Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks Geoff.

I'm glad I sold that flipper DVD when the 4-Disc was being announced. Never got around to buying the latter and decided to hold off for the Blu-ray. Which I'm glad I did. Sounds a bit similar for Lawrence of Arabia on previous formats before Sony/Columbia/Tri-Star went all out for the Blu-ray, especially the Gift Set I own. Would love to learn more about other situations similar to Ben-Hur where the studio in question had to use different elements to finally get it correct. The different stages and especially previous formats including Laserdisc. This really does fascinate me since I do love film and the involvement which goes into these intensive restorationd and remasters. Including the various processes and steps needed to be taken.

Glad Universal got it correct, finalized, and locked in with this second Blu-ray for SPARTACUS. Of course which is 110% for any future and upcoming (UHD hint-hint) media.

EDIT: I know I'm going to absolutely love this Exclusive feature when I buy the Blu-ray disc:
Restoring Spartacus: An inside look at the intricate process of the film's 2015 restoration.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

Thanks Geoff.

I'm glad I sold that flipper DVD when the 4-Disc was being announced. Never got around to buying the latter and decided to hold off for the Blu-ray. Which I'm glad I did. Sounds a bit similar for Lawrence of Arabia on previous formats before Sony/Columbia/Tri-Star went all out for the Blu-ray, especially the Gift Set I own. Would love to learn more about other situations similar to Ben-Hur where the studio in question had to use different elements to finally get it correct. The different stages and especially previous formats including Laserdisc. This really does fascinate me since I do love film and the involvement which goes into these intensive restoration and remasters.
Glad Universal got it correct, finalized, and locked in with this second Blu-ray for SPARTACUS. Of course which is 110% for any future and upcoming (UHD hint-hint ) media.

I hate to say it Ray but you really should read RAH's My Fair Lady interview at the HTF. It's one of the most fascinating articles on restoration I've ever come across, not just for the tech details but the lines that get crossed when you use elements that were never intended to be viewed directly; you get the staggering quality of camera negative but also every last flaw is exposed, so do you massage them out or not? Dude, seriously, just put your feelings aside for a few minutes and read it.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I hate to say it Ray but you really should read RAH's My Fair Lady interview at the HTF. It's one of the most fascinating articles on restoration I've ever come across, not just for the tech details but the lines that get crossed when you use elements that were never intended to be viewed directly; you get the staggering quality of camera negative but also every last flaw is exposed, so do you massage them out or not? Dude, seriously, just put your feelings aside for a few minutes and read it.

I'd have to use a Proxy since I was unfortunately banned from the HTF before my join date here. No need for explanation since I heavily prefer this forum far more. I'll be sure to check out the interview sometime.

(IMO it'd be better if it were on a site so everyone could read it and not one particular place.)

[Narcissus]

Ben-Hur IMO remains THE benchmark on how a restoration should be handled. I cannot find fault with any of it.

Hopefully this gets close to that. Is this the last Kubrick fim that needs a remaster? {aside from the on going aspect ratio debate about Full Metal Jacket}

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Narcissus

Ben-Hur IMO remains THE benchmark on how a restoration should be handled. I cannot find fault with any of it.

Hopefully this gets close to that. Is this the last Kubrick fim that needs a remaster? {aside from the on going aspect ratio debate about Full Metal Jacket}

The masters for all the Kubrick discs are not great, but there are new masters not on disc

[Trax-3]

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.

What's the source for that? Even modern prints are fade resistant not to mention pre-print elements. If it was kept in the studio vault it should look like in the day it was made.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

The masters for all the Kubrick discs are not great, but there are new masters not on disc

Yep...it baffles me how a number of people think 2001 is a great disc.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

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 has been 70MM on home video since MGM did their transfer in the 90s for letterbox LaserDisc. It's just an older transfer on the Blu-ray.

BLADE RUNNER (Still needs to be a BD50, AVC, DTS-HD MA, etc.)

Are you talking about the theatrical or Final Cut? The BD is not bad at all and it's in lossless for the Final Cut.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Are you talking about the theatrical or Final Cut? The BD is not bad at all and it's in lossless for the Final Cut.

The Final Cut looks good, it's just a touch dark IMO, no AVC codec nor extra storage space on disc will fix that. The theatrical cut doesn't have this problem from the caps I've seen.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yep...it baffles me how a number of people think 2001 is a great disc.

"by the way, i’ve seen every conceivable kind of film print of 2001, from 16mm flat to 35mm internegative to a cherry camera negative 70mm in the screening room at warner bros, and i’m telling you, none of them look as good as a bluray played on an pioneer elite plasma kuro monitor." - steven soderbergh

[42041]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised Soderbergh is responsible for some of the ugliest cinema of recent years

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

"by the way, i’ve seen every conceivable kind of film print of 2001, from 16mm flat to 35mm internegative to a cherry camera negative 70mm in the screening room at warner bros, and i’m telling you, none of them look as good as a bluray played on an pioneer elite plasma kuro monitor." - steven soderbergh

I wonder how much the studio put in Steven's pocket to say that.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

2001 has been 70MM on home video since MGM did their transfer in the 90s for letterbox LaserDisc. It's just an older transfer on the Blu-ray.





Are you talking about the theatrical or Final Cut? The BD is not bad at all and it's in lossless for the Final Cut.

Yeah for 2001 it's an outdated older transfer on the Blu-ray. At least it uses LPCM which in uncompressed unlike the HD DVD which used a Dolby TrueHD lossless track. Thankfully both used VC-1 instead of MPEG2. (look at that bitrate for the LPCM!)

http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=11865
http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=11877

Could also use an intricately extensive remaster i.e. SPARTACUS, etc.


BLADE RUNNER: The Final Cut disc is fine but was hoping after HD DVD lost the format war WB would've re-released it onto a maxed out BD50, etc. as I mentioned. Just even more detail and a new re-encode for AVC. Since the 5-Disc Ultimate Collection/Edition was a dual/triple format release. I own the HD DVD release of the 5-Disc one and the Limited Edition Briefcase, which I got for Christmas the year it was issued, but the DVD version when I should've gotten the Blu-ray one. Because WB and some other countries had to make do with the BD25 and HD30 releases in 2006-2008 if they released titles on both formats in that timeframe.
My guess is there'll be another release in time for the Anniversary or a mirror release whenever it arrives on UHD.

I'm still gonna buy the UHD Blu disc of this when it's released. But that's in the future and when we'll also be having a UHD sub-forum.

[Bob Kramer]

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 matte paintings. The rest looked good. Has the grain the been scrubbed? I don't remember haloing though. Thanks!

What bothers me the most is the increased resolution allows you to see that the reflective front projection screen material (not matte paintings... almost wish he had done that instead) in the "Dawn Of Man" section are cut into random shapes. Kubrick did this for a technical reason, but I can't recall why. All I know is I've never seen the seams between these shapes on 35mm or VHS or DVD -- only the Blu. I actually wouldn't mind if they digitally fixed those backgrounds.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

At least it uses LPCM which in uncompressed unlike the HD DVD which used a Dolby TrueHD lossless track.

All TrueHD did is take that PCM track and losslessly compress it. It's the same exact track once decoded.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

"by the way, i’ve seen every conceivable kind of film print of 2001, from 16mm flat to 35mm internegative to a cherry camera negative 70mm in the screening room at warner bros, and i’m telling you, none of them look as good as a bluray played on an pioneer elite plasma kuro monitor." - steven soderbergh

Being an average yet highly overrated director is one thing, but what's the reason for him being a blatant liar? Money I guess.

Still : Liar Liar. Pants on Fire

Corrected, Ray.

I had a power cut, and didn't realise the first post went through. When I got back online, I didn't bother to check if the post went through and just made a different post

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Liar Liar. Pants on Fire.

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Being an average yet highly overrated director is one thing, but what's the reason for him being a blatant liar? Money I guess.

Should merge both comments into one post. (I'll be sure to give thanks whenever I get more of them too.)

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Being an average yet highly overrated director is one thing, but what's the reason for him being a blatant liar? Money I guess.

Still : Liar Liar. Pants on Fire

Soderbergh is a moron, and his films are terrible. He's like the teacher's favorite in high school, who gets good grades and is overeager... when history has proven it's the weirdos and losers and invisibles who eventually make the best art.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

Soderbergh is a moron, and his films are terrible. He's like the teacher's favorite in high school, who gets good grades and is overeager

Unfortunately, I have no more "thanks" either.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

What bothers me the most is the increased resolution allows you to see that the reflective front projection screen material (not matte paintings... almost wish he had done that instead) in the "Dawn Of Man" section are cut into random shapes. Kubrick did this for a technical reason, but I can't recall why. All I know is I've never seen the seams between these shapes on 35mm or VHS or DVD -- only the Blu. I actually wouldn't mind if they digitally fixed those backgrounds.

I read that they wanted to 'randomise' the Scotchlite backing instead of having giant straight seams running through it which the camera may have picked up on. It's an artefact that's smoothed out on the lower res home video formats and which appears to be obfuscated by the printing steps needed to create theatrical elements and/or the inherent instability of theatrical projection, but combine a decent element (whether it be 65mm or a pristine 35mm reduction) with Blu-ray res and it makes it all too apparent, in spite of Warners' low bitrate dual format encode.

Still, Soderbergh called out the Blu-ray for that so he can't be all bad...