Keaton & Chaplin -- DVD vs Laserdisc (1 Viewer)

[Ken Horowitz]

Exactly (sorry if I wasn't clear earlier). I have all the Kino laserdiscs, and I'm wondering whether the DVDs were from new transfers, better elements, etc.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Patrick, do you have the Warner discs? If so I'm certainly not seeing what you are. I've seen those screencaps and to me they are a joke as are all screencaps because everyone's system is going to show something different. On my HD set these films look nothing like those images posted. On another board someone took a screencap of the exact same image and it looked different than the cap shown above.

If you check the original threads even David Shepard came out and said the Warner discs looked better.

As for silent speed, I guess this too is all up in the air and different theaters probably showed them at different speeds. The Kino Edison set has some talk about this and how they decided which speed to release the films at.

 

[Matt Stieg]

They look better simply because they're from new restorations by MK2. While the Image discs don't look "as good," they still look damn good and imo, the image quality isn't enough to overlook the fact that the Warner discs are Chaplin's re-released altered versions of the films, not the original.

BTW, does anyone have the limited editions of Modern Times and The Great Dictator? I understand they contain CD's of Chaplin's music. I'm a big fan of Chaplin's music and am wondering if these are worth it?

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Based on what?

Seriously, if a DVD and a LaserDisc are prepared from the same composite master [1" or D-2], or in the case of monochrome even from a component D-1 master, there is every a priori reason to expect that the LD will have the better image. Unless you have done actual comparisons on the actual titles, please don't say things like this.

 

[Patrick McCart]

After searching alt.movies.silent, I couldn't find his post, but I think he made the comment after seeing the PAL versions. Also, I found MY post at AMS where I posted the specs. The original press release mentioned commentaries, as well as all being extensively digitally restored. Oh, also, MK2 originally said they'd include both versions of the films whenever possible.

Knowing this, I have a feeling that MK2 decided to go cheap on the films, which resulted in the commentaries being dropped, as well as just PAL conversions for R1. Honestly, when you have HD and 2K digital restorations, there's no reason not to make proper NTSC and PAL reductions from the original source... unless you're trying to save money.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I heard (not sure if it's true) that MK2 and Warner couldn't reach an agreement on who would pay for NTSC transfers so that's why the PAL versions were just released. Either way, I tend to stick with the original reviews, which were all glowing until word got out that these were PAL and then everyone jumped down Warner's throat without having seen the product. I don't think anyone would argue that NTSC would be better but I also don't see how anyone could say the Image versions offered a better picture quality. I also heard that the Chaplin family didn't allow the "alternate, original" versions to be included.

Again for screencaps, a paused frame says very little about the picture quality IMO.

 

[Ken Horowitz]

So far, I've "upgraded" from laserdiscs to DVDs only on those films that have undergone new restoration work and/or new transfers. I had assumed that a DVD from the same master would look very much like the laserdisc, and it would not be worth the double-dip.

It's interesting to see there's some disagreement on this point.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I guess that would be the reason why the "length" of movies in the old days seemed to be measured in foot or number of reels - not in hours and minutes.

I'm not exactly the expert here, but I'd imagine that PAL speed-up should not really be an issue with this sort of silent films - even if it might very well be with modern films.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It depends. A lot of ports look hideous. I honestly feel that The Phantom Menace was interplated from a 4x3 laserdisc master that was never used, due to the huge amount of mosquito noise and lack of detail. On the other hand, WB used the laserdisc master for the silent Ben-Hur and it looks stunning.

However, the Chaplins look amazing for video masters made in 1992/1993. The 24fps films are progressive (City Lights through A King in New York), which cannot be said about the MK2 versions. They're not as sharp as something sourced from HD would be, but neither are the MK2 discs.


As for an "agreement", some fault should be blamed on WB if they didn't want to pay for the NTSC masters. MK2 already got the bulk of the costs out of the way for performing the HD transfers and the bonus materials. However...

Koch Lorber was able to obtain the PAL remaster of La Dolce Vita from Italy and had it properly converted to NTSC. It looks excellent. Milestone obtains NTSC progressive masters of the Photoplay Productions PAL-based remasters (like on Phantom of the Opera '29).

Then, nearly every film Kino licenses from Transit Film (Metropolis, Spies, Munchausen, etc.) is PAL sourced and improperly converted. I wonder if the European studios are providing only a quickie NTSC conversion from PAL or the R1 studio is using the PAL master and improperly converting it. If a cheap studio like Koch Lorber is able to properly convert PAL, surely Kino or WB would be able to.

In the mean time, we can only dream what a properly made NTSC master from the MK2 HD/2K transfer would look like.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I suppose I stand corrected, then, as to the projection speed of silent films. It certainly makes sense to change the projection speed of a film, by analogy with the tempo of music; but in order for this effect to work as intended, the film has to be shot at a very constant speed. One comes to believe, then, that the tempo for a scene was something determined during the editing process, a contrast to today, when special motion effects in scenes are planned beforehand and the cameramen are instructed to undercrank or overcrank as appropriate. Incidentally, it would be perfectly possible to create a variable-speed sound-film projection system, using an inaudible pilot tone inserted into the soundtrack to drive a feedback control loop. The practical effects of such a system would likely be problematic at best.

 

[CraigF]

A large part of how these PAL->NTSC conversions look depends on your player. In Canada, we often get these PAL-sourced transfers for European films. A screen cap means nothing as to how this will look in your home. I have absolutely no problem with them (except theoretically!) as my main player handles it excellently...many don't (check your player at Secrets... to see how it handles it), all are not even close to equal.

Which is not to say I excuse the cheapness. But let's face it, *every* disc looks different in different systems, to some degree, and many of the differences you can't just ISF-calibrate out.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It's just a matter of common sense. For example, when you show Birth of a Nation at 24fps, it looks like a Keystone Kops short. On the other hand, you might not want to speed correct a Keystone Kops short because faster speeds were OK.

If it looks inappropriate, fix it by correcting the speed.

 

[Cees Alons]

All they needed to do is downgrade the resolution from 575 -> 480 lines. Nothing happens to the frames: all frames are there, sequentially, in both formats (all you have to do is add the proper logical "pull-down" bits to every other frame for NTSC).

It's the audio that has to be changed.


Cees

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I agree, there's no Earthly reason to do an actual PAL-NTSC video standard conversion, since the material wasn't shot in PAL video or at native 50 Hz but has been forced to 50 Hz. Unfortunately, that consideration apparently doesn't stop -- or perhaps even occur to -- some people.

 

[Mattias_ka]

I agree. And if we talk about a 1999 release the DVD can really have some compression problems that are, in my eyes, worse than analog problems.

 

[DouglasBr]

Are there such problems with the Kino Keaton discs? One reason I've resisted dropping the dough on this set is the secret fear a better one might come along soon, since it was a relatively early release.

Of course, waiting forever is stupid too I guess.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The Kino Keatons are a mixed bag. They're kind of soft for the most part. However, Seven Chances looks almost brand new and it's progressive. The General and Steamboat Bill Jr. were improved for an Image/Film Preservation Associates double-feature utilizing remasters (both look incredible) and Alloy Orchestra scores.

However, I think nearly every film has a Robert Israel score (a few shorts have Gaylord Carter organ scores, like Cops).

It's probably too late considering that the 11-disc set still sells well, but a new box set utilizing brand new HD transfers for all films would be neat... especially since the majority of the transfers are 10+ years old by now. Problematic films like The Boat (has some serious nitrate decomposition in spots) and The Electric House (dupey surviving print) could be improved greatly with newer restoration software.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Most of the Kino Keatons were ports of the laserdiscs, but Shepard did upgrade a few that came up with superior elements after the LD were issued.

My problem with the PAL/NTSC conversions is not speed up for the most part due to the hand-cranking issues, but ghosting, where you see two frames at once, which looks terrible to my eye and makes things smeary where they should be crystal clear. I'd much rather watch the Image DVDs of the Chaplins, even though they haven't been spruced up with DVNR.

Kino's problem with the materials it gets from Brownlow and the BFI is that silents sell too few copies to put much expense into them; thus if there's a PAL master they're only too willing to go with that rather than do a new native NTSC transfer, even if it would look much better.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't think Kino has released a single DVD from Photoplay or the BFI. Milestone has the Photoplay Productions remasters (Phantom of the Opera, The Blot, The Chess Player, etc.) as well as some BFI (Picadilly). Milestone apparently converts the PAL masters into progressive NTSC (at least on Phantom).

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

The PAL speedup isn't really a big deal for the silent Chaplins, true, but it hurts the sound films, i.e. LIMELIGHT. And the smearing due to the shoddy conversions is absolutely inexcusable.