So, I spoke to Bill Hunt at The Digital Bits via email. I figured if someone might be able to shed light on the absence of a SKU for an HD version, it'd be him. I got the answer surprisingly fast, but didn't want to post it until I asked if he was okay with my spreading the word. He just gave me the thumbs up, so here goes:

Bill said he spoke with Ronnee Sass and Steve Nickerson (two of the senior people at the studio, Ronnee being the executive director of publicity if I'm not mistaken), and they stated that the DVD was coming this year with an HD release "maybe early next year." So, for those of you like me, it's a bitter note when we seemed so close to victory (after begging Warner for what, 10 years for a digital release?).

I'm a bit pissed, really. It's just a movie, but it's a favorite and I feel like Warner has continually sidelined the project and left us in a lurch. I mean, we've been promised the film for years now, and after being told officially that the HD and SD releases would be simultaneous, I feel neglected as a consumer who has supported Warner for years.

My opinion? Let Ronnee know how you feel. Per this (http://www.kenbranagh.com/pic.sass.letter.jpg) letter, her email is Ronnee.Sass@warnerbros.com. I'd shoot her a tasteful, respectful email that explains that you've wanted this movie for quite awhile, and you wish to voice your support for a Blu-Ray version of the film. I'll be doing so myself.

-Corey

and they stated that the DVD was coming this year with an HD release "maybe early next year." So, for those of you like me, it's a bitter note when we seemed so close to victory (after begging Warner for what, 10 years for a digital release?).

I'm a bit pissed, really. It's just a movie, but it's a favorite and I feel like Warner has continually sidelined the project and left us in a lurch. I mean, we've been promised the film for years now, and after being told officially that the HD and SD releases would be simultaneous, I feel neglected as a consumer who has supported Warner for years.

I'm really torn about this. I really don't want to seem spiteful. Honestly, if they're sincere in saying that IT REALLY IS COMING , then I just want to be thankful, not bicker over the release date. But, a large part of me does feel the same way you do... we've been promised this for so long and have been left with very little to show for it. Now, I've cancelled my pre-order on the title, and I'll bide my time for a few months more seeing if the HD SKUs are announced.

They just better not say something like "Well, we decided to cancel the HD versions when the SD versions didn't sell as expected." Then I'll be pissed.

Sure. They say that about all their HD titles that have yet to hit BD. They've said that about Robin Hood, about Casablanca, about Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, etc, etc, and yet, nadda.

I have little faith in Warner living up to their promises in living up to their promises in releasing their "big" titles on BD. Sure, they say they're commited to the format, yet they still don't even optimize fully for bandwidth, or give us lossless audio tracks all the time. Meh.

I'll email for what little good it will do us.

Sure. They say that about all their HD titles that have yet to hit BD. They've said that about Robin Hood, about Casablanca, about Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, etc, etc, and yet, nadda.

I have little faith in Warner living up to their promises in living up to their promises in releasing their "big" titles on BD. Sure, they say they're commited to the format, yet they still don't even optimize fully for bandwidth, or give us lossless audio tracks all the time. Meh.

I'll email for what little good it will do us.

Well, they did say the HD release of Hamlet on either format wasn't coming until next year, so...

-Corey

What is with all the malcontents among us? I mean for cryin' out loud does anyone stop and think before typing? These formats have been available for barely one year. I find it laughable that people expect their whole damn wishlist to materialize on Blu-ray or HD DVD immediately. Patience is a virtue. I've been waiting for Hamlet along with a long list of other films to get to DVD let alone high definition.

I find it laughable that people expect their whole damn wishlist to materialize on Blu-ray or HD DVD immediately.

Hm...Okay, you obviously didn't hear the part where Warner told us the Blu-Ray version was coming out simultaneously with the DVD version. You're right, it's so wrong of me to...err, trust the company in charge of the release O_o;;;

-Corey

Read the Videoscan numbers and see what the customers are buying (and not buying).

We have a lot of film fans here, people who appreciate quality, but this just does not translate yet into large enough volumes to justify titles of this kind. Branagh's Hamlet is a wonderful film but something of a specialty item that isn't going to sell enough to justify its release right now.

Harkening back to my favorite issue, we need to shut down the format war in order to increase overall adoption to the point where titles like this will be viable.

Harkening back to my favorite issue, we need to shut down the format war in order to increase overall adoption to the point where titles like this will be viable.

Agreed. Getting titles like this on HDM means far more to me than hypothetical player prices.

i just got an email from amazon saying the preoder is up. $23.99. no date listed yet.

If they leave the Transfer alone I am in :)

So this is Kenneth Branagh's version we're talking about, going off the OP. Maybe WB figured it was too niche a catalog title to get BD treatment, I dunno...

I thought it was Branagh's version we were talking about, I have the UK dvd but BRD was made for 70mm

Not only is the pre-order up on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Blu-ray-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B000Q7ZNDG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1271268525&sr=8-1), but it has official cover art. Looks like it'll be one of the book releases. I'm all over this one (and yes, it's Branagh's Hamlet, which is the best version put to film, IMO). It's actually two dollars cheaper than the 2-disc DVD.

Even though there's no release date, I went ahead and ordered.

Hilarious, I was just discussing this film with my ex-wife the other day. Quite possibly the only film I have seen in the theatre with an intermission half way through it.

Excited to see it is coming out soon. I'll be picking this one up.

KT

Not only is the pre-order up on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Blu-ray-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B000Q7ZNDG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1271268525&sr=8-1), but it has official cover art. Looks like it'll be one of the book releases. I'm all over this one (and yes, it's Branagh's Hamlet, which is the best version put to film, IMO). It's actually two dollars cheaper than the 2-disc DVD.

Even though there's no release date, I went ahead and ordered.

Fantastic I hope it is mastered from a 70mm print, and Warner dont mess with it

Best Hamlet version ever! i waited years for the dvd release.Now waiting 2 years for this Bluray! Bring it ON!

August 17th is the date. This better look pretty! Please don't F it up Warner.

The David Tenant version (Patrick Stewart as Claudius) has just been released on BBC blu-ray. If not as sumptuous it's certainly dramatically more appealing than Brannagh's rather shouty version. It is also a clean, beautiful, sharp and enticing blu-ray (1080i).

Fantastic I hope it is mastered from a 70mm print, and Warner dont mess with it

Did you really think so... ;)


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hamlet-Blu-ray/10381/#Review

****sticks

bluray.com says its DNR'd to hell...i don't even feel like renting it...

Bah, I'm still getting it.

Hmph. How many chances do you get to see a 70mm film transplanted to Blu-ray? Warner should be slapped around a little for not taking this transfer a bit more seriously.

3/5? Sounds like Warner blew a potentially amazing looking blu-ray... well, guess I'll hold out hope the screen-caps tell a different story :(

So this is Kenneth Branagh's version we're talking about, going off the OP. ..Oh, I was hoping it was from Ambroise Thomas. :rolleyes:

Sounds very disappointing. I've got it pre-ordered and sold off my DVD in anticipation. I didn't foresee any video problems since the DVD looked great. It'd be a shame if this is true since Warners is pretty consistent quality wise and supposedly forked over a good deal to create the HD master a few years back.

Are the studios taking turns botching these Blu-ray versions of large format movies?
Fox-Patton
Universal-Spartacus
Warner-Hamlet

I'll be getting this anyway as I never bought the DVD and I love this film. Warner usually does a pretty good job so It definitely sucks to hear this got the DNR treatment. It doesn't sound like it's Predator/Patton bad so "DNR'd to hell" is a bit of an overstatement after I read the review. It's still a major disappointment as this film could have looked magnificent on Blu-ray. I'll be seeing it next week and judge for myself. Hopefully it's not as bad as it sounds. Wouldn't be the first time these things were blown out of proportion from people who haven't seen the disc.

I'll be getting this anyway as I never bought the DVD and I love this film. Warner usually does a pretty good job so It definitely sucks to hear this got the DNR treatment. It doesn't sound like it's Predator/Patton bad so "DNR'd to hell" is a bit of an overstatement after I read the review. It's still a major disappointment as this film could have looked magnificent on Blu-ray. I'll be seeing it next week and judge for myself. Hopefully it's not as bad as it sounds. Wouldn't be the first time these things were blown out of proportion from people who haven't seen the disc.
Things are always blown out of proportion for people who are watching on small enough televisions from a long ways away. Patton looked fine, if not great, to those people. I'm sure Hamlet will too.

Things are always blown out of proportion for people who are watching on small enough televisions from a long ways away. Patton looked fine, if not great, to those people. I'm sure Hamlet will too.

Just like I said, blown out of proportion. I'm assuming you haven't even seen it yet, or even screen caps, but you're already comparing this to Patton. I'm not doubting that the disc has DNR problems after reading the review, and it's a shame that this has happened to yet another 70mm film, but not every DNR'd disc looks like Patton/Predator. That's all I'm saying. Let's not pretend hyperbole doesn't exist in the Internet.

If it looks like Patton, I'll be relieved, frankly. If it's some rotten old scan from a 35mm blow-down, and WB's doing the compression on a 4-hour movie, I suspect it could look considerably worse :eek:

I really don't think some of you get what goes on with these 4 hour discs. Notably, on the BD50 format, there is simply no way you are going to get a transfer with all film grain intact. The bitrate will be skimmed giving the appearance of a soft picture by DNR or whatever other means to keep the bitrate low to fit. 4 hours of film simply does not fit well on the BD format with multiple audio tracks and whatever else they are adding. We are looking at a 15mbps transfer here people knowing Warner and there refusal to even max the disc out. If it was barebones it might be able to get somewhere around 22mbps but I highly doubt Warner would grace us with this. If this suits you then fine but I implore all of you except the most dogged to skip it and wait for the inevitable BD128 or whatever it is. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be double dipped once again. It is a matter of time. You might as well just save your money as it looks like the color timing is not done very well, either.

Warner needs to switch to AVC, and this should have been a two disc release.
Warner being their usual cheap selves is the problem here, not the lengh of the movie

Even if it was not Warner, any company would have trouble fitting a 75mm master on one BD50 properly with extras and such. Saving Private Ryan showed us that if you go barebones it is possible for longer films to max bitrate dynamically with great compression jobs but we are talking 1 hour and change more than that film in audio and video and we are talking Warner. It simply is not possible to get all that detail with a 22mbps transfer and that is about all they could do. Currently, it is my opinion that BD50's are simply not enough for 4 hour films on one disc but this is coming from someone who refuses to buy anything encoded at less than 27mbps.

On another note I thought SPR was 37mb average but it turns out it is 27mb. But it was very dynamic and at times it was maxing my counter on the PS3. Still, I feel the way I do and nothing will change that. Film grain is hard to capture intact and I just don't think Hamlet will do it for me. In fact, I don't invest in much on this current bluray format as I know we will get bludgeoned with the 128's soon enough. Let's be honest, there are plenty of films that will most likely look no better on a better format on our 40 and 50 inch TV's at a 5 feet distance. My 42 local dimmer is all I will have for some time so that is how I judge these films. But Hamlet, again, is not one of these.

Er as I said TWO disc release........
Also 70mm grain is super fine anyway, and Iwould not rely on the PS3 Bit rate counter

Exactly, super fine meaning even harder to render. 75mm has quite a bit more detail than 35mm. I agree on the two disc but we simply don't see that happening anymore. I guess if it stays around 25mb I could be happy. I don't mean to be too picky it really does depend on the compression job but then again I see too many criterions above 30mb and even films like Requiem for a Dream above 30. It gets to me because DVD was so double dipped and now it appears to be the same thing all over again. And DVD had better packaging for christ. I have never had a problem with the PS3 bitrate counter. It seems to be accurate for all the films I have compared to DVD beaver. Why would you think it was not accurate? Because it is a PS3? It is still one of the best Bluray multimedia machines around.

I'd like to see it first, but it sounds like another large-format film bites the dust. What is it with them that something or other so often seems to be wrong?

The score so far?

2001 - Not bad but could probably have looked much better
Baraka - Good new transfer but slightly overprocessed
El Cid - See Patton
The Fall of the Roman Empire - See Patton
Hamlet - ???
How the West Was Won - Great
In the Realm of the Senses - Old master?
The Leopard - Old master (even when a new restoration existed)
The Music Man - Pretty good
North by Northwest - Good new transfer but slightly overprocessed
Patton - Or How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate the Grain
The Pink Panther - Great
Play Time - Crummy old master (from 35mm no less)
South Pacific - Great
Sleeping Beauty - Doesn't really count
Spartacus - Crummy old master + Madame Tussauds
Vengeance Is Mine - Not good, fake grain/noise?
Zulu - Madame Tussauds

I'd like to see it first, but it sounds like another large-format film bites the dust. What is it with them that something or other so often seems to be wrong?

The score so far?

2001 - Not bad but could probably have looked much better
Baraka - Good new transfer but slightly overprocessed
El Cid - See Patton
The Fall of the Roman Empire - See Patton
Hamlet - ???
How the West Was Won - Great
In the Realm of the Senses - Old master?
The Leopard - Old master (even when a new restoration existed)
The Music Man - Pretty good
North by Northwest - Good new transfer but slightly overprocessed
Patton - Or How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate the Grain
The Pink Panther - Great
Play Time - Crummy old master (from 35mm no less)
South Pacific - Great
Sleeping Beauty - Doesn't really count
Spartacus - Crummy old master + Madame Tussauds
Vengeance Is Mine - Not good, fake grain/noise?
Zulu - Madame Tussauds

Thanks for saving me some time as I was jut thinking about making a "the story so far..." post :) It seems that substandard treatment is almost mandatory for large format movies - the mindset sometimes seems to be "how can we make this look really bad or at best mediocre". Ok I am kidding but overall the results are startingly bad for movies that have the potential to look so good.

There just two movies that you forgot:

The Searchers: Looking really good and imo together with The Music Man Warners best large format effort so far

Battle of the Bulge - problems with both EE and DNR and simply not up to current standards.

There are also two titles that Warner only released on HD-DVD: Grand Prix which was a nice effort although maybe the low bitrate might have cost the ultimate in detail and then Mutiny on the Bounty which was just way too soft - Warner will have to revisit that one.

Exactly, super fine meaning even harder to render. 75mm has quite a bit more detail than 35mm. I agree on the two disc but we simply don't see that happening anymore. I guess if it stays around 25mb I could be happy. I don't mean to be too picky it really does depend on the compression job but then again I see too many criterions above 30mb and even films like Requiem for a Dream above 30. It gets to me because DVD was so double dipped and now it appears to be the same thing all over again. And DVD had better packaging for christ. I have never had a problem with the PS3 bitrate counter. It seems to be accurate for all the films I have compared to DVD beaver. Why would you think it was not accurate? Because it is a PS3? It is still one of the best Bluray multimedia machines around.
The bitrate argument got old during the format war, and really doesn't make a lot of sense for most releases. We have been told that the grainier movies are harder to compress, thus requiring a higher bitrate. Here we have the opposite, and it still requires the higher bitrate? I thought we had seen enough great looking releases at lower bitrates to mostly kill off this argument. Plus Hamlet requires fewer bits due to its 2.20:1 aspect ratio. It's too bad that the Warner compressionist was removed from this forum during the format war, or we might know a lot more about this area.

Plus we don't know whether the filtering was even done to make the compression easier. They removed the detail from Patton (and probably others) because they thought it looked better that way. It could be the same situation with Hamlet. We also have heard that Hamlet was worked on a couple years ago, about the same time that the work was done on Patton.

It's a bit frustrating that there were no actual caps for that review. Usually, the blu-ray.com reviews will give you full size screen caps. Heck, I signed up for an account there purely to get the full 1080p images from those reviews.

It's a bit frustrating that there were no actual caps for that review. Usually, the blu-ray.com reviews will give you full size screen caps. Heck, I signed up for an account there purely to get the full 1080p images from those reviews.
As I recall Warner Brothers whined about the screenshots after the LotR debacle so blu-ray.com were no longer allowed to post anything but "approved images" in reviews of their discs. Though oddly enough quite a few WB titles seem to have slipped through since then anyway, like The Losers and Cop Out.

It's a bit frustrating that there were no actual caps for that review. Usually, the blu-ray.com reviews will give you full size screen caps. Heck, I signed up for an account there purely to get the full 1080p images from those reviews.
Didn't they get into trouble with Warner over the caps for FOTR? Also the same reviewer.

I'd like to see it first, but it sounds like another large-format film bites the dust. What is it with them that something or other so often seems to be wrong?

The score so far?

2001 - Not bad but could probably have looked much better
Baraka - Good new transfer but slightly overprocessed
El Cid - See Patton
The Fall of the Roman Empire - See Patton
Hamlet - ???
How the West Was Won - Great
In the Realm of the Senses - Old master?
The Leopard - Old master (even when a new restoration existed)
The Music Man - Pretty good
North by Northwest - Good new transfer but slightly overprocessed
Patton - Or How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate the Grain
The Pink Panther - Great
Play Time - Crummy old master (from 35mm no less)
South Pacific - Great
Sleeping Beauty - Doesn't really count
Spartacus - Crummy old master + Madame Tussauds
Vengeance Is Mine - Not good, fake grain/noise?
Zulu - Madame Tussauds

The New World (in Part) EE and a digital look

The New World (in Part) EE and a digital look

What percentage of the final movie was shot 65mm?
I only had a peek so far as it looked indeed rather digital and edgy which is unfortunate. Hopefully this will be revisited at some point.

As parts of The Dark Knight, The International and Shutter Island were also shot large format and effect shots for many movies have been done in VistaVision for decades we also would have to include these if we include The New World. I think it would be better to only look at movies where more than 50% of the actual film is shot large format both for practical purposes and as by definition a movie shot mostly in 35mm cannot really be called a large format movie ;)

Review with 1080p screen captures:

http://www.blu-raydefinition.com/reviews/hamlet-1996-blu-ray-book-review.html

The image looks better then what I feared, but it does appear to have been softened somewhat to wipe out the high frequency detail and presumably make it fit on the disc. Almost no sign of EE halos and no DNR waxy faces ala Star Trek IV & VI. This is not a disaster by any means, just slightly disappointing.

There's also a review up at hometheaterforum. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/303052/htf-blu-ray-review-hamlet-1996

It's disappointing that some DNR was applied. This is no Patton or Star Trek 6 though. Not even remotely close judging from the grabs. What I spectacular image this could have been if done correctly. I'm glad I kept my pre-order though. Never saw the film in theaters and always wanted a copy on home video. Should be a big improvement over the first time I saw the film. A fullscreen VHS!

It looks a little soft, but it doesn't scream 'DNR!' to me. It's a pity that some people don't appear able to discern the difference, instead relying on the DNR boogeyman to explain any perceived shortcomings in the PQ. Look at those close-ups of Branagh; they're quite beautiful IMO. Looks like there's some chromatic aberration there too, like in the two-shot of Branagh and Winslet with the camera facing down the hallway. Could be the long lens, could be the result of a poorer-than-expected large format transfer (remember the wayward colour registration on the 65mm transfer of Ben Hur?).

Robert Harris has said many times before that the current state of large format telecine equipment isn't all that great, which is why Warners have used reductions for some large-format HD transfers. High-res 6K/8K scans are the best thing for a film of this gauge obviously, but it would be an extremely expensive endeavour for a catalogue movie that, in this case, won't exactly fly off the shelves.

That's not to say that Warners shouldn't do it, but with the current economic situation, and plenty of money already spent on restoring their bona fide classics I can understand why the boat wasn't pushed out for Hamlet.

I'll judge it for myself in a week or so's time when my copy arrives.

It looks a little soft, but it doesn't scream 'DNR!' to me. It's a pity that some people don't appear able to discern the difference, instead relying on the DNR boogeyman to explain any perceived shortcomings in the PQ. Look at those close-ups of Branagh; they're quite beautiful IMO. Looks like there's some chromatic aberration there too, like in the two-shot of Branagh and Winslet with the camera facing down the hallway. Could be the long lens, could be the result of a poorer-than-expected large format transfer (remember the wayward colour registration on the 65mm transfer of Ben Hur?).
Nooooooooo... There's obvious and blatant DNR at play in those screenshots.

Those screenshots don't scream DNR to me... obviously there'd be almost no grain on a 35mm reduction of a modern 65mm film stock, and if the transfer is really soft as well, then it'll just look sorta textureless.
DNR or not, looks pretty mediocre... the resolution just ain't there.

I'm not seeing a DNR issue in the shots. It does look soft.

Those screenshots don't scream DNR to me... obviously there'd be almost no grain on a 35mm reduction of a modern 65mm film stock, and if the transfer is really soft as well, then it'll just look sorta textureless.
DNR or not, looks pretty mediocre... the resolution just ain't there.

A 35mm reduction would have some grain as the grain comes with the 35mm elements, a 65mm scan should have more detail.

The visible resolution is therefore a bit disappointing especially after having seen what is possible in this department with the recent catalog title Gladiator. Hard to imagine that a movie shot Super 35 should look more detailed on Blu-Ray than the last movie that was shot completely in 65mm.

And what's with the pinkish skin tones? It looks horrible, but I will reserve judgement on this until I see the disc.

To be fair this does not look like a failure but just like a typical Warner title - not really bad but most certainly not spectacular either and therefore falling short of what I would have expected from such a lavish production.

Does not look like DNR at all, it looks like a normal Warner filtered bitstarved mess of an encode

Does not look like DNR at all, it looks like a normal Warner filtered bitstarved mess of an encode

Yup!

Looks good to me. Nothing stellar, but certainly not the travesty early reviews made it out to be.

And what's with the pinkish skin tones? It looks horrible, but I will reserve judgement on this until I see the disc.
I don't remember where every last speck of grain was, but I do remember that people did indeed have a decidedly pink look to them when I saw this at the cinema (not 70mm, sadly).

A 35mm reduction would have some grain as the grain comes with the 35mm elements, a 65mm scan should have more detail.

The visible resolution is therefore a bit disappointing especially after having seen what is possible in this department with the recent catalog title Gladiator. Hard to imagine that a movie shot Super 35 should look more detailed on Blu-Ray than the last movie that was shot completely in 65mm.

That is the crux of the matter. A film shot in 65mm simply possesses more resolution than 35mm film. Something has gone horribly wrong when the detail and resolution are less than impressive on the Blu-ray. Warner's standard compression-encoding practices did not help the situation either with Hamlet. The movie should have probably been split over two discs, though I know the studios are loathe to do that even when necessary.

Looks good to me. Nothing stellar, but certainly not the travesty early reviews made it out to be.

Nothing Stellar is what the problem is - if the last movie shot in 65mm does not look stellar anymore there is something wrong with its Blu-Ray version.

I for one have no clue what the guy a couple posts above is going on about bitrate. AS IF you can just leave a bitrate low and expect the transfer to be great on ANY FILM. The finer the grain on the film stock the more bitrate you need in every shot to actually make it look acceptable, unless you scrub the grain. Just because the film is not grain heavy means nothing. It is Detail heavy, and any release like this must be treated with care. But anybody who knows anything about film realizes this cannot properly fit on a BD50. Gone With The Wind was riddled with terrible compression artifacts when it went anywhere near the 10mbps threshold, and it did this more than enough in the second half, and this will be just the same as it is even longer. And like I said rent but do not buy if you want to support film. This film's red tint already destroyed my opinion before I could watch it. Poorly treated masterpiece. OH WELL.

YOU GUY'S DO REALIZE THIS FILM WILL BE BITRATE STARVED FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE FILM? IT IS 4 HOURS LONG!

Bitrate starved means details will be missing!

They really should have split the film over two bd-50s

Off topic here but has anyone seen the 1940's Hamlet? I was thiking about adding it to my UK Amazon import order.

Thanks,
Tom

I for one have no clue what the guy a couple posts above is going on about bitrate. AS IF you can just leave a bitrate low and expect the transfer to be great on ANY FILM. The finer the grain on the film stock the more bitrate you need in every shot to actually make it look acceptable, unless you scrub the grain. Just because the film is not grain heavy means nothing. It is Detail heavy, and any release like this must be treated with care. But anybody who knows anything about film realizes this cannot properly fit on a BD50. Gone With The Wind was riddled with terrible compression artifacts when it went anywhere near the 10mbps threshold, and it did this more than enough in the second half, and this will be just the same as it is even longer. And like I said rent but do not buy if you want to support film. This film's red tint already destroyed my opinion before I could watch it. Poorly treated masterpiece. OH WELL.

YOU GUY'S DO REALIZE THIS FILM WILL BE BITRATE STARVED FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE FILM? IT IS 4 HOURS LONG!

Bitrate starved means details will be missing!
So did you think that detail was missing from the HD DVD of Grand Prix? That was 176 minutes, and as Oliver K. pointed out on another forum it only took up about 21 gigs.

Who cares if it's bitrate starved when the detail's been sucked out enough to make the bitrate inconsequential?

Off topic here but has anyone seen the 1940's Hamlet?

Yup. Great movie but heavily cut, and B&W, if that bothers you.

So did you think that detail was missing from the HD DVD of Grand Prix? That was 176 minutes, and as Oliver K. pointed out on another forum it only took up about 21 gigs.

I would think that with an optimized encode, some trickery with the audio and using all available space more detail could be retained even on one BD50. Grand Prix gets by with an even lower bit budget but on the other hand Grand Prix is not really maxed out with regard to detail and textures either (look for the HD-DVD thread for a comparison with a 70mm frame).

There would however be no extras and one would have to be very careful with the audio tracks so I think that a single BD50 and an additonal BD25 would be good to cover all bases and still allow for some extras with a bit budget that already can be considered high for Warner (think HTWWW in the low twenties).

It has been suggested to handle this with a forced intermission break and I think this would work out well with the BD25 handling the shorter second part of the movie and the BD50 holding the longer first part and the extras.

This would be the cheaper way to split between two discs and of course two BD50 would be even better, but then we are talking about Warner here and they do not really like those high bitrates and probably would not use more than 70 gigs anyway ;)

Disappointing. The MTF should be significantly higher from a modern 70mm source than it is on this BD.

Disappointing. The MTF should be significantly higher from a modern 70mm source than it is on this BD.

I think it will be interesting to compare this to the new Gladiator release - one might easily be mistaken when guessing the movie that was shot 65mm based on what can be seen on screen :)

Disappointing. The MTF should be significantly higher from a modern 70mm source than it is on this BD.

Why can't this look like Baraka? Even with it's slight EE on the Baraka release it looks way better in screencaps I've seen here on the forum in comparison to Hamlet. I mean both were shot on 70mm.

Why can't this look like Baraka? Even with it's slight EE on the Baraka release it looks way better in screencaps I've seen here on the forum in comparison to Hamlet. I mean both were shot on 70mm.

Running times of 96 minutes vs 242 minutes.

Why can't this look like Baraka? Even with it's slight EE on the Baraka release it looks way better in screencaps I've seen here on the forum in comparison to Hamlet. I mean both were shot on 70mm.
Doesn't mean it was transferred from 70mm at high quality. As we've seem from releases like the original Gladiator vs. the remastered one, the quality of the original source doesn't matter much if your transfer is lousy. Fancy scanners that handle film that size are not very common, I hear. And Baraka took 3 weeks to scan. I guess the expense of actually remastering this from the 65mm negatives was too great.

Doesn't mean it was transferred from 70mm at high quality. As we've seem from releases like the original Gladiator vs. the remastered one, the quality of the original source doesn't matter much if your transfer is lousy. Fancy scanners that handle film that size are not very common, I hear. And Baraka took 3 weeks to scan. I guess the expense of actually remastering this from the 65mm negatives was too great.
Then don't release it until costs have come down. Warner has been known to spend a lot of money on restoration AND scanning of some of the older movies in its catalog, but Hamlet, one of a handful of movies shot in 70mm in the last thirty years, doesn't warrant the expenditure? An indie company can spend money on a release like Baraka, but Warner can't spend money on Hamlet?

Off topic here but has anyone seen the 1940's Hamlet?

Yup. Great movie but heavily cut, and B&W, if that bothers you.

Thanks for your input.:) I love B&W 4x3 films so I will import this for sure.

Tom

Then don't release it until costs have come down. Warner has been known to spend a lot of money on restoration AND scanning of some of the older movies in its catalog, but Hamlet, one of a handful of movies shot in 70mm in the last thirty years, doesn't warrant the expenditure? An indie company can spend money on a release like Baraka, but Warner can't spend money on Hamlet?

There are 3 other 70mm releases to HD so far from Warner that are not exactly pulling out all the stops kind of releases:

Battle of the Bulge
Mutiny on the Bounty (only HD-DVD)
Grand Prix (only HD-DVD)

So this isn't a new way of doing things for Warner and because of the cinematography especially Mutiny on the Bounty could have looked extremely good instead of just Ok.

So I would also prefer for them to get things right as frankly I do not derive much pleasure from seeing a 70mm movie brought to Blu-Ray in suboptimal (within reason) quality - give us half the number of movies with very good quality instead of the current numbers with so-so releases and I will be much happier.

Regarding Baraka: This was not as expensive as one might think because:

- Baraka is a rather short movie and as a rule a 2 hour movie costs much less to prepare than a 4 hour movie with everything else being equal

- there was no restoration needed

- a wetgate IP was struck and scanned and it is cheaper to work from that than from the negative, the MTF will not be as high though due to generational loss from the negative to the IP

Then don't release it until costs have come down. Warner has been known to spend a lot of money on restoration AND scanning of some of the older movies in its catalog, but Hamlet, one of a handful of movies shot in 70mm in the last thirty years, doesn't warrant the expenditure? An indie company can spend money on a release like Baraka, but Warner can't spend money on Hamlet?I remember reading back when the DVD came out in 2007 that Warners had already spent a good amount doing it the first time, but that was 3-4 years ago. Maybe it's not an issue with the scanning?

There are 3 other 70mm releases to HD so far from Warner that are not exactly pulling out all the stops kind of releases:

Battle of the Bulge
Mutiny on the Bounty (only HD-DVD)
Grand Prix (only HD-DVD)

So this isn't a new way of doing things for Warner and because of the cinematography especially Mutiny on the Bounty could have looked extremely good instead of just Ok.

So I would also prefer for them to get things right as frankly I do not derive much pleasure from seeing a 70mm movie brought to Blu-Ray in suboptimal (within reason) quality - give us half the number of movies with very good quality instead of the current numbers with so-so releases and I will be much happier.

Regarding Baraka: This was not as expensive as one might think because:

- Baraka is a rather short movie and as a rule a 2 hour movie costs much less to prepare than a 4 hour movie with everything else being equal

- there was no restoration needed

- a wetgate IP was struck and scanned and it is cheaper to work from that than from the negative, the MTF will not be as high though due to generational loss from the negative to the IP

Presumably there was no restoration needed for Hamlet. Also, those three Warner examples are already dated in terms of what was commonly done then and what is commonly done now. Or at least, that seems to be what the experts have to say about this area. I recall RAH back during the HD DVD days talking about the lack of quality 70mm scanning. That area has improved, which I think he has acknowledged.

Running times of 96 minutes vs 242 minutes.

Just because a movie is longer it shouldn't be penalized. If studios have this attitude towards longer films, that they must fit only on one dual layer BD, then it is a step in the wrong direction. Obviously the fact that it was dnr'd as well doesn't help matters, but I'm just stating the obvious.

Presumably there was no restoration needed for Hamlet. Also, those three Warner examples are already dated in terms of what was commonly done then and what is commonly done now. Or at least, that seems to be what the experts have to say about this area. I recall RAH back during the HD DVD days talking about the lack of quality 70mm scanning. That area has improved, which I think he has acknowledged.

I am aware that Hamlet is not in need of a restoration or at least it shouldn't be if the negative was handled and stroed properly. I just wanted to point out that it was relatively inexpensive to bring Baraka to Blu-Ray.

Of course now there is the option for 8k scanning and back then good 4k scanning was possible but this is not of much help if it isn't used or the resultant file handled improperly. Even back then it would have been possible to get better results but it seems that there was a good enough mentality back then and the same mentality might still prevail today.