The Ten Commandments 4K UHD (1956)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by thebarnman

Ok cool, so that means we are not loosing any information on the sides due to the image being enlarged to fit horizontally. We are simply seeing a little bit more on the top and bottom than what was originally projected in the theatre.

Yes, not losing any side information except on the occasional release like Once Upon A Time in America.

And it's literally a few scanlines of extra info we're getting, not like the terrible full frame/fullscreen versions we'd get on VHS or DVD that occasionally revealed things like boom mikes, actor marks & cabling on the floor, or the source of Pee Wee's infamous endless bike lock chain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iD-UoBg-YU&t=2s

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes, not losing any side information except on the occasional release like Once Upon A Time in America.

And it's literally a few scanlines of extra info we're getting, not like the terrible full frame/fullscreen versions we'd get on VHS or DVD that occasionally revealed things like boom mikes, actor marks & cabling on the floor, or the source of Pee Wee's infamous endless bike lock chain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iD-UoBg-YU&t=2s

Funny, I never knew about how Pee Wee's bike chain was played out in full frame video.

Just curious, do you know how much information is missing on Once Upon A Time in America and was there a reason for it to be cut off?

I see there's two versions, one (a directors cut) at 1.85:1 and another at 1.78:1 (16x9.) Are you saying in that other version when opened up to to 1.78:1 it was blown up somewhat to fill the 16x9 screen? If so then yes, a little bit of info would be cut off.

[samuelkhan999]

Just received my Zavvi 4k steelbook today (ordered it 2 days ago. A miracle after the fact that all parcels and post are getting delayed due to RoyalMail strike). Zavvi has offered me a new steelbook and asked me to keep the damaged one as a goodwill gesture.

[UnionJackMix]

There's a French steelbook out today according to the new items listing but no pre-order, also the cover used here can't be correct? Does anyone have more info? It's likely going to be the same as the other versions around?

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by UnionJackMix

There's a French steelbook out today according to the new items listing but no pre-order, also the cover used here can't be correct? Does anyone have more info? It's likely going to be the same as the other versions around?

It's the 2021 steelbook, Amazon France had it up by mistake with a placeholder Jan 2023 release date, before it took it down and made the correct listing.

It remained on this site's database with that release date, when it should've been deleted.

[sa5150]

Is the old 20's film worthwhile ? Really wanted a slip (it's gorgeous for this massive movie ) for the standard 4k but there not available anymore . I dislike steel books but might have to .

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by thebarnman

Funny, I never knew about how Pee Wee's bike chain was played out in full frame video.

Just curious, do you know how much information is missing on Once Upon A Time in America and was there a reason for it to be cut off?

I see there's two versions, one (a directors cut) at 1.85:1 and another at 1.78:1 (16x9.) Are you saying in that other version when opened up to to 1.78:1 it was blown up somewhat to fill the 16x9 screen? If so then yes, a little bit of info would be cut off.

The reason for the aspect ratio difference is that the 3 1/2 hour cut is a mid-2000s master from Warner at 1.78:1 while the extended cut is 1.85:1 because it's a straight port of the 4K restoration.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

The reason for the aspect ratio difference is that the 3 1/2 hour cut is a mid-2000s master from Warner at 1.78:1 while the extended cut is 1.85:1 because it's a straight port of the 4K restoration.

Warners’ own UK/US BD of the extended cut *is* in 1.78 though, which was done not by opening the mattes as per usual but by cropping the sides: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...134194&i=0&l=0 (note that their Italian BD of the extended cut was in 1.85 but it’s a very poor encode).

That’s what Pete is referring to

[snipemonkey]

Originally Posted by sa5150

Is the old 20's film worthwhile ? Really wanted a slip (it's gorgeous for this massive movie ) for the standard 4k but there not available anymore . I dislike steel books but might have to .

Absolutely! It's pretty impressive for a silent era epic and the commentary alone is worth it.

Now, will I be watching it again any time soon? No, but I'm glad to have seen it and, just from a silent film history perspective it's 100% value for money.

P.S. The lazy steelbook art is really sad, though. That original poster art on the regular 4K is irreplaceable.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by snipemonkey

Absolutely! It's pretty impressive for a silent era epic and the commentary alone is worth it.

Now, will I be watching it again any time soon? No, but I'm glad to have seen it and, just from a silent film history perspective it's 100% value for money.

P.S. The lazy steelbook art is really sad, though. That original poster art on the regular 4K is irreplaceable.

I love the standard art (my fave for this one), but the steel is made with elements from the art of one of the original posters as well.

[snipemonkey]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I love the standard art (my fave for this one), but the steel is made with elements from the art of one of the original posters as well.

It still be ugly (IMO).

[panasonicst60]

Is the steelbook 1923 movie the same exact disc as prior release?

[BenjaminG]

Hi all, I finally got around to watching this 4K release over Easter and hoping someone more knowledgeable about the film than I can answer a question.

The various dissolves look spectacular and show no evidence of going back a generation to a dupe negative, as was standard practice in the 1950's. Does this suggest that these have been rebuilt, or is the higher resolution VistaVision negative making the dissolves transparent?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by BenjaminG

Hi all, I finally got around to watching this 4K release over Easter and hoping someone more knowledgeable about the film than I can answer a question.

The various dissolves look spectacular and show no evidence of going back a generation to a dupe negative, as was standard practice in the 1950's. Does this suggest that these have been rebuilt, or is the higher resolution VistaVision negative making the dissolves transparent?

I would imagine they were digitally rebuilt from scratch to emulate the original dissolves without the generational resolution loss inherent in optical printing.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BenjaminG

Hi all, I finally got around to watching this 4K release over Easter and hoping someone more knowledgeable about the film than I can answer a question.

The various dissolves look spectacular and show no evidence of going back a generation to a dupe negative, as was standard practice in the 1950's. Does this suggest that these have been rebuilt, or is the higher resolution VistaVision negative making the dissolves transparent?

Good eye. VistaVision shows were originally cut to A/B rolls to allow for fades and dissolves to be done from 1st generation negative, with one shot on one roll and the following shot on another roll. When printing to a subsequent single-strand element (IP) for a dissolve they exposed the first shot (A) onto the receiving stock and turned down the printer lights in doing so, then rewound the receiving stock and exposed the second shot (B) whilst turning the printer lights up. So simple, but so effective. And for a fade to/from black they just took the one shot and turned the printer lights down/up accordingly. So no nasty opticalses, precious. The same goes for 65mm movies as well, they were typically rolled to A/B or auto select (a single-strand version of the process created by Technicolor).

When you do the home video transfer from that original A/B negative then the completed fades and dissolves aren't built into that element like they would on the IP, so you must newly re-encode the fades and dissolves digitally. This is why they can sometimes be missing from a new transfer of the negative, like with the 4K remaster of 2001:ASO. They've not been "rebuilt" in the conventional sense (as in, newly transferring the camera trims to replace old opticals) because the negative was always conformed like this, but you could look at it that way.

HTH

[ilenewoodsfan99]

I got my copy of the 4K last night (along with several others), and I'm really looking forward to watching it! Glad to finally donate the blu ray with the plastic looking Charlton Heston

[BenjaminG]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They've not been "rebuilt" in the conventional sense (as in, newly transferring the camera trims to replace old opticals) because the negative was always conformed like this, but you could look at it that way.

Thanks for the detailed response, Geoff. When I asked, was secretly hoping you'd respond

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And it's literally a few scanlines of extra info we're getting, not like the terrible full frame/fullscreen versions we'd get on VHS or DVD that occasionally revealed things like boom mikes, actor marks & cabling on the floor, or the source of Pee Wee's infamous endless bike lock chain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iD-UoBg-YU&t=2s

VistaVision could accomodate for a variety of aspect ratios as the negative was 1.50:1. It could be shown matted to anything in the range from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 in 1956.

In 1972 they killed this movie transferring it to 35mm anamorphic scope prints!

I consider the "full frame" 1.78:1 ratio the correct choice for a movie like this in home video today

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

VistaVision could accomodate for a variety of aspect ratios as the negative was 1.50:1. It could be shown matted to anything in the range from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 in 1956.

In 1972 they killed this movie transferring it to 35mm anamorphic scope prints!

I consider the "full frame" 1.78:1 ratio the correct choice for a movie like this in home video today

In the scope print version, was more of the 1.50:1 used? Areas that was not meant to be seen?

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by thebarnman

In the scope print version, was more of the 1.50:1 used? Areas that was not meant to be seen?

Anamorphic 35mm is 2.39:1, they cropped the hell out of it...