wrk6539

I read John Sinnott's DVD review of The Flying Deuces (Restored Edition) at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=11862 and...I just wanted to say that I thought your review well written and informative. I just need to correct a point you made about PAL speedup. It is NOT a result of converting PAL to NTSC, but a side effect of PAL mastering itself. All film-based PAL videotapes, DVDs, and television broadcasts run 4% faster than their NTSC counterparts. PAL masters transfered to Region 1 NTSC will not only give you the original speedup but also "ghosting" artifacts that are a direct result of the conversion between formats.

John Sinnott

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I didn't mean to imply that the conversion itself was the cause of the speed up, it is a problem with the PAL format.

As I'm sure you know, PAL shows 50 fields per second, (each field is 1/2 of the image) or 25 images per second. The problem is that the film rate for (sound films) is set at 24 frames (or images) per second. So what they do is just speed the film up to run at 25 fps during telecine to accomade a 1:1 playback. That means that the one second of film will actually take only 24/25= 0.96 seconds, or 4% faster.

I actually don't consider this a horrible problem. A vast majority of people, if shown a movie from a PAL master, would not notice the speed up. Of course some people do, especailly if you are familuar with the actors voices.

I'll reword my comment to make it a little less muddled. Thanks for pointing that out.

-John

manono

Hi-

I've seen enough of Laurel And Hardy in both PAL and NTSC versions to be able to tell when their voices are speeded up, and if you were to play the same scene from the same movie back to back, alternating with the PAL and NTSC versions, the differences are only too obvious.

However, you didn't address wrk6539's other point, which is the blending/ghosting that occurs when a PAL master is used for an NTSC DVD. For me, this is a much more serious issue. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem. Very few of the DVD reviewers are aware of it, or know how to tell if a PAL master has been used, except by comparing running speeds when possible. In your edited review of the L&H DVD you make mention of the speed-up, but that's it. In your review of the Stan Laurel DVD:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=11631

at one point you do say:

I'm not exactly sure to what you're referring to here. You may be seeing the very heavy Edge Enhancement which also plagues these Kino DVDs. Or you may be seeing the blending that results from a bad PAL to NTSC DVD, which is all too apparent when viewing the DVD. When people are walking at a certain speed, 4 legs are easily visible. In addition to the blending, which is very obvious during certain kinds of movement, the total effect is of a blurry, soft picture, which negates the benefits of the restoration work done by Lobster Films.

Kino has recently released 3 DVDs of great silent film stars (Harold Lloyd, Charley Chase, and Stan Laurel), together with The Flying Deuces by Laurel And Hardy. All are badly ghosted at the field level. This has nothing to do with motion blur or, in the case of silent films, the lower framerate. Kino, Image Entertainment, and Milestone Films are notorious for foisting these badly prepared DVDs on us. If they are ignorant of what they are putting out, then they should be ashamed. If they are aware of the problem, but do it anyway, then they should be doubly ashamed. I would think that, compared to the expense of restoring these films, the additional expense of preparing a proper NTSC transfer would be negligible. But I don't know much about that end of it. Perhaps, for silent films, a new score would have to be commissioned as well.

As a reviewer, you should be aware that anything restored by Lobster Films in France, Photoplay or MK2 in Great Britain, and BFA in Germany should be looked upon very suspiciously. I thought that after the scandal that occurred in silent film circles when Warner Home Video released the ghosted Chaplin Box Sets last year, that you reviewers would be on the lookout for similar things. But these things are coming out with more and more frequency, without so much as a squawk from any of the reviewers. Even you, Mr. Sinnott, in your reviews, joined the chorus in praising the video quality of the Chaplin DVDs. The only person I know that's trying to get to the bottom of this is Gary Tooze over at DVDBeaver. I find it faintly ironic that, in many cases, these are American films, restored overseas, and then sent back to us in imperfect form. They may or may not look and sound better than they ever have before, but they could look and sound so much better still, with just a little bit more effort.

John Sinnott

Hi Manono,

Well, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. While I wish that these films were not mastered off of a PAL copy, I do not think that fact is the kiss of death, nor do I think the artifacts from such mastering "negates the benefits of restoration..." Yes, there are artifacts that creep into this conversion, and I wish that Kino had gone back to the original masters (assuming that these were not restored on PAL tape, something that I think is improbable.) I agree that this would have created a superior picture. But I don't think these minor artifacts ruin the disc. If you look at the image captures I included with my review of the Stan Laurel set, you'll see what an improvement the Lobster transfer is to the previously avalible shorts.

While I will agree that most people could notice the 4% PAL increase in speed in a side-by-side comparison, I don't a vast majority of ever do that, nor could they tell if they didn't have a NTSC version to compare it with.

I don't agree with your assertation that the EE is heavy on the Kino discs, though as I noted you can see it if you look at the frozen image.

As you mentioned, most people reviewing films are very pleased with the image. This is because they are a vast improvement over what was avalible previously, (in most cases.) A lot of the Lobsters films have not been released for home video at all on any format, and to get decent looking video on these rare films is a treat indead, even if they are less than perfect.

I think you may be overestimating the size of the silent film market these days. It is my assumption, and I'd love it if I was wrong on this, that a majority of the silent films that are sold are not that popular and don't sell a lot of units. Of course the Chaplin discs were touted, but how many people today even know who Charlie Chase is, much less will plunk down money for a set of his shorts? I assume, again, that the cost of going back to the original master and making a NTSC master is enough to make it economically unfeasable. With the razor thin margins the Kino and Milestone must work under, this is probably a great exspense.

I found it interesting that you feel Kino, Image, and Milestone, three compaines I admire for their comitment to presenting quality versions of silent classics, are "notorious for foisting ...badly prepared DVDs on us." May I ask who you think does present good silent movies? (Surely you are not thinking of Alpha and Madacay!)

In conclusion I don't think that boycotting these releases would help any, in fact I think it would convince the few companies that are releasing silent films that there is not a market for them at all. When you consider the how small the defects that we are talking about are, especailly in comparision with the washed out images and scratchy prints that silent films are likely to be mastered from, I stand by my statement that these DVDs look great. I'm sorry we can't agree on this, but then again that's just my opinion.

Thanks for your comments.

manono

Hi videophile-

Thanks much for your reply. I'm not the only one that objects to films being restored in Europe and then sent back to us in the form of PAL masters. In the DVD scan guy's review of the Chaplin DVDs:

http://www.dvdscan.com/chaplin.htm

he says, among many other things:

And the same things apply to these recent Kino DVDs, including The Flying Deuces. Gary Tooze in his comparison of 3 different versions of Chaplin's The Great Dictator:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcom...atdictator.htm

says:
Of course I admire Kino, Image, and Milestone for putting out these great films, when there probably isn't a whole lot of money in it for them. And they've put out some fine ones, made from proper NTSC masters. But when they license them from a European company that has done the restoration work, then we in R1 wind up getting burned.

Maybe it's one thing for a European film to be restored and only a PAL master made. Some of my favorite silent films have been released here on bad PAL to NTSC DVDs. These would include Metropolis, Die Nibelungen Saga, The Last Laugh (Der Letzte Mann), and Diary Of A Lost Girl (Das Tagebuch Einer Verlorenen, a German film starring the American actress Louise Brooks, restored in Germany, but so far released only in R1) among many others. But I find it especially galling when American films get the same shabby treatment. Aren't there any American companies/studios willing to undertake these restorations? I realize that Laurel And Hardy are cult favorites in Europe even today. But what's happened to their films in the hands of the US rights holder, Hallmark (that is to say, nothing), is terrible.

May I ask who you think does present good silent movies?

There are plenty of good Milestone, Image, and Kino films out, if the Europeans haven't gotten their grubby paws on them first. I'm especially fond of the restoration and DVD work done by Flicker Alley with Judex and Garden Of Eden.

Surely you are not thinking of Alpha and Madacay!

Did you apply to be in Last Comic Standing? But your points are well taken. It's better to have them in this form, than not to have them at all.

unclehulot

Not all, just the ones that are not converted correctly. It IS possible to do this, but since it is mostly not, there is a general misunderstanding about the process. When done correctly the speed can be corrected and ghosting avoided. One difficulty in silent film transfers is the variety of frame rates and hence a kind of "double" conversion to get us back to NTSC say from something projected at 20 frames per second into PAL first.