And thank you Herr Schreck for your earlier comments, both on not copulating with the director's vision and on the limitations of our current video delivery systems. Unfortunately, the latter places constraints on the former. Murnau's vision may have been 18fps but as there are no "blended" frames on the 35mm print (at least there aren't any on my Super 8mm print), he also must've intended a non-smeared or non-ghosted presentation. But given the constraints of our video systems, some compromise must be made. Maintain the speed and compromise image quality or slightly vary the speed and improve picture quality. It is a rhetorical point. Murnau died before having to deal with issues like this. I don't know which he would've preferred. I would personally choose image.
To Tommaso's comments, I do not blame MoC for any of these issues. They get the video masters they get and do they best they can with them, even going as far as removing pulldown and other anomalies in order to provide the best presentation of the product as is possible. They seem to have a great working knowledge of video processing, frame rates, standards conversions, pulldown, etc unlike another company (whose name rhymes with Vino). I appreciate their efforts greatly...although they are costing me a boatload of money in DVD purchases. I may have to take out a second mortgage.
Quite the contrary, I don't think it's a rhetorical point, I think it's an ironclad rule that you don't mess with the physical characteristics of contemporary art, let alone museum pieces. Murnau intented a tempo, a sense of rhythm, images to flash in succession, sometimes to hold for a specific length and for a reason. He made the film to run a certain length of time. He wanted actors and horses to walk or run at a certain pace. He might have even shouted "CUT! Take it a little slower/faster this time.." The same way the only time Jean Gabin ever saw Renoir openly lose his temper on set in front of people was when a cinematographer told an actor what to do ("Yo do not EVER tell these people what to do... they do not ever make movements to Suit You; you exist to serve them
, to service what they do... if something is not working you speak to me, not to them!!!"), the world of technogeekism should never seek to subordinate the world of art to it's own demands. It should be patently and vehemently, fiercely
the other way around, with instantly replaceable technicians never ever ever making independent decisions that will override-without-consultation the work that has given them a job in the first place. I'd fire on the spot without fucking question the telecine operator who dared even suggest such a thing for a "definitive, ultimate" edition like this, with the original score restored, etc. I'd jettison him into the stratosphere because there is something very basic about "restored", and "authoritative", that he doesn't understand, as he has drowned himself so deeply in his visions of Possible Technical Nirvana, that he has forgotten where he works and what his duty to the deceased director, the public, and history (and the dvd label/restoration house) is.
If technology is in such a state whereby the delivery of pristine uncombed images in the original projection speed is not yet possible owing to frame rates and video fields, then it's just not possible to watch the film from a progressively encoded disc yet. To look at the glorious results of Transit/Kino/Moc, all of whom did impressive backflips with their masters with some fantastic results all round (and this is really the wrong thread to bash Kino on, considering the pal nativity of the transfer that constituted the usual strike against them in this scenario, and the incredible, at times superior-appearing, results of their authoring, which we've all been applauding) and be unsatisfied enough to wish they sped up and corrupted the film by shortening it's length so that progressive encoding is possible, in my view-- and this is only my view-- you should question where you are deriving your satisfaction. It sounds like you may be a bit more technologically involved, than cinematically involved.