Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Reviews and Recommendations
Reload this Page >

Criterion's Pandora's Box... set. Thoughts?

DVD Reviews and Recommendations Read, Post and Request DVD Reviews.

Criterion's Pandora's Box... set. Thoughts?

Old 11-30-06, 03:38 PM
  #1  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Criterion's Pandora's Box... set. Thoughts?

DVD Savant's review: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read....=25170&___rd=1

I have just rented this 2-disc set with the idea of maybe purchasing and I am overwhelmed:

1. The transfer is clear, the restoration is wonderful and what's more, it's PILLAR-BOXED, which takes out the 1.33:1 jagged edges on my widescreen rear-projection TV in progressive scanning mode, with absolutely no loss of image - either vertically or horizontally - due to overscanning..
2. There is a choice of FOUR scores, including a 5.1 orchestral reconstruction of "what the original score might have sounded like" by world-renowned archivist and orchestrator Gillian Anderson and a kicky twenties cabaret-style score.
3. A very funny commentary where the two experts (a man a a woman) sometimes clash violently - but oh so politely - and which brings out the futility of commenting on the magic of this film which has everything to do with one's personal understanding of the subject of raw, lurid, passionate SEX...
4. Definitive extras on the personality of Louise Brooks, the relatively unknown US actress who became an icon in Europe and a model for flappers everywhere.

Old 11-30-06, 04:39 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm planning to delve into this one tonight... Not sure which score I'll go with first. It's a beautiful package for sure, although I do with they'd stuck with the original design for the cover. Some of the images used on the inside will make lovely desktops!

This and a second order of discs from DVD Planet arrived at the same time, and I was a bit surprised at the substantial weight of Pandora's Box; thanks to that rather thick book, it's heft equaled (if not outweighed) the four other DVDs that came seperately.
Old 11-30-06, 05:53 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Docking Bay 94
Posts: 14,259
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Mine just arrived but there's a lot of Superman in front of it in the queue.

I'll tackle it this weekend. But the set looks fantastic.
Old 11-30-06, 11:19 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
1. The transfer is clear, the restoration is wonderful and what's more, it's PILLAR-BOXED, which takes out the 1.33:1 jagged edges on my widescreen rear-projection TV in progressive scanning mode, with absolutely no loss of image - either vertically or horizontally - due to overscanning..
]

I hate to disappoint you but this set is one of the more notable flops Criterion issued this year. It is interlaced and chock-full of "combing". And while some review sites tend to downplay the issue this is definitely a letdown that has caused some havoc amongst die-hard Criterion fans and cinephiles.

I am also not so sure how you can be so elated by Criterion's pillarboxing practice? I feel quite the opposite...for obvious reasons!

Just my .02 cents.

Ciao,
Pro-B

Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 11-30-06 at 11:22 PM.
Old 12-01-06, 08:30 AM
  #5  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
I hate to disappoint you but this set is one of the more notable flops Criterion issued this year. It is interlaced and chock-full of "combing". And while some review sites tend to downplay the issue this is definitely a letdown that has caused some havoc amongst die-hard Criterion fans and cinephiles.

I am also not so sure how you can be so elated by Criterion's pillarboxing practice? I feel quite the opposite...for obvious reasons!

Just my .02 cents.

Ciao,
Pro-B
Hmmm.. Could it be that I have watched this DVD and you didn't? No interlacing, no ghosting. Combing is invisible or non-existent in progressive scanning mode. And the pillarboxing/pictureboxing insures you see the maximum picture surface (stabilized, mind you) without overscanning on most monitors.

To quote DVD Savant:

Criterion's DVD of Pandora's Box is a painstaking archival reconstruction that minimizes but cannot eliminate the flaws of transfer elements. The film looks far better than any earlier incarnation this viewer has seen. 1) It's more complete. A few shots here and there flesh out broken continuity; in some cases they're from inferior-quality dupes but the film comes off as looking far more intact than before. Only a couple of jump-cuts remain across missing frames. 2) The quality is the best. The picture may have been transferred from archival dupe material, but it's the best available as opposed to a dupe of what one archive has to offer. The picture is sharper and many scenes recover that 'dusty grayscale' look of German silents. In close-ups of Lulu, we can finally see details like glints on her lips and teeth previously obscured by contrast. The flaws remaining are a subtle fluctuating density in many scenes, and some 'focus popping' in a few others. The images are by no means pristine, but they're still better than most of us have seen. 3) It's cleaned up. The image has many fine scratches that cannot be removed but the "thousands of instances of dirt" etc. noted in Criterion clean-up descriptions are indeed missing. 4) The image is stable. Shrunken and jittery material has either been replaced with better elements, and much of the unwanted movement has been straightened out. The picture jumps less at splice points. 5) Original inter-titles. The surprisingly plain-wrap original German title designs are intact, including the Act markers. English subtitles are optional. And 6) The frame rate looks natural. My previous transfers seemed to be at 24fps, taking minutes off the film's running time and making many scenes look ridiculous, like Lulu's little 'Denishawn' dance for Schigolch in the first scene. In this transfer we no longer have to apologize for a too-fast pace.
DVD Beaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDre...ndoras_box.htm ) shows one fleeting evidence of combing which I haven't been able to reproduce on my progressive scanning equipment (ahem!) (1) and furthermore, in a scene which is an extremely complicated but flawless assemblage of very different elements - different speeds, different quality, different format - combined in an almost invisible way, but adds:

Two items - firstly, this image is again pictureboxed (see our description of 'pictureboxing' in our Kind Hearts and Coronets review). Secondly - this image exhibits 'combing or 'trailing' - which I understand is a process of the frame rate conversion (from European silent to current NTSC) - see last capture as an example. There is some minor contrast flickering and anticipated damage mostly in the form of light to moderate scratches and some frames with nitrate deterioration (see 2nd last capture as sample). The Criterion is described as 'restored high-definition digital transfer of the definitive Munich Film Museum restoration'. We have compared 3 frames of the new Criterion release to the Second Sight (UK- PAL) DVD that came out in 2002 (it shares the 'combing' anomaly). Although I don't see significant improvement in terms of detail - the Criterion has approx. 12% more information at the bottom of the frame. The Criterion contrast is more pure black and white and it also shows marginally less damage (NOTE: 'Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, and scratches were removed using the MTI Digital Restoration System').

The inherent film negative inferiorities don't take away from the magnificence of the presentation one bit in my opinion, plus I imagine this is the best you will ever see Pandora's Box look digitally.
DVD Beaver concludes:

Pandora's Box is recognized as one of the mainstays of German cinema's Weimar period along with Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari and The Blue Angel. Its unique place in history is exemplified by its star, Louise Brooks, and her timeless eroticism (from a relatively brief career) that carries a legendary status even 70 years later. Essential cinema folks - no question about that. Criterion have done it again and given us a beautiful package worthy of the films esteemed place in cinema history. This is DVD at its pinnacle. Strongly recommended!
(1) I have been able to isolate the exact frame shown by DVD Beaver, which is easy because of the little white nick in the lower right corner on Lulu's right sleeve, and it appears perfectly smooth in freeze-frame on my Toshiba back-projection widescreen monitor and my Denon D-910 progressive scanning DVD player in progressive scanning mode. No ghosting, non interlacing, no combing. The meter-man's spiral notebook's cover is clearly down and not half-way between two points like the one shown here. Could it be that the good people at DVD Beaver just forgot to flick the little switch in the back of their player to "progressive scanning"?

DVD Beaver's "evidence":


Last edited by baracine; 12-01-06 at 09:29 AM.
Old 12-01-06, 09:48 AM
  #6  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
About the pictureboxing...

There is a definite advantage to pictureboxing in this presentation. This DVD has been assembled from diverse sources which don't alway show the same area of the frame. Some have the top missing or obscured. Others have that flaw on the left or right side or at the bottom. When one or more frames from source A are inserted in source B to improve continuity, this can be done without affecting the stability of the central part of the picture (after digital stabilization) and this gives you the smoothest ride for your money while showing you at all times the maximum picture information. Needless to say, all that effort would be wasted on the average overscanning-cropped picture.
Old 12-01-06, 10:38 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm hearing contrasting statements about whether or not this disc is interlaced -- and not just on this forum. Either way, I'm not sure that I know of any serious silent cinephile who complains much about interlaced transfers. Very few DVD companies in the world provide progressive transfers for silents because of the cost. Image doesn't, Kino doesn't, Criterion never has for any of their previous silents (to the best of my knowledge). Neither MoC nor MK2 has done so for all of their silents, though they seem to be doing it more frequently in the past two years. I don't think that Warner did for BEN-HUR or Paramount for THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

So complaining about an interlaced transfer for any specific silent films seems to miss the overall picture. There just aren't that many progressively-encoded silent movies on DVD out there.

By the way, what surprises me most about Criterion's new release is that it doesn't seem to be a significant improvement in A/V quality over the older R2 Second Sight release! (Lest anyone think I'm just making excuses for Criterion.)
Old 12-01-06, 10:50 AM
  #8  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ambassador
I'm hearing contrasting statements about whether or not this disc is interlaced -- and not just on this forum. Either way, I'm not sure that I know of any serious silent cinephile who complains much about interlaced transfers. Very few DVD companies in the world provide progressive transfers for silents because of the cost. Image doesn't, Kino doesn't, Criterion never has for any of their previous silents (to the best of my knowledge). Neither MoC nor MK2 has done so for all of their silents, though they seem to be doing it more frequently in the past two years. I don't think that Warner did for BEN-HUR or Paramount for THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

So complaining about an interlaced transfer for any specific silent films seems to miss the overall picture. There just aren't that many progressively-encoded silent movies on DVD out there.

By the way, what surprises me most about Criterion's new release is that it doesn't seem to be a significant improvement in A/V quality over the older R2 Second Sight release! (Lest anyone think I'm just making excuses for Criterion.)
I simply don't get your comment. "Pandora's Box" is progressive-scanned and I very rarely come across a DVD that isn't these days, except cartoons, for some reason. The difference is only visible in freeze-framing and this test shows that "Pandora's Box" is not interlaced. What instances of "combing" which can be extracted (my opinion) were extracted on non-progressive-scanning or somewhat faulty equipment.

The bottom line is this presentation is the best possible one for that film EVER and it is a very enjoyable watch.
Old 12-01-06, 10:52 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
Hmmm.. Could it be that I have watched this DVD and you didn't? No interlacing, no ghosting. Combing is invisible or non-existent in progressive scanning mode. And the pillarboxing/pictureboxing insures you see the maximum picture surface (stabilized, mind you) without overscanning on most monitors.

The answer would be no!!

I would not post here just for the sake of having a discussion. Also, I find it very strange that because you could not spot the precise frame at DVDBEAVER on your set-up you conclude that "ghosting" does not exist. For me this statement alone is a good enough reason not to argue any further!! What would be the point?!!

Furthermore, backing your argument while suggesting that someone else did a poor job of evaluating (maybe Gary did forget to "flick the switch", why not email him and see what he says) is a no-go in my book. However, I would first question my (your) observation twice and see what I (you) might be missing, and then proceed to argue. Makes sense to me, does it make sense to you?!

I hope it does!

Third, despite of the veiled technical explanation on the transfer this is indeed a flawed print which Criterion are now being criticized for. Suggestion: why not head to the Criterion forum and follow some of the discussions. This isn't the first, second, or third time Criterion provide improperly converted transfers. As much as DVDBEAVER like to downplay Criterion's increased recent flops it remains a fact: they did some quite notable gaffes (I could be very specicifc here if needed) and people are now talking about it.

Also, I won't even argue with you on the issue of pictureboxing. For you to come here and claim that it increases detail (maximum picture surface) is simply something I choose to ignore. (Interesting that you came back adding a second post to make it clear that all you said earlier about picture-boxing benefits this release..). Suggestion again: why not head back to DVDBEAVER and read about picture-boxing, he has something different to say about detail.

Finally, fans come to this site to read and decide how to spend their money on their favorite films. People argue, cheer, and jeer, the companies when they misfire. We do it all the time...why should Criterion be a notable exception to the rule?

Ciao,
Pro-B
Old 12-01-06, 11:36 AM
  #10  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
The answer would be no!!

I would not post here just for the sake of having a discussion. Also, I find it very strange that because you could not spot the precise frame at DVDBEAVER on your set-up you conclude that "ghosting" does not exist. For me this statement alone is a good enough reason not to argue any further!! What would be the point?!!

Furthermore, backing your argument while suggesting that someone else did a poor job of evaluating (maybe Gary did forget to "flick the switch", why not email him and see what he says) is a no-go in my book. However, I would first question my (your) observation twice and see what I (you) might be missing, and then proceed to argue. Makes sense to me, does it make sense to you?!

I hope it does!
Let me backtrack here... I DID spot the exact frame that DVD Beaver reproduced and it appears flawless through three consecutive frames. On my equipment, I can't find a single instance of combing of ghosting anywhere when I play the film frame-by-frame in progressive mode. I would probably be able to reproduce the DVD Beaver example of combing if I played it back in interlaced mode or on a monitor that is not progressive-scanning-capable, but what would be the point? In other words, I am not missing anything. And in the final analysis, reading the Criterion website discussion group seems to confirm that somehow some posters seem to believe that "Pandora's Box" is not "genuine progressive scanning" (whatever that is) but I say, on the right equipment, there is no difference and the viewing experience is optimal. It is miles removed from, say, Ren & Stimpy DVDs that show a combed frame every frame in frame-by-frame playback. I guess there is a continuum between "simple interlacing" and "genuine progressive scanning", a compromise to be reached so to speak, and, judging from the result, Criterion has reached that right compromise and made the right choice (in my humble opinion and without understanding all the technical subtleties involved).


Third, despite of the veiled technical explanation on the transfer this is indeed a flawed print which Criterion are now being criticized for. Suggestion: why not head to the Criterion forum and follow some of the discussions. This isn't the first, second, or third time Criterion provide improperly converted transfers. As much as DVDBEAVER like to downplay Criterion's increased recent flops it remains a fact: they did some quite notable gaffes (I could be very specicifc here if needed) and people are now talking about it.
It is not a "flawed print". It is the painstaking assemblage of different prints of different quality in order to produce the most complete presentation ever. It's also a hi-def transfer using the highest possible bitrate throughout. It's still the best and most complete available edition of this film anywhere and a very enjoyable watching experience. This film has me drooling in a beatific, Homer Simpson-like stupor for every frame of its two hours and thirteen minutes running time.

Also, I won't even argue with you on the issue of pictureboxing. For you to come here and claim that it increases detail (maximum picture surface) is simply something I choose to ignore. (Interesting that you came back adding a second post to make it clear that all you said earlier about picture-boxing benefits this release..). Suggestion again: why not head back to DVDBEAVER and read about picture-boxing, he has something different to say about detail.
I did and I still think pictureboxing is a boon to the greatest part of humanity. Rose bushes should be planted along the path of the person who first thought of this simple trick.

Finally, fans come to this site to read and decide how to spend their money on their favorite films. People argue, cheer, and jeer, the companies when they misfire. We do it all the time...why should Criterion be a notable exception to the rule?

Ciao,
Pro-B
Cheer, jeer all you like. CRITERION... GOOD!

Last edited by baracine; 12-01-06 at 01:01 PM.
Old 12-01-06, 01:15 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
I simply don't get your comment. "Pandora's Box" is progressive-scanned and I very rarely come across a DVD that isn't these days, except cartoons, for some reason.
Then you simply don't watch very many DVDs of silent movies. I would guess that virtually 90% of silent movies are given interlaced (i.e., non-progressive) transfers when released on DVD. Just take a look at any of these fairly recent releases: Kino's WARNING SHADOWS, SAGA OF GOSTA BERLING, and DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS; most of the films on the 2004 MORE TREASURES FROM THE AMERICAN FILM ARCHIVES; Flicker Alley's PHANTOM; Image's BEYOND THE ROCKS or many of the films in the UNSEEN CINEMA collection; Criterion's KING OF KINGS; Warner's BEN-HUR; MoC's SPIES, ASPHALT, and MICHAEL; etc. etc. (Actually, a few of these could be PAL->NTSC ports, but the fact remains that many of the R2 releases are non-progressive, too.) I could go on and on. So turn your comment around, I simply don't get your comment that you "very rarely" come across non-progressive DVDs these days. I very rarely come across a silent-film DVD release that IS progressive.

My point, however, is not to argue that PANDORA'S BOX is or isn't progressively encoded. I don't know for certain yet. But I would say that an interlaced/non-progressive transfer is actually par for the course when it comes to silent movies on DVD. If PANDORA'S BOX is progressive, then that's actually unusual. If it's not, then I don't think it's that big of a deal, since the vast majority of my silent-film DVDs are the same.

EDIT: Just got word from a friend who owns the disc and knows the difference between interlaced and progressive that PANDORA'S BOX is interlaced/non-progressive. I'm still hearing people (apart from Baracine) say it's progressive, but my friend's word is pretty convincing for me. But as I've been trying to emphasize, that should NOT keep people from getting this masterpiece. So many other silent masterpieces are available only in non-progressive form.

Last edited by Ambassador; 12-01-06 at 01:51 PM.
Old 12-01-06, 01:56 PM
  #12  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ambassador
Then you simply don't watch very many DVDs of silent movies. I would guess that virtually 90% of silent movies are given interlaced (i.e., non-progressive) transfers when released on DVD. Just take a look at any of these fairly recent releases: Kino's WARNING SHADOWS, SAGA OF GOSTA BERLING, and DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS; most of the films on the 2004 MORE TREASURES FROM THE AMERICAN FILM ARCHIVES; Flicker Alley's PHANTOM; Image's BEYOND THE ROCKS or many of the films in the UNSEEN CINEMA collection; Criterion's KING OF KINGS; Warner's BEN-HUR; MoC's SPIES, ASPHALT, and MICHAEL; etc. etc. (Actually, a few of these could be PAL->NTSC ports, but the fact remains that many of the R2 releases are non-progressive, too.) I could go on and on. So turn your comment around, I simply don't get your comment that you "very rarely" come across non-progressive DVDs these days. I very rarely come across a silent-film DVD release that IS progressive.

My point, however, is not to argue that PANDORA'S BOX is or isn't progressively encoded. I don't know for certain yet. But I would say that an interlaced/non-progressive transfer is actually par for the course when it comes to silent movies on DVD. If PANDORA'S BOX is progressive, then that's actually unusual. If it's not, then I don't think it's that big of a deal, since the vast majority of my silent-film DVDs are the same.

EDIT: Just got word from a friend who owns the disc and knows the difference between interlaced and progressive that PANDORA'S BOX is interlaced/non-progressive. I'm still hearing people (apart from Baracine) say it's progressive, but his word is pretty convincing for me. But as I've been trying to emphasize, that should keep people from getting this masterpiece. So many other silent masterpieces are available only in non-progressive form.
The question is the only way I have of determining if a DVD is progressive or not is to freeze-frame it. By this test, on my progressive-scanning DVD player and monitor, mind you, I don't find interlaced/combed individual frames on Pandora's Box or any of the DVDs you mention that I own. Which means, whatever the process, interlaced, progressive scanning or anything in-between (there seems to be different ways of doing interlaced scanning from the obvious to the undetectable), will usually come out looking fine on my equipment, even in slowmotion or in freeze-frame - except for most cartoons. So it's a pretty lame excuse not to get Pandora's Box or even criticize it.
Old 12-01-06, 04:51 PM
  #13  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DVD King
Regardless of if they're telling the truth or just didn't want to do a progressive transfer, this kind of picking apart borders on ridiculous when a company is willing to give a little known film from 1929 this kind of a presentation.


(It still doesn't explain how this interlaced picture can come out looking like a progressive picture on my monitor. I remember reading that the 3-2 pulldown is only one of several possible pulldowns and that sophisticated DVD players can effect their own pulldown to improve the picture. Oh well...)

Last edited by baracine; 12-01-06 at 05:26 PM.
Old 12-01-06, 06:54 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD King
Don't you mean shouldn't?
Absolutely! You must have quoted my message just before I edited my edit.

Essentially, I'm trying to say that whether PANDORA'S BOX is interlaced or fully progressive shouldn't really matter because so few silent movies get the sort of progressive encoding that Warner and Criterion and MoC and so many other companies regularly give their talkie releases. In short: INTERLACING IS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO SILENT MOVIES!

I'm not sure that I entirely understand Issa Clubb's argument for why Criterion absolutely HAD to use interlacing, but she's absolutely correct that all NTSC DVD encodings are "interlaced" to a certain extent. (That probably explains why DVD Beaver occasionally find a few instances of combing in the very best CC discs.) But one would think that they could have done what virtually all distributors do to compensate for the differences in frame rates: simply copy every fourth or fifth frame so that you actually get 30 frames running at 24-frames-per-second. That is what the very few progressive silents I have on DVD do. (I think, for example, that Kino's QUEEN KELLY does this.) Then again, I'm not very high tech, so perhaps this solution isn't always feasible.

Originally Posted by baracine
(It still doesn't explain how this interlaced picture can come out looking like a progressive picture on my monitor. I remember reading that the 3-2 pulldown is only one of several possible pulldowns and that sophisticated DVD players can effect their own pulldown to improve the picture. Oh well...)
Baracine, it sounds to me like you're trying to determine whether or not a DVD is progressive/interlaced simply by freeze-framing or "pausing-and-stepping" and looking for signs of combing. This is a good technique, but it is imperfect. For one thing, if you're using a player that "de-interlaces" the DVD for you, you actually shouldn't see combing. Again, I'm not a techie, but perhaps this link will give you some extra information. A somewhat more reliable way to see if a DVD is progressive is to count the number of frames per second (i.e., how many frames can you step through before the second changes on your display). This is harder to do for silents because very few of them run at the usual 24 fps -- which is part of the problem to begin with. You have to know in advance the frame rate at which the filmmakers were working on that particular picture. In the case of PANDORA, it was apparently 20 fps.

Last edited by Ambassador; 12-01-06 at 07:22 PM.
Old 12-01-06, 09:28 PM
  #15  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ambassador
Baracine, it sounds to me like you're trying to determine whether or not a DVD is progressive/interlaced simply by freeze-framing or "pausing-and-stepping" and looking for signs of combing. This is a good technique, but it is imperfect. For one thing, if you're using a player that "de-interlaces" the DVD for you, you actually shouldn't see combing. Again, I'm not a techie, but perhaps this link will give you some extra information. A somewhat more reliable way to see if a DVD is progressive is to count the number of frames per second (i.e., how many frames can you step through before the second changes on your display). This is harder to do for silents because very few of them run at the usual 24 fps -- which is part of the problem to begin with. You have to know in advance the frame rate at which the filmmakers were working on that particular picture. In the case of PANDORA, it was apparently 20 fps.
I'm not a techie either. And about that article, I guess the kindest thing I can say is that a decent, readable, easy-to-follow article on the subject has yet to be written. But just for fun, right now, I have been rewatching the Criterion edition of Häxan and there is simply no comparison between it and Pandora's Box. Whereas both films are 20 frames per second and presumably show 60 interlaced frames per second, only Häxan of the two shows a picture that is so deficient the interlacing is actually visible in normal play in the form of aliasing and combing. (I'm not talking about the normal "tracing effect" that comes from that low speed). By comparison Pandora's Box is absolutely free from any such artifact in normal play OR freeze-frame OR slow-motion (on my equipment anyway). [Since I only rented Pandora's Box, I can't count the number of frames per second it has and I wish someone in this crowd would do it for us.] So I think some kind of technological development must have intervened at some point between the transfer of those two films for the difference to be so dramatic. Furthermore, I don't see why reducing 20 frames into 30 should be any more difficult than reducing 24 frames into 30. But that's another story...

NOTE OF INTEREST: In his review of the CC Häxan, the DVD Beaver reviewer totally missed the point and was fooled into thinking that the extreme combing he noticed in the DVD was due to the "tracer effect" the packaging warns about. The "tracer effect" is in fact the normal blurring of fast movement which happens in 20 fps films and doesn't explain the shimmering effect on complicated patterns like parallel lines and lattice-work, a.k.a. aliasing, even when the camera is stationary.

Last edited by baracine; 12-02-06 at 10:04 AM.
Old 12-02-06, 08:33 AM
  #16  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I just popped in the CC King of Kings. It was shot in 24 frames per second and when you advance the frames manually you can count 24 pristine, complete, perfect frames per second of playing time with no repeats (on my progressive scanning equipment, of course). This is known as "genuine progressive scanning". It dispels the myth that all silent films are tranferred interlaced but raises the question again of what it is that makes 20 frames per second films so difficult to transfer progressively into NTSC. My theory: Like all such technical problems, there is a way around them and this solution has been found and applied for Pandora's Box for the results to be so magnificent.

I guess the way things stand now, the question is complicated, the answer is even more complicated and nobody can really explain it to the satisfaction of the consumer. We are all grappling in the dark but, thank God, we can judge the results with our own eyes.

Last edited by baracine; 12-02-06 at 10:30 AM.
Old 12-02-06, 09:04 AM
  #17  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I am now playing the 1925 version of Ben-Hur. This is a 20 frames per second film that has been transferred "interlaced" at 60 NTSC frames per second, with an average of three repeats for every original frame of film. On my equipment, of course, each of those 60 frames appears complete and "suitable for framing" (no combing) probably due to the progressive scanning ability of my DVD player. But it is obviously a different transfer method that was used for Häxan whose every frame shows combing with the same equipment.

In other words, with the Häxan transfer, my player is unable to reconstitute a perfect individual frame in freeze-frame but it is able to do it with Ben-Hur. Without being a techie, this shows me that a different pull-down method has been used in Ben-Hur (and probably in Pandora's Box) that is somehow more compatible with progressive-scanning-enabled players and gives a better overall picture, and, for all we know, the best possible picture for this kind of film.

In conclusion: All hail Criterion! Too bad they dropped the ball on Häxan, though.
Old 12-02-06, 10:46 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
I just popped in the CC King of Kings. It was shot in 24 frames per second and when you advance the frames manually you can count 24 pristine, complete, perfect frames per second of playing time with no repeats (on my progressive scanning equipment, of course). This is known as "genuine progressive scanning". It dispels the myth that all silent films are tranferred interlaced
Ah, I hadn't realized that KoK was indeed progressive. It was a rental for me, and I was working from memory. Of course, you're right that some silents were filmed at 24 fps, thus making a progressive transfer relatively easy. I believe a couple of the Garbo and Chaney films released by Warner are progressive because of that. (You're right about CC's HAXAN being obviously interlaced, though. I'm certain that NANOOK is, too.)

Thanks for the follow-up posts. Very interesting stuff. It would be cool to know how and why DVD technology has progressed so much over the past few years that even interlaced discs look so good. Perhaps it has something to do with advent of HD. My understanding is that, once everything goes fully HD, non-progressive won't be much of an issue at all. Not sure if that holds true for the silents with different frame rates, though.

As you say, the question remains of why getting a proper progressive transfer for 20- or 18- or whatever-fps films is so problematic. Nevertheless, I'm totally with you on this one -- nobody should be afraid to pick up PANDORA'S BOX just because of the "interlaced" boogey-man.
Old 12-02-06, 11:12 AM
  #19  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ambassador
Ah, I hadn't realized that KoK was indeed progressive. It was a rental for me, and I was working from memory. Of course, you're right that some silents were filmed at 24 fps, thus making a progressive transfer relatively easy. I believe a couple of the Garbo and Chaney films released by Warner are progressive because of that. (You're right about CC's HAXAN being obviously interlaced, though. I'm certain that NANOOK is, too.)

Thanks for the follow-up posts. Very interesting stuff. It would be cool to know how and why DVD technology has progressed so much over the past few years that even interlaced discs look so good. Perhaps it has something to do with advent of HD. My understanding is that, once everything goes fully HD, non-progressive won't be much of an issue at all. Not sure if that holds true for the silents with different frame rates, though.

As you say, the question remains of why getting a proper progressive transfer for 20- or 18- or whatever-fps films is so problematic. Nevertheless, I'm totally with you on this one -- nobody should be afraid to pick up PANDORA'S BOX just because of the "interlaced" boogey-man.
I guess the easy answer is that there is a real ART to transferring film to DVD. There are many possible processes and phases. Some have to do with the shape of the original info (film restoration), some have to do with the telecine (transfer from film to video) and some are purely in the digital domain. There are no easy answers. The most recent Todd-AO Oklahoma transfer is a rare example of a film that was shot in 30 frames per second and should logically be a breeze to encode in 30 frames per second NTSC progressive scanning and should even give a better picture than any PAL process. Some of the benefits are there to see: for instance, the cart wheels don't roll backwards like they do at 24 frames per second. But, on the whole, the results are mushy, for some inexplicable reason, and not as good as the standard CinemaScope version. [My theory is that they used a too-low bitrate to compensate for the fact that there is so much more information on a 30 fps film than on a standard film, plus the fact they loaded that disc with tons of extras that should have been put on a third disc.] I believe there are many ways around most problems. They require ingenuity and patience, in other words time and money. One example is the most recent transfer of The Sound of Music (a Todd-AO film shot in 24 frames per second) which manages to be clearer on larger TV screens than the previous (excellent) transfer, even though it uses a lower bitrate (egad!). I think that one has been explained by another mysterious process called "anamorphic shaping", which somehow eliminates magically edge enhancement and other artifacts, or, in other words, optimizes the viewing experience for the available bitrate and your TV screen by manipulating the image in subtle and mysterious ways - possibly by toying around with the sharpness and detail of the final image in problem areas, increasing it in certain areas and reducing it in others.

Last edited by baracine; 12-02-06 at 11:36 AM.
Old 12-03-06, 01:40 PM
  #20  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
One last comparison: Nosferatu (KIno) and Metropolis (Kino). Both are official, subsidized restorations. Both have a lower than 24 fps speed. Both are the longest available versions of those films. Both were transferred interlaced.

But... Metropolis benefited from an expensive digital restoration which allowed the re-alignment of all images to ensure frame-by-frame stability, plus the "wet scan" method of transfer which eliminates most scratches and an additional manual/digital removal of dirt, scratches, tears, etc. Missing frames were replaced by black film stock and the finished film was married to its original orchestral score.

Nosferatu simply has a few minutes of long-unseen footage spliced in, and its original colour tints restored. The image is scratchy beyond recognition and each frame wobbles horizontally, vertically or on its central axis. No effort was made to marry the film with the existing and restored (by Gillian Anderson) original film score by Hans Erdmann - which is still light years ahead of all imitators (it's available on CD, if you look long enough). Furthermore, if you attempt to synchronize this original score with the film at home, you're in for some problems because the titles in the Kino version stay on screen so long, it throws every effort at synchronicity out the window.

One final blow to the average viewer: Although this version is the only one showing the top of the head of the monster when he raises from his coffin on the ship, his head is cut off anyway on 90 % of viewing systems because of overscanning, a problem pictureboxing was invented to prevent.

Last edited by baracine; 12-03-06 at 01:43 PM.
Old 12-03-06, 04:46 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too bad that the Kino version of Metropolis is a PAL->NTSC port, though -- with all the ghosting and artifacting that that entails. The MoC version, however, is a beauty to behold -- even though it's still interlaced. (Not to mention that MoC places the extras on a second disc, thereby freeing up additional space for the film's transfer on the first disc.)

I disagree with you on the pictureboxing issue. Personally, I'm not all that bothered if a DVD is pictureboxed or not, but I do prefer companies not to do so. By the way, Schreck's head is not cut off by overscan on my most frequently used tube TV. (The only overscan I get is a bit on the left-hand side of the screen.)
Old 12-03-06, 05:37 PM
  #22  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ambassador
Too bad that the Kino version of Metropolis is a PAL->NTSC port, though -- with all the ghosting and artifacting that that entails. The MoC version, however, is a beauty to behold -- even though it's still interlaced. (Not to mention that MoC places the extras on a second disc, thereby freeing up additional space for the film's transfer on the first disc.)

I disagree with you on the pictureboxing issue. Personally, I'm not all that bothered if a DVD is pictureboxed or not, but I do prefer companies not to do so. By the way, Schreck's head is not cut off by overscan on my most frequently used tube TV. (The only overscan I get is a bit on the left-hand side of the screen.)
I had to do a lot of research to find out that MoC means the Masters of Cinema R2 series from Eureka (UK). Same transfer in PAL must be glorious, especially since the documentary on the film seems to infer that Metropolis' proper speed was 25 frames per second, which is a perfect fit for PAL.

Last edited by baracine; 12-04-06 at 12:48 PM.
Old 12-03-06, 06:17 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
I had to do a lot of research to find out that MocC means the Masters of Cinema R2 series from Eureka (UK).
Sorry 'bout that. I guess I'm used to posting over the International section.

If you haven't already, it's definitely worth going multi-regional. The discs that Masters of Cinema have released alone make it worthwhile, especially since you can buy most of those DVDs at CD-Wow for considerably less than what you'd pay for some of Kino's ports of the same transfers (Metropolis, Asphalt, Michael, etc.).
Old 12-04-06, 12:47 PM
  #24  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BTW, part of the charm of the Kino Metropolis (2002), for me, is the fact that it is one of the very first such film shown PICTUREBOXED, which gives me the satisfaction, not only that I'm seeing the best available version of this film, but also that nobody else on the planet is seeing parts of the picture that my vertically overscanned rear-projection Toshiba TV doesn't show. And that's priceless...
Old 12-04-06, 11:54 PM
  #25  
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi-

I hope I can clarify a few things.

Gary Tooze of the DVDBeaver site regularly checks for interlaced encoding by using PowerDVD in Weave Mode. This shows any interlacing and tells him if it is interlaced or progressive. Of course, if watching it, either on a computer or on a TV, some sort of deinterlacer will kick in, and no one should see any interlacing when actually watching the film. Criterion's Pandora's Box is definitely been encoded as interlaced, and the source is also interlaced (those can sometimes be 2 completely different things). I'm not referring to the movie on film itself being interlaced, but the source used for the encoding.

If you're viewing on a progressive display, then your player can make a great deal of difference in how it's viewed. For the most part, software players are bad, and will deinterlace the picture one way or another when viewed on a computer monitor. How you view it on an HDTV depends greatly on the quality of your standalone DVD player. If you have a cadence reader, like the Denon mentioned above, or my Oppo, it'll reassemble the fields into frames and play it entirely progressive (field matched, and not deinterlaced). Other flag reading players will only deinterlace it, creating either blending, or considerable loss of resolution, depending on the kind of deinterlacer used. Because this film is on the DVD at 20fps (19.98fps, actually), you get entirely smooth 3:3 playback. Each frame is repeated 3 times. This is actually better than standard 2:3 pulldown of regular 24fps movies, where you get a slightly stuttery 2 3 2 3 playback of each frame.

Yes, Criterion could have encoded it progressively. However, since the base framerate is 19.98fps, this would have meant inserting a duplicate frame after every 5 frames to bring it up to 24fps, so that it could then have 2:3 pulldown applied to bring it up to the 29.97fps interlaced, as required for the NTSC DVD specs. This would then have meant that the film would play with a slight stutter or jerk every second. While I have seen films, silent and otherwise, done this way, it's considered greatly inferior to what Criterion did.

Here's where my knowledge gets a little foggy. It's my understanding that hardware encoders can apply only 2:3 (or 3:2) pulldown to get from 23.976->29.97fps. However, the DVD specs in no way mandate that to be the only kind of pulldown. In theory, any framerate from 2/3 the output framerate (from 19.98->29.97fps for NTSC, or 16.67->25fps for PAL) up to the output framerate can be telecined. In fact, I backed up my own copy of the DVD, encoded it for 19.98fps progressive, and applied pulldown for 19.98->29.97fps, and it plays smooth as silk. Maybe some day in the future, for the benefit of us silent film lovers, more advanced hardware encoders will allow other kinds of pulldown besides just 23.976->29.97. This will also benefit PAL to NTSC transfers, where the likes of Kino or Image regularly blend their PAL masters when encoding for NTSC. It doesn't have to be that way. Even if they're too damn cheap to go back to the film sources to create proper NTSC masters (as Criterion, for example, does it), they could easily do the conversion without blending and ruining it, by just telecining off of 25fps.

And I also come down against picture boxing. Although I see 2 sides to the issue, and the fact that many people have TV sets that overscan badly, the fact remains that pictureboxing lowers the effective resolution, and reduces the detail and sharpness. I count it as a black day when Criterion began that practice.

And in another opinion, the Kino Metropolis is a travesty. It's PAL2NTSC, with the blending, which effectively negates the very expensive restoration, and at 25fps on the DVD, it plays way too fast, making certain kinds of movement look ridiculous. Just my opinion.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.