Demetrius and the Gladiators - 03/16/12 - Limited to 3,000 copies

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by rondanto

Would love Samson & Delilah . It's not even on DVD in U.S.

We're certainly seeing more Victor Mature movies on Blu-ray than I ever expected. Whodathunk.

Could be rights holding up Samson and Delilah...but just as likely, it's a restoration issue.

[benbess]

I agree with you. Only the best from TT. They shouldn't bother with anything 4:3 if it was originally widescreen. More than that, they should only release if the HD master is truly very good or excellent.

[Clark Kent]

I would go further and say Twilight Time should only license HD transfers made in the past three years or so. The state of scanning technology and creating a great image harvest has vastly progressed from even five years ago. Those are the masters that will really shine on Blu-ray.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I would go further and say Twilight Time should only license HD transfers made in the past three years or so. The state of scanning technology and creating a great image harvest has vastly progressed from even five years ago. Those are the masters that will really shine on Blu-ray.

Well, that's exactly what they've been getting from SPHE's legendary fuss-budget Grover Crisp.

Fox' remaster of The Egyptian was as recent as 2010, and it definitely looks it. Demetrius was done around the same time as The Robe, or shortly thereafter, which would place it in the 2009/2010 time frame.

Ultimately I trust my eyes, and there hasn't been a pooch in the bunch so far.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I would go further and say Twilight Time should only license HD transfers made in the past three years or so. The state of scanning technology and creating a great image harvest has vastly progressed from even five years ago. Those are the masters that will really shine on Blu-ray.

I think sometimes there are good hd scans that are from as old as 2005. I like the movie Kingdom of Heaven on blu-ray for pq, and I think the master for that one was done that year. But you're probably right that generally newer scans are better.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by SpartanIre

Regarding 4K and Higher resolutions, I found the following articles through HDGuru.com interesting:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...?tag=cnetRiver

That article is stupid

says 4K good for theaters but not good for our home theater. I guess we don't want to recreate the field of view and quality of real theaters and the theatrical experience in our home theaters.. I thought that was the name of the game

I remember when people said a 35" 4:3 TV was too big.

And we're talking about a CinemaScope movie here which is a format that benefits the wider and more "Scope" the screen has.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

That article is stupid

says 4K good for theaters but not good for our home theater. I guess we don't want to recreate the size and quality of real theaters and the theatrical experience in our home theaters.. I thought that was the name of the game

I read it more as a practical guide for those hearing the buzz phrase du jour, "4K", and fretting that their investments in 1080p and Blu-ray are now obsolete. What I took away from that piece is that unless your monitor is 80 inches and above, and you're watching at a 'reasonable' viewing distance, your eyes are physically incapable of resolving the difference in pixel count. Resolution isn't the only factor contributing to an exceptional quality picture...the human eye is both our friend and enemy in that regard.

True, his language was too broadly "debunking" and "dismissive", but I thought he made some valid points about the practical limits of human vision vis-à-vis video in a typical home setting. He was at least careful not to claim that someone with a 100" plus home theatre wouldn't see any benefit from 4K components and content.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

I remember when people said a 35" 4:3 TV was too big.

And I do too Deciazulado, which is why I agree that what we currently consider a 'normal' screen size will problably seem 'quaint' in a few years. I mean, these days I have 46" monitor in my bedroom - something I would have once drooled over as my principle display. Average expectations aren't average anymore.

But I'm a pragmatist too. If 1080p Blu-ray got ahead of the content, representing enormous technical challenges and expense for restoration and remastering of catalogues, which is why high quality Blu-rays of vintage titles like Demetrius and the Gladiators have been slow to come, if at all, then I can only imagine how much of a niche-within-a-niche 4K will become for the home market...at least for the forseeable future. Will studios even be willing to touch anything that started life on film unless it has "Oz", or "Blade", or "Hur" or "Arabia" in the title?

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

And we're talking about a CinemaScope movie here which is a format that benefits the wider and more "Scope" the screen has.

[Show spoiler]

I'm a huge 'Scope fan from way back. But even I can admit that sure, it was BIG, and often breathtaking in its field of view, but it wasn't terribly sharp. With 4K and above scanning, we're already at the outer limits of what's actually in those vintage 'Scope OCNs and IPs. When downsampled to 1080p Blu-ray for the viewing environments most of us routinely use, they still look dandy, but at some point, an increased resolution harvest and display will just be overkill.

As they used to say in the music industry, "there's nothing left in the grooves."

However, for native 4K content, with 4K workflow, output on 4K systems, via 100" plus displays...well, that's another story. And that's not stupid. It's the future.

[HyperRealist]

Robert Siegel's in depth article.


The Cinemascope Sequel: Demetrius and the Gladiators
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=8290

[benbess]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Robert Siegel's in depth article.

The Cinemascope Sequel: Demetrius and the Gladiators
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=8290

Great article! Unfortunately Nick Redman told Siegel that the elements for Demetrius were in even worse shape than those for The Robe.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

I wish my basement was big enough for that screen!

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by benbess

Great article! Unfortunately Nick Redman told Siegel that the elements for Demetrius were in even worse shape than those for The Robe.

See comments above re: "the limits of image harvesting".

I'm keeping my expectations realistic, leaving room to be pleasantly surprised benbess. I think this is another case though where the AQ will outshine the PQ.

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Robert Siegel's in depth article.

The Cinemascope Sequel: Demetrius and the Gladiators
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=8290

Such a good write up / background to the movie. I remember reading the same sort of article for The Egyptian back when that came out. We could only be so lucky to have something like this for all films being released on bluray. Thanks.

[SolidBlu]

hope SAE will ship demetrius and the gladiators & bite the bullet earlier

[HDMe]

I didn't watch it... but my father was watching Demetrius on some movie channel the other day in HD. I wonder if that was the same transfer that Twilight Time is using?

I didn't watch enough of it to say how good it looked, and I haven't seen the Robe to make a comparison.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by benbess

Great article! Unfortunately Nick Redman told Siegel that the elements for Demetrius were in even worse shape than those for The Robe.

While the elements for The Robe were not pristine by any stretch, the Blu-ray ended up looking pretty good for being the first CinemaScope film in history. The Robe received an expensive film restoration that turned out nicely given its history.

[rondanto]

Great article Robert. Enjoyed it very much. You continue to amaze me with the thought and effort you put into your articles. Well done

[cynatnite]

I missed out on Fright Night. I won't miss out on this one. I've wanted this one blu for a time now now. I can't wait!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by SpartanIre

Regarding 4K and Higher resolutions, I found the following articles through HDGuru.com interesting:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...?tag=cnetRiver...

Interesting in the sense that many consumers out there are not even taking total advantage of the resolution of their 1080p televisions, given their viewing positions.

I guess the industry should have *stopped* at 720p for the majority of consumers, as 1080p was “stupid”.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by benbess

I think sometimes there are good hd scans that are from as old as 2005. I like the movie Kingdom of Heaven on blu-ray for pq, and I think the master for that one was done that year. But you're probably right that generally newer scans are better.

Clark is correct. But not only has ‘scanning technology’ progressed from even five years ago, for specific improvements, for example, see…
Northlight –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ht#post5754852

Scanity…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ty#post5259210

But perhaps a lesser known important limiting factor affecting the quality of Blu-rays sourced from ‘scans’ of 2005-ish vintage, is not the scanning apparatus per se, but the displays (CRTs) which were commonly used to produce and Q/A the HD master, see the bottom of page 2 and most importantly, page 3. Be forewarned, page 2 – page 3 is only recommended for those having an attention span longer than a lightning bolt -

http://www.allbusiness.com/media-tel...6608398-1.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

I read it more as a practical guide for those hearing the buzz phrase du jour, "4K", and fretting that their investments in 1080p and Blu-ray are now obsolete. What I took away from that piece is that unless your monitor is 80 inches and above, and you're watching at a 'reasonable' viewing distance, your eyes are physically incapable of resolving the difference...

‘Reasonable’ viewing distance might be what Joe6Pack watches his movies in at home. ‘Reasonable’ sound for them might also be what the television provides with its attached speakers.

For serious home theater enthusiasts, who strive to emulate the theatrical experience by trying to get that immersive *look* by purchasing the largest display they can afford, as well as the best sound system, etc., the technology to bring 4K into the home should be applauded rather than dismissed as it will allow, even with displays < 80”, the ability for folks to achieve that immersive and detailed experience without seeing pixel artifact structure, if they are willing to move their chairs or sofas a few feet forward. In their next purchasing display go-around, I think some home theater enthusiasts would actually like to have that choice rather than being excluded from it by lack of advances in advanced home display technology.

b.t.w., the Sony guy quoted in the above linked post in regards to encouraging the industry to use ‘new display technologies’ rather than the time honored gold standard CRTs for HD mastering is also an advocate of the value of 4K for consumer displays far less than 80” in size.

But, what does he know ?…he must be “stupid” too, for the move from CRTs to flat panels in the mastering suite did more to identify and alleviate (for those operators and studios willing to do so) the most common digital artifacts that home theater enthusiasts complain about, namely DNR and EE, from making their way to HD masters and from thence to Blu-ray packaged media than probably any other single improvement in the imaging chain.