64 / BD 70 Nosferatu

[HerrSchreck]

I think some or all of the materials on the other "obscure" Murnau films might be on the older Kino DVD. This all sounds familiar from somewhere.

GROSSHERZOG was not on the previous release... and as someone who has gotten his hands on the copy thats been floating around under the radar, lemme tell you .. it's not as bad as Murnau claimed. Great camera movements, pre LETZE MANN! (w Freund an de Kamera).

[denti alligator]

This is really a shame. I pre-ordered the MoC, but now I want the Kino for the sharper image. Schreck's right: there's almost an SD-HD difference between the two.

[Tommaso]

With all due respect, denti (and not directed against you personally): this is precisely the kind of talk that makes Nick worry whether he should put out "Vampyr" now or wait until 2011 (if you haven't seen the discussion, look here, page 15.)

I mean: what are we talking about? The new "Nosferatu" regardless of whatever version will look better than you've ever seen it before. The greater sharpness in the Kino will be a completely minor point compared with two other discs from different masters by different companies of whatever film (and remember that sharper doesn't automatically mean more cinematic-looking). And as Nick already said, the Kino looks very slightly cropped. Why shouldn't that be regarded as a problem, too? Perhaps Gary will someday compare MoC and Kino to the Transit disc and find that it looks better than both? Might be just possible, mightn't it?

After all: countless other silent discs with issues like 'musical' accompaniments by Marotta or (early) Sosin, not to speak of replaced titles, have passed without any serious complaints here (and I sometimes got beaten on the head for even daring to point these things out, and perhaps that beating was even right in some cases). And now this discussion about this really minor sharpness issue concerning two stellar images and editions if compared to basically any other silent film on dvd I can think of? ENJOY THAT FILM, THAT MUSIC(!!!) AND THAT RESTO! And buy the one you personally prefer according to extras and current Dollar/Euro exchange rate. And if you have already ordered the MoC, be happy you can read that nice Albin Grau piece even if you perhaps don't care about the more scholarly essays.

[denti alligator]

Point taken, Tomasso.

Actually it's only that specific Knock cap and the intertitles that look markedly different. The others don't. I'll be buying both the MoC Vampyr and the Criterion (just to thank both of these companies for bringing out this film properly), and maybe I'll do the same with this one and the Kino.

I don't want to discourage Nick and Co. I think they're doing a remarkable job. The disc will be worth it for the commentary, booklet, cover art (!) alone. It is a bit troubling to see a difference between what should be the same restoration.

[HerrSchreck]

With all due respect, denti (and not directed against you personally): this is precisely the kind of talk that makes Nick worry whether he should put out "Vampyr" now or wait until 2011 (if you haven't seen the discussion, look here, page 15.)

I mean: what are we talking about? The new "Nosferatu" regardless of whatever version will look better than you've ever seen it before. The greater sharpness in the Kino will be a completely minor point compared with two other discs from different masters by different companies of whatever film (and remember that sharper doesn't automatically mean more cinematic-looking). And as Nick already said, the Kino looks very slightly cropped. Why shouldn't that be regarded as a problem, too? Perhaps Gary will someday compare MoC and Kino to the Transit disc and find that it looks better than both? Might be just possible, mightn't it?

After all: countless other silent discs with issues like 'musical' accompaniments by Marotta or (early) Sosin, not to speak of replaced titles, have passed without any serious complaints here (and I sometimes got beaten on the head for even daring to point these things out, and perhaps that beating was even right in some cases). And now this discussion about this really minor sharpness issue concerning two stellar images and editions if compared to basically any other silent film on dvd I can think of? ENJOY THAT FILM, THAT MUSIC(!!!) AND THAT RESTO! And buy the one you personally prefer according to extras and current Dollar/Euro exchange rate. And if you have already ordered the MoC, be happy you can read that nice Albin Grau piece even if you perhaps don't care about the more scholarly essays.

I admire your fealty Tom but I don't see what the point of your anger is-- why if the transfers are supposed to be from the same tape shouldn't Nick or I or anyone question or even note the differences? This is what we are "talking about". Who could possibly question the intentions and quality of MOC?

In fact it was in support of MOC that I personally was wondering (as Wrigley seemed to) whether or not the two presentations were even from the same beta... especially when he said

but theirs looks cropped on the left and right slightly, so I'm wondering if they even used the same master we received. Their sharpness is impressive, however, these are interlaced discs and grabs can't always get across how sharp discs playback in motion,

And to say that Kino discs (who else could you be talking about re Marotta, replaced intertitles, etc) pass by without a hint of serious critique is one of the most incredible contentions I've ever heard. (You know what site you're on, don't you???) They're never discussed in any other manner BUT the hugely critical... the anti-Kino cult is well known around here and on the Beevserv.

Surely MoC has blasted the living shit out of Kino in the quality dept with release after release after release. I mean it's not even like it's close. If Kino pulled a wild card outa their ass on one release and came out with superior image on a FWMS product, it's not the end of the world. Isn't it a good thing worth mentioning if Kino are finally getting their shit together enough to at last be competitive in these side-to-side PAL-sourced situations in which they could classically never compete? With the intertitles restored on these latest releases, it seems like they've been listening to all the complaints. For buyers on this side of the Atlantic, it's a gigantic fucking first that could save a lot of credit card stress. Despite my desire to support Wrigley Cummings et al the currency situation is just tres miserables right now and throwing customs duties on top, any opportunity to save $ is welcome. God knows the stores that used to stock MoC's & BFI's etc just don't buy them anymore the dollar is so heavy in the outhouse right now, so a worthy domestic product on these "big" FWMS Langs & Murnaus would be a godsend.

And for the record (since I'm a well-known Kino defender) my goal is never to erase discussion of a side by side release (who could defend Kino's METROPOLIS, for examlpe, next to MOC?); it's knock some sense into the complaints about WARNING SHADOWS type releases (that they lack the "Criterion/Moc-treatment") that nobody else dares go near. The urgency is too great, provided bugets don't sink to Facets-levels, to want to listen to tweener squealing over inevitable interlacing, or superduper image cleanup, etc. The VAMPYR situation, in other words.

PS-- the beev caps have been brought under Quality Control. All that haloing is kaputski. Anyone who looked before need to look again-- all that white trim crap is gone.

[Ledos]

I have taken some screenshots from the Transit release, trying to match some of the grabs from DVDBeaver. The grabs were taken with PowerDVD, outputting directly to JPG so I don't know how closely this matches the compression that DVDBeaver uses.















Divisa Red (1995 restoration)

[Rowan]

Having bought the MOC disc on Monday I was quite shocked to see the state of Beaver's caps. As Tommaso has indicated, it's a beautiful film-like image. The principal wonder of MOC's efforts on the transfer is how utterly discrete the interlacing is. It looks fantastic in motion, and especially when projected. I thought I'd show support by posting some of my own captures taken on WinDVD. The first is the bfi version as an indication of what I've just upgraded from!

[Ledos]

Some observations on the Transit screenshots: In terms of sharpness it's about the same as Kino. The Eureka release definitely looks softer than either of them. (EDIT: screenshots now updated with correct aspect ratio)

[Tommaso]

I admire your fealty Tom but I don't see what the point of your anger is-- why if the transfers are supposed to be from the same tape shouldn't Nick or I or anyone question or even note the differences?

The anger probably arose specifically from denti using the words "It's a shame" with regard to the MoC disc. As I said, I was also having the current "Vampyr" situation in mind. And if such apparently minor (at least in my view, judging from the caps) differences can generate such heated discussion, what would happen if indeed CC in two years or so produced a clearly superior version of "Vampyr" compared to an MoC release of the Koerber resto as it is now. I have the feeling that Nick has already quite sleepless nights about "Vampyr", and I fear this "Nosferatu" discussion will not make him more relaxed. That's where I came from.

With regard to my supposed fealty to MoC: if I remember correctly, I was about the only one here who expressed his unhappiness with the "Silence" disc from the beginning. MoC is a great label, but of course they are not beyond criticism and shouldn't be. So differences should be noted, but in this case I just thought that feelings were raging a bit too high.

And to say that Kino discs (who else could you be talking about re Marotta, replaced intertitles, etc) pass by without a hint of serious critique is one of the most incredible contentions I've ever heard.

True, of course. But almost everyone (me included) was still buying the respective discs in spite of this, whereas here I had the impression that people would almost like to have their MoC preorders cancelled for much less serious issues.

Isn't it a good thing worth mentioning if Kino are finally getting their shit together enough to at last be competitive in these side-to-side PAL-sourced situations in which they could classically never compete? With the intertitles restored on these latest releases, it seems like they've been listening to all the complaints.

I sincerely hope you're right that this is a general trend, it would be the best that could happen. "Orlac" and "Geheimnisse" will indicate whether you're right, at least re the intertitle situation. I just am not prepared to believe it before I see it. And I take the point about the current Euro/Dollar situation for US buyers (for me it's a blessing, though on the other hand at the moment I tend to buy so many US discs to fill in the gaps in my collection that my poor credit card seriously starts complaining despite of the exchange rate). That's why I said "Buy the one you prefer", as it won't really make a difference.

Different point now. Ledos, you say that the Transit is 1.25. Despite of the stretching you perceive: don't tell me (or rather: DO TELL ME) that Schreck's head is back on the Transit!!?!

[Ledos]

Nope, Schreck's head is the same (ie. slightly cut) on the Transit as on the other releases of the 2006 restoration.

[Robin Davies]

The picture quality of the Masters Of Cinema release is beautiful and the original score (which I had expected to be of only historical interest) is actually the best music I've ever heard for this film.
It's a shame about the framing though. It's cropped on all four sides relative to the version I taped off the UK Channel 4 in 1998. I'd also have preferred the night scenes to be tinted a darker blue. The bit where Orlok is carrying his coffin around still looks like broad daylight.
Incidentally, why did Murnau film those scenes in bright sunlight? Was film stock less sensitive in those days? Or did he not have the time or money to wait for overcast conditions to kill the shadows?

[Tommaso]

Incidentally, why did Murnau film those scenes in bright sunlight? Was film stock less sensitive in those days? Or did he not have the time or money to wait for overcast conditions to kill the shadows?

I guess the latter is the case. This was a rather low-budget production, and in the excellent Beriatua documentary it is even pointed out occasionally how many hours had passed from one scene to another according to the length of the shadows. So I guess he couldn't wait for a cloudy sky... And I agree, I also liked the deep blue tint better that was on the earlier resto in that sequence. Examples of this can also be seen in the documentary. But these bits from the older version also remind us how much better the new resto looks in general.

[markhax]

Incidentally, why did Murnau film those scenes in bright sunlight? Was film stock less sensitive in those days? Or did he not have the time or money to wait for overcast conditions to kill the shadows?

An interesting question. There is a story in the journal 'Der Film' from October 1921, describing shooting the scene of the Harbor of Galaz (where the rats are discovered in the coffins) in "pitch black night" on a set created "out of doors" at the Jofa Studio in Berlin. The feat of filming under such conditions, with 'ghostly light', made a big impression on the author (the article is posted with other documents on the film at Filmportal.de.) Perhaps its being shot on a set, at relatively close range, enabled them to film it at night, whereas the five scenes of Orlok carrying his coffin were filmed in Lübeck and Wismar, in relatively deep, open spaces. I assume it would have been difficult to control the lighting under those circumstances.

[HerrSchreck]

It's a known fact that orthochromatic film stock in particular was very insensitive and to shoot scenes at night huge arc lamps had to be employed. Every lamp in hollywood had to be rented, for example, for the genuine night scenes in HUNCHBACK NOTRE DAME.

The genuine night scenes were a genuine coup for Lang in Mabuse.

You do see genuine night scenes from time to time in early silents, but they were a bitch to film, especially from any substantive distance from the actors.

[Ledos]

I should note that the Transit DVD is not 1.25:1 as I wrote earlier - this is merely the standard PAL format that the captures were made in. The display aspect ratio is in the correct format 1.33:1.

[RidgeShark]

Ledos,

Could you post a capture from the Transit DVD of the shot where Orlok rises from the coffin? I found a picture at the DVD Talk Forum comparing the MK2 edition with the 2004 Kino - and strangely, Orlok's head isn't cropped quite as much as on the 2007 Kino and Eureka editions.

Here's the pic -

[Sanjuro]

The cut head thing is really interesting to me. As someone not at all familiar with film restoration techniques can anybody explain how this happens?

The top of the head is there, the bottom of the frame is there but the two never seem to end up together. Is it a case of two different sources, one of which only has the top part and the other has the bottom? Is it really that difficult to join the two together? Did Murnau shoot that scene on an extra long bit of film as a joke just to vex future restorers??

If anyone can explain, or point me to the post with the best explanation it'd be much appreciated. Feel free to be really technical, I'm not afraid to use a dictionary.

[HerrSchreck]

They could be hemming in the gate in telecine (happening in the transfer in other words).. or some of the print-to-print duping could be responsible (some of which could have happened long ago). Similar sort of error that causes those lines you see running horizontal along the tops of the old CC M for example, or the pre-restoration CALIGARI's (dupe not synched w orig print).

[Sloper]

Is it just me or is Orlok slightly scarier with the top of his head cut off? When you can see the ceiling, he doesn't look so tall - but with his head starting to travel out of the frame, it's almost as if it were going to burst through the ceiling. The cropped shot makes me cower a bit more, I think...

It's been a while since I saw this film (sorry, Murnau fans), but am I right in thinking he rises up to this height in the shot? If it were just static, that would be different, but to see him elevate to the point where his horrible scalp starts to vanish from sight is surely much scarier than just watching him stand up...? Just a thought.

[Robin Davies]

Another question: The opening titles admit that the film is based on Dracula, so why did they need to change the characters' names?

[Tommaso]

Because Murnau didn't acquire the rights for "Dracula" and thought he could get away with it. Of course he was sued by Stoker's widow, and the film only very nearly escaped destruction. More details in the Berriatua documentary and the audio commentary.

[HerrSchreck]

I was always a little confused by that opening title. I always thought they were added on later, after the silent era and the Stoker estate calmed down about the picture and saw it as A Good Thing viz the novel (or at least realized that seeking the films destruction-- or royalties-- were hopeless endeavors).

After all, what would be the point of changing the characters names to try and keep the source material under the radar, but announce at the opening that it was from the SToker novel? It just makes no sense.

I have a hard time believing that "freely adapted from DRAC" title was there when Prana initially presented the film back inna day!

[Tommaso]

I agree that it really doesn't make a lot of sense, but as FWMS claims that they went back to the original title cards (and even restored some missing titles especially for this new resto), I can't imagine that they would have kept the Stoker reference in if it hadn't been in the original Prana version.

Interestingly, a great many post-silent versions did change the names of Hutter and Ellen back to Stoker's names, and even Elsaesser uses the Stoker names in his essay, probably because he hadn't seen even the 1993 resto (which already had the names back to Hutter/Ellen) or simply was so used to the Stoker names in the then current prints.

[Bleddyn Williams]

Deeply shocked by this thread - I came in here expecting to hear that the MoC version was an easy choice!

I would much rather buy an MoC product than Kino - but the sharper image in those shots is most persuasive! I do know that screenshots don't always tell the whole story though - has anyone had the opportunity to do a direct comparison?

[Kinsayder]

I have a hard time believing that "freely adapted from DRAC" title was there when Prana initially presented the film back inna day!

I wonder if Murnau included that title card just to emphasize the word "freely" ("frei") which sits on its own very prominently, dead centre of the screen (if the MoC typography is authentic). He couldn't conceal the provenance of the story, but to stress the looseness of the adaptation might have seemed a prudent step.