Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Isn't the Italian steelbook using the 2010 disc? So I'm sceptical for any UK steelbook release for this film.

Amazon Italy has been saying the steelbook is unavailable for some weeks now. I've only seen two places selling it, Zavvi (UK) & Amazon France. I've ordered from Zavvi.

It's going to be a Christmas present (for me), so it might as well be a steelbook.

[HonestJohn]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Isn't the Italian steelbook using the 2010 disc? So I'm sceptical for any UK steelbook release for this film.

Zavvi lists the Steelbook as having the same Special Features as the Remastered version. So unless that is wrong, then it does have the new disc. It would be nice to have some confirmation though and until we do, remain skeptical. Looks like we'll have confirmation from CinemaScope once he gets his.

[Cook]

Damn! That's wonderful! I'd really like to know what the hell happened that resulted in the old version looking so God awful. Seriously, Spartacus is ruddy brown in the old version. Was it because of a transfer **** up or something?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cook

Damn! That's wonderful! I'd really like to know what the hell happened that resulted in the old version looking so God awful. Seriously, Spartacus is ruddy brown in the old version. Was it because of a transfer **** up or something?

Faded film, crappy 35mm dupes, and poorly-maintained telecine equipment do not make for great blu-rays.
Fortunately, this finally looks very much like the 70mm prints I've seen from Robert Harris's older restoration. Presumably even better, given newfangled digital tools.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by 42041

Faded film, crappy 35mm dupes, and poorly-maintained telecine equipment do not make for great blu-rays.
Fortunately, this finally looks very much like the 70mm prints I've seen from Robert Harris's older restoration. Presumably even better, given newfangled digital tools.

So in other words pure laziness was the cause. Damn shame. But at least they've fixed that mistake.

Are all the special features from the old blu-ray carried over to the new disc? If they were carried over, I'm going to throw away the old disc. I usually don't do that, but this new restoration is gorgeous and I doubt Ill ever watch the old crappy release again. No reason to allow it to take up shelf space if I don't have to.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Cook

So in other words pure laziness was the cause. Damn shame. But at least they've fixed that mistake.

Are all the special features from the old blu-ray carried over to the new disc? If they were carried over, I'm going to throw away the old disc. I usually don't do that, but this new restoration is gorgeous and I doubt Ill ever watch the old crappy release again. No reason to allow it to take up shelf space if I don't have to.

Sell the old Blu-ray
?????????????
Profit.

[stratford]

Here is a link, sorry if it is the wrong method, to the list of special features on the October 2015 edition of Spartacus.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300117502.html

[Rory]

The older version from Universal looked the way it did because it was made from an interpositive done during the '90s restoration that had already started to fade. Same case with the Blu-ray to MY FAIR LADY, an interpositive , less than two decades old, but already fading.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Rory

The older version from Universal looked the way it did because it was made from an interpositive done during the '90s restoration that had already started to fade. Same case with the Blu-ray to MY FAIR LADY, an interpositive , less than two decades old, but already fading.

That may be true but the real reason the Spartacus bluray (and HD-DVD) looked like crap is because it was an old video transfer that had been further nuked with crappy digital image processing tools. That same supposedly less than ideal IP scanned on modern equipment and maybe some small tweaks to color, dirt removal and then left alone would have looked much, much, much better.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Isn't the Italian steelbook using the 2010 disc? So I'm sceptical for any UK steelbook release for this film.

Apparently so, but there's no sign of any Italian language options on the US disc so I can understand it not being that disc. There's no such barrier to a UK release because they can simply put out the exact same US remastered disc with localised disc art and packaging, just like they did with Apollo 13 and Breakfast Club.

I am still gonna wait for confirmation though.

[Rory]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

That may be true but the real reason the Spartacus bluray (and HD-DVD) looked like crap is because it was an old video transfer that had been further nuked with crappy digital image processing tools. That same supposedly less than ideal IP scanned on modern equipment and maybe some small tweaks to color, dirt removal and then left alone would have looked much, much, much better.

Agreed. It was a combination of things that really all boiled down to Universal putting out the first HD transfer "on the cheap." They wanted it out there to make some money, but they did not want to spend the money on doing it right the first time. The first go around was for the undiscriminating consumer. For those wanting a better transfer -- you have to wait. At least with SPARTACUS the wait seems over. The wait for a better 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY continues.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Rory

Agreed. It was a combination of things that really all boiled down to Universal putting out the first HD transfer "on the cheap." They wanted it out there to make some money, but they did not want to spend the money on doing it right the first time. The first go around was for the undiscriminating consumer. For those wanting a better transfer -- you have to wait. At least with SPARTACUS the wait seems over. The wait for a better 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY continues.

Wasn't the 50th Anniversary release Blu-ray just a lazy port of the HD DVD just with more DNR slapped on the encode

I bet WB are gonna wait for UHD to be settled in for a couple months before releasing it on the format. Possibly a UHD/BD combo with the BD exclusive to it using a new master. I'm hoping but it's been a much too long wait. Disappointing with the most current boxset with the more retro style font, hasn't utilized any new transfers for any of the titles if they were available. ESPECIALLY for A Clockwork Orange.

EDIT: I'm still going to get the release I own of 2001: A Space Oddity for the LPCM track when WB finally uses a 4K remaster from the 65mm~70mm elements.

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by Rory

Agreed. It was a combination of things that really all boiled down to Universal putting out the first HD transfer "on the cheap." They wanted it out there to make some money, but they did not want to spend the money on doing it right the first time. The first go around was for the undiscriminating consumer. For those wanting a better transfer -- you have to wait. At least with SPARTACUS the wait seems over. The wait for a better 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY continues.

Hi Guys, what are problems with 2001? I thought it was really good. There are some sky scenes in the beginning (apes) that look crappy but maybe it's the matte paintings. The rest looked good. Has the grain the been scrubbed? I don't remember haloing though. Thanks!

[42041]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

Hi Guys, what are problems with 2001? I thought it was really good. There are some sky scenes in the beginning (apes) that look crappy but maybe it's the mattes. The rest looked good. I don't remember exactly though, has the grain the been scrubbed? I don't remember haloing though. Thanks!

It's just... not very good. It's an old transfer from a 35mm element with some mild electronic fiddling. It holds up just by virtue of being a 70mm film, it's hard to screw that up (though lord knows studios have tried), but it's a pretty far cry from 70mm done right.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's just... not very good. It's an old transfer from a 35mm element with some mild electronic fiddling. It holds up just by virtue of being a 70mm film, it's hard to screw that up (though lord knows studios have tried), but it's a pretty far cry from 70mm done right.

Also it was released near the dawn of the format so many things weren't very finalized. Also it was a dual release with HD DVD so the BD doesn't use the full capacity of the Blu-ray disc. Still VC-1 and as mentioned, uses a 35mm reduction print instead of the original 70mm.

2001 could appear with the same great quality as also been given as an example the outstanding level of effort towards the remasters/restorations for:

SPARTACUS (Obviously the 55th Anniversary/Restored we're chatting about ITT.)
Lawrence of Arabia
BLADE RUNNER (Still needs to be a BD50, AVC, DTS-HD MA, etc.)
BEN-HUR (Varies since it was due to an earlier method of transfer.)
The Ten Commandments
CASABLANCA
The Bridge on the River Kwai
My Fair Lady (Upcoming release.)
GHOSTBUSTERS I & II
The French Connection (Filmmakers Signature version.)

Including dozens of other titles where the current Blu-ray release looks the best as it ever has on any physical home entertainment formats. Well, the ones with restorations, rescans, remasters at least.

EDIT: I figure I'm having the same level of anticipation owning the fully Restored and Remastered Blu-ray for SPARTACUS as I did for Lawrence of Arabia. Which is a bit awesome.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's just... not very good. It's an old transfer from a 35mm element with some mild electronic fiddling. It holds up just by virtue of being a 70mm film, it's hard to screw that up (though lord knows studios have tried), but it's a pretty far cry from 70mm done right.

Really? I thought it was made from the 70mm restoration done in 2001. The aspect ratio on the BD is about 2.2:1. Was it made from a 35mm reduction, which would have been cropped to 2.35:1, and then further zoomed to 2.2 from that? (i.e. "Ben-Hur'ed"?)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BNex99

Really? I thought it was made from the 70mm restoration done in 2001. The aspect ratio on the BD is about 2.2:1. Was it made from a 35mm reduction, which would have been cropped to 2.35:1, and then further zoomed to 2.2 from that? (i.e. "Ben-Hur'ed"?)

Yes, it was from an IP reduction like most of Warners' large format transfers were at that point, owing to the lack of decent large format telecine equipment (as evinced by the 65mm transfer of Ben Hur for the SE DVD which looked extremely poor). But them fancy pin-registered scanners and being able to work in up to 8K res have made such concerns moot.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yes, it was from an IP reduction like most of Warners' large format transfers were at that point, owing to the lack of decent large format telecine equipment (as evinced by the 65mm transfer of Ben Hur for the SE DVD which looked extremely poor). But them fancy pin-registered scanners and being able to work in up to 8K res have made such concerns moot.

Didn't WB fix the Ben-Hur (no idea if it has a hyphen or em or en dash) 65mm transfer for Blu-ray compared to the DVD? Either the Original Release which is #1 or the 4-Disc which is #2 (I only had release #1, the flipper DVD15 or DVD18 disc):

http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=1407#1
http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=1407#2

I have the Blu-ray Double Feature of it with The Ten Commandments since I haven't bought 3-Disc or whichver cases for both movies. But I have both listed indivually since I'm going to be getting more discs for both.

[Geoff D]

One of the first Ben Hur DVDs used a 35mm element matted to 2.76. The 4-disc SE DVD used a true 65mm element (which itself was in poor condition, the colour registration was awful) so the ratio was now the correct 2.76 but the quality was sub par. Warners did a proper 8K transfer and restoration of the 65mm negative for a 6K finish when they did the Blu-ray.

[moviebuff75]

Ben-Hur was corrected for the four Disc DVD, and the blu Ray. The AR and framing are correct.