caligulathegod

Who's insisting? NTSC is typically slower than PAL is all I was saying. What we're hoping is that KINO would actually telecine it to NTSC directly (at whatever frame rate) instead of doing another bad conversion of a PAL master to NTSC. Metropolis had ugly smearing that could have been avoided if they had transferred it correctly.

baracine

Yes, but Metropolis was already at a manic 24 fps. I agree that the 4 % speeddown whould have been desirable but not by much. Are you saying that it's possible to do a proper PAL to NTSC transfer that doesn't slow down the action? If not, I don't want a slowed-down by 4 % 18 fps film.

Carcosa

I meant to say NTSC would be longer in my original question...don't know what I was thinking

I've been a bit disappointed with both KINO and MILESTONE opting to do PAL conversions for some of these silents. It was noticably distracting on the PHANTOM OF THE OPERA set and apparenly the same with the new CAT AND THE CANARY disc. I realize that its cheaper to do so (according the folks at MILESTONE anyway) but if they didn't have that option, the would still need to create a master from film...like they have to do with ALL the other DVDs they release. it appears to be just the cheap way out. I may have to go Region 2 myself here. Its really a shame.

baracine

Eureka Entertainment just posted this trailer for their version on youtube. The cleanup job is almost unbelievable:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/34J6KiA_HNo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/34J6KiA_HNo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Only misgiving: The Erdmann score has been slowed down so much (I don't mean mechanically, I mean compared to the Gillian B. Anderson/James Kessler reconstruction) it is almost unrecognizable.

But what am I saying? I should be dancing in the streets!

naitram

no Type-O-Negative soundtrack = no sale

baracine

PatrickMcCart

I'm selling off my Image DVD now. This looks almost like they re-shot the whole thing. The 1922 prints probably didn't look this good!

Carcosa

It DOES look fantastic. If the whole movie is on par with that trailer its really going to be something to see.

Deke Rivers

damn..thats looks great !

Josh Z

Although film transferred to PAL video runs faster than film transferred directly to NTSC, the conversion of PAL video to NTSC does not apply any further speed changes. The final NTSC result will run at the same speed it did when it was PAL.

That's why sound movies ported from PAL to NTSC are still afflicted by the PAL pitch shift.

baracine

That part I knew.

But someone mentioned a BETTER WAY to do a PAL to NTSC transfer, which would presumably get rid of the speedup present in the PAL original and eliminate ghosting.

I was wondering if (1) this method exists and (2) whether it is desirable to slow down an 18 fps PAL original (like Nosferatu) by 4 % in NTSC, or whether the PAL original is already playing at 18 fps + 4 % speedup. Simple, no?

baracine

Here is an even clearer version of this trailer:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/nosferatu/trailer/064-nosferatu.mov"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/nosferatu/trailer/064-nosferatu.mov" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/cat...-nosferatu.mov

caligulathegod

The whole 18 fps throws a wrench in this, so not counting that, there is a way to do a PAL to NTSC conversion that gets rid of the speedup. I've done it myself. It involves actually slowing down the 25 fps to 23.976 fps and slowing down the soundtrack to match. A flag is then incorporated in the stream to tell the player to telecine the progressive image on the fly to get it up to the NTSC standard of 29.97 fps. Not doing this causes the smearing seen in Metropolis.


Added:
That .mov trailer looks great, but even it shows the smearing of forcing 18 fps into 25fps. To introduce PAL to NTSC artifacts on top of that when it's possible to just transfer it properly and avoid it.... But I don't want to sound like the obsessives that usually pop up in these threads. I was more trying to be informative rather than bitching.

baracine

Very informative, au contraire. That answers the first part of my question. But it would be really nice to know if the 18 fps/25 video frames per second PAL original is speeded-up (which would mean that the music is too) or if it represents perfectly a speed of 18 fps (and therefore the music sounds like it was originally recorded).

jmj713

Kino's Ultimate version should have the same transfer, right?

Carcosa

Yes...it SHOULD, but KINO has in some other silent film releases converted an existing PAL master to NTSC which results in some image quality issues that have been covered in some previous posts.

We do not yet know for sure this will be the case. It's speculation...but not unreasonable speculation. I suppose one of us could simply ask them. What a novel idea.

baracine

Documentary on the restoration (excerpt):

http://www.kino.com/video/trailer_fl...d=&film_id=887

Carcosa

Ok...now for the BAD news. I just recieved a response from Kino....

It IS a PAL transfer....

What a waste. Why do they bother?

Richard Malloy

That's always what Kino does, and why some of us have just thrown up our hands in frustration. They charge top dollar for their releases, but have never once bothered to properly pre-convert a PAL transfer to NTSC, much less do their own transfers. So, nearly every Kino title I have ever owned has since been replaced by a superior release, very often from Masters of Cinema.

Given that Masters of Cinema is releasing its own super-duper from-the-latest resto DVD, this is a no-brainer. Avoid the Kino, and avoid the smearing, ghosting, and overall softness that comes from their second-rate transfers.

One day I'll wake up and be shocked to discover that Kino has actually properly transferred a film. And on that day I'll be dodging pig droppings from above.

PatrickMcCart

This doesn't make sense since the restoration was in HD res. And after skimming through the new Battleship Potemkin, they have a native NTSC master made from an HD source... it has no PAL conversion blurring. Why they can do this for BP, but not Nosferatu, I have no idea.

The MoC release is a better deal, anyways, with the commentary and booklet.

Carcosa

Yes, I really have to agree at this point. I HATE the ghosting that is apparent in the PAL conversions.

Guess it will be the import for me also.

kevin_y

Kino's Potemkin definitely has the PAL conversion ghosting:

Ambassador

Have you not bought any of the American silents that Kino has released? Most of them were transferred in NTSC rather than ported over from PAL. I'm thinking particularly of the Griffith films, the Edison and Movies Begin boxsets, the two Maurice Tourneur releases, etc. Nothing's wrong with any of them. (They're interlaced, but unless a silent was filmed at 24 fps to begin with, that's always going to be the case.)

PatrickMcCart

That's frame blending from interlaced video. If you put PowerDVD in "forced weave" mode, the ghosting is combing instead. That's at least how it looks on my end.


Kino has used progressive on select titles. Seven Chances, Sherlock Jr., The Old Dark House, and The Strong Man (on the Harry Langdon triple feature) are, at least.

Carcosa

Yes, this is all true. The criticism in all fairness should really be aimed at the import titles like the recent CAT AND THE CANARY and even METROPOLIS. But its just not KINO...MILESTONE brought us the Photoplay restoration of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA with a botched release with some of the worst ghosting I've seen. In response to mt question about why a conversion, they claimed it would have cost a great deal more than was affordable for a new NTSC transfer. But don't they do them from scratch on other releases anyway?