancements like HDR.

With the last part of your post in mind, what worries me is the amount of overbaked shite that Universal and Paramount have put out over the last few years: what if those bad Blus are usurped by a lovely new transfer on UHD BD only? My resolve would be sorely tested by a spanking new UHD-only box set of the Star Trek films, say.

Good point, that.

I suspect that any new UHD release will have either a simultaneous Blu-ray Disc release, a dual-disc UHD/BD release, or both.

It's not something I keep an eye on, but it does ring a bell that whenever we get a superb new Blu-ray restoration in 4K, there's a SD DVD of the new version which appears at the same time. The Red Shoes springs to mind.

Steve W

[Geoff D]

You're right, a newly restored BD is often accompanied by a new DVD from the same source, either as a pack-in or a separate release. The only thing that bothers me with that in the UHD BD era is the example provided by 3D BDs which have had new transfers done for them like Top Gun and Jurassic Park, and what was the pack-in 2D BD? The same one as before.

I can see the same thing happening with catalogue new-to-UHD remasters, that the pack-in will simply be the existing disc rather than the freshly minted transfer.

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thanks RAH, though it's safe to say that the Spartacus image as we look at it here got 6K in the horizontal dimension and 4K in the vertical, no? It's just that those dimensions are inverted when talking about the actual scanning res which goes horizontally across the perfs.

What Robert was pointing out is that for Spartacus, the horizontal scan had 6K pixels, but the resolution was 4K per frame, standard 4K. The 6K pixels results from the wider film (a frame and a half), so the resolution is still '4K per frame', not '6K per frame.' A resolution spec needs the number of pixels but also the dimension.

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

I've had this ordered at Amazon since July, but it's not arriving tomorrow- not until Thursday. Are others getting theirs from Amazon Tuesday?
I just skipped through the old version so it would be fresh in my mind - wow the amount of EE haloing is atrocious.
cheers-

Amazon has notified me that Spartacus will indeed arrive today, along with Bram Stoker's Dracula.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You're right, a newly restored BD is often accompanied by a new DVD from the same source, either as a pack-in or a separate release. The only thing that bothers me with that in the UHD BD era is the example provided by 3D BDs which have had new transfers done for them like Top Gun and Jurassic Park, and what was the pack-in 2D BD? The same one as before.

I can see the same thing happening with catalogue new-to-UHD remasters, that the pack-in will simply be the existing disc rather than the freshly minted transfer.

My guess is among us who care about presentation quality to the extent of wanting improved transfers at this point there will be more widespread adoption of UHD (if it's not a pure blip ala DVHS) media than there has been 3D Blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

What Robert was pointing out is that for Spartacus, the horizontal scan had 6K pixels, but the resolution was 4K per frame, standard 4K. The 6K pixels results from the wider film (a frame and a half), so the resolution is still '4K per frame', not '6K per frame.' A resolution spec needs the number of pixels but also the dimension.

Sure, I get that. The scan was still 4K from edge to edge, which for regular 35mm goes across the horizontal image as filmed, only in this case perf-to-perf is going along the vertical dimensions of the 8-perf image. The horizontal information of the Spartacus image was captured at 6K, so while it's not technically a 6K transfer according to the official nomenclature I'll still think upon it as 6K.

[jrmac2000]

Anyone find this in the wild today?

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by jrmac2000

Anyone find this in the wild today?

This has been ridiculously difficult to acquire in-store today. Nothing at Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and Target not only doesn't have it in-store, but also, on its website, where it is currently unavailable.

I had to travel to a Barnes and Noble almost an hour away to get a copy, and with my copy taken, that store is now sold out, as they only had one copy.

And yet, all of these stores had multiple copies of Universal's Tremors 5 Blu-ray.

[jrmac2000]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

This has been ridiculously difficult to acquire in-store today. Nothing at Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and Target not only doesn't have it in-store, but also, on its website, where it is currently unavailable.

I had to travel to a Barnes and Noble almost an hour away to get a copy, and with my copy taken, that store is now sold out, as they only had one copy.

And yet, all of these stores had multiple copies of Universal's Tremors 5 Blu-ray.

Unfortunately my Barnes and Noble is showing out of stock online. There were also a lot of other titles not in store today that I would have thought would have been there.

[MikeZ.]

Nobody seems to want the digital code. I've had mine up FS since midnight.

[morningtoke]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

This has been ridiculously difficult to acquire in-store today. Nothing at Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and Target not only doesn't have it in-store, but also, on its website, where it is currently unavailable.

I had to travel to a Barnes and Noble almost an hour away to get a copy, and with my copy taken, that store is now sold out, as they only had one copy.

And yet, all of these stores had multiple copies of Universal's Tremors 5 Blu-ray.

Tremors 5 is a brand new film. Spartacus is a remaster. Brick and mortar stores don't tend to include remasters/re-releases in their new release planograms (this has literally been the case for years). It'll probably be part of some holiday shipper.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

What Robert was pointing out is that for Spartacus, the horizontal scan had 6K pixels, but the resolution was 4K per frame, standard 4K. The 6K pixels results from the wider film (a frame and a half), so the resolution is still '4K per frame', not '6K per frame.' A resolution spec needs the number of pixels but also the dimension.

Basically it all comes down to the famous ARRI formula for optimal film scan:

Technirama: 38 mm × 25.20 mm= 6333 × 4200 pixels

So 6K is the perfect scan resolution

Then it's unsqueezed to 2.25:1 ratio and matted to 2.20:1

[GrouchoFan]

My only complaint: 16 chapters for a 3 hour and 15 minute movie? C'mon, Universal! The Criterion DVD has 46 chapters. And you can't even make your own bookmarks. That's not normally something that interests me, but I find it odd that they seem to be phasing out things that were once highly-touted features of the Blu-Ray format.

Other than that, the movie looks FAN-FRIGGIN'-TASTIC!!!!!!!!!! Must buy bigger TV!

[MikeZ.]

Originally Posted by GrouchoFan

My only complaint: 16 chapters for a 3 hour and 15 minute movie? C'mon, Universal! The Criterion DVD has 46 chapters. And you can't even make your own bookmarks. That's not normally something that interests me, but I find it odd that they seem to phasing out things that were once highly-touted features of the Blu-Ray format.

Other than that, the movie looks FAN-FRIGGIN'-TASTIC!!!!!!!!!! Must buy bigger TV!

Why does that matter with the Resume feature ?