64 / BD 70 Nosferatu

[Subbuteo]

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?

I've spent the best part of a week with the MOC and haven't the slightest reservation in a resounding recommendation. Had friends round for a screening and we were in awe, its up there with the best MOC have released.

Sure the Kino looks a fine disc (from the captures), but rest assured you aren't going to purchase some Facets abomination if you opt for the MOC. If you want to support them buy without any lose of sleep and why not purchase Tabu also...

[markhax]

I've spent the best part of a week with the MOC and haven't the slightest reservation in a resounding recommendation. Had friends round for a screening and we were in awe, its up there with the best MOC have released.

Sure the Kino looks a fine disc (from the captures), but rest assured you aren't going to purchase some Facets abomination if you opt for the MOC. If you want to support them buy without any lose of sleep and why not purchase Tabu also...

I got my MOC Nosferatu two days ago and agree with the above. I have also found the 80-page booklet--in small type--extremely informative, the most meaty booklet I have seen with a DVD. The Elsaesser, Perez, and Patalas essays are excellent and the Albin Grau essay is also a real find.

[HerrSchreck]

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.

God knows you could be right. Certainly if it was there originally that would be the reason. But I'm experiencing predictable difficulties assimilating that idea owing to the films early destruction, and having grown up always reading about how they changed the character names to try and "slide it under the radar" (a similar thing was done w DR J & MR H via Murnau's Der Januskopf, these loose unauthorized adaptations from early cinema where rights and copyrights-- and especially case law serving as warning to would be violators-- were not developed to the clarity of today). Writers always would use phrases like "but they weren't fooling anybody", or "the similarities were obvious, however", etc etc when talking about the "figuring out" that the film was from the Stoker. And if they (Murnau Grau et al) did know enough about the law-- that being the reason, lets say, for the card insert in question-- then they certainly would have been foolish not to expect what wound up happening to happen.

I have a hard time believing these intertititles we see in this resto's digibeta are the actual vintage cards anyhow-- they may have reproduced what was on the cards word for word (or scanned them digitally and cleaned them up to meticulousness and turned them into purely electronic images), and signaled via the FWMS -tagged titles that the text was taken from the script/censor, as opposed to the actual intertitles... but certainly those without the FWMS are not the actual intertitles themselves as they are completely damage-free and entirely stable... this as opposed to the other text-based inserts (narrator-diaries, vampyre/7 deadly-sins-book, ships logs, plague warnings & placards, etc) which exhibit expected frame judder, scratches, dust, etc, and are clearly 85 year old images taken from nitrate and cleaned up.

[markhax]

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.

For what it's worth, two German reviews of the 1922 premiere (available on filmportal.de) mention that the film is based on Stoker's novel, so it was no secret at the time. In light of that the citation of Stoker probably was part of the opening title.

[Tommaso]

. but certainly those without the FWMS are not the actual intertitles themselves as they are completely damage-free and entirely stable....

You may be right, but on the other hand they could simply have isolated one frame of the original titles, cleaned that up meticulously and then duplicated it as often as they needed to reach the original time-length it was supposed to be on screen. The result would probably be precisely the damage-free and stable titlecard you describe. Of course I may be contradicting myself as surely they could have done the same with most of the 'normal' on-screen writings. To clear this problem up: is/ was there somewhere a publication of the original script?

[markhax]

Re Nosferatu/Dracula and Murnau/Stoker

To clear this problem up: is/ was there somewhere a publication of the original script?

The 1979 German edition of Lotte Eisner's standard monograph on Murnau includes the screenplay. All I have seen is the English translation of the screenplay, available on the web, and it doesn't include the opening title cards, only the intertitles. My guess is that Grau included the reference to Stoker in the opening credits and thought that Prana could get away with mentioning the novel, and saying it was a free adaptation ("frei verfasst von Henrik Galeen.") The problem is not that they didn't acknowledge Stoker, but that they didn't purchase the rights to adapt it.

Florence Stoker's lawsuit didn't gain her any money, because Prana was in receivership by the time she filed her lawsuit. All she succeded in doing was getting a court order, in 1925, to destroy all copies of the film.

[Ledos]

Could you post a capture from the Transit DVD of the shot where Orlok rises from the coffin?

I updated the screenshots from the Transit DVD and included this shot (see page 6). The same scene from the Divisa Red edition is also included for comparison.

[HerrSchreck]

. but certainly those without the FWMS are not the actual intertitles themselves as they are completely damage-free and entirely stable....

You may be right, but on the other hand they could simply have isolated one frame of the original titles, cleaned that up meticulously and then duplicated it as often as they needed to reach the original time-length it was supposed to be on screen. The result would probably be precisely the damage-free and stable titlecard you describe. Of course I may be contradicting myself as surely they could have done the same with most of the 'normal' on-screen writings. To clear this problem up: is/ was there somewhere a publication of the original script?

You messing w my brain, Tom? You know parts of it are already held together w bakery string and scotch tape (and scotch, period... moreso as replies like this keep coming!)

they may have reproduced what was on the cards word for word (or scanned them digitally and cleaned them up to meticulousness and turned them into purely electronic images),

You even copped my verbiage!

Regarding Stoker, the state of Prana, reasons for the suit, et al-- all well known. My curiosity lies w the fact that scholarship of the past 30 years always seemed to promote the fact that Grau et al thought they were pulling a fast one by sneaking something under the noses of the world (often using the Jansuskopf ref as further illustration)... in other words the changing of the names, locations, et al would "fool" someone, or create enough of a difference to avoid comparison. In other words their "plan" was to avoid comparison (via these deliberate changes), not invite them via the adaptation intertitle.

[Michael Kerpan]

My curiosity lies w the fact that scholarship of the past 30 years always seemed to promote the fact that Grau et al thought they were pulling a fast one by sneaking something under the noses of the world (often using the Jansuskopf ref as further illustration)... in other words the changing of the names, locations, et al would "fool" someone, or create enough of a difference to avoid comparison. In other words their "plan" was to avoid comparison (via these deliberate changes), not invite them via the adaptation intertitle.

This story has always sounded like utter bosh to me.

The film and literary world was way too small for Murnau and company to slip something by. Rather than fooling anyone, the changes would have been intended as a protective cloak -- in the hope that they could argue that they had made just enough changes to escape a successful claim of copyright violation. After all, there was not yet much case law on this issue. Rendering even a whole literary word into visual images -- without using any actual text from the original (even in translated form) might not have seemed a clear cut violation. The law (then, as now) held that it is not ideas that are protected, but only the actual expression -- and Murnau arguably did NOT copy this.

I don't think there was any authority that would suggest that making a set of illustrations of a literary work was a copyright violation (unless a significant amount of text was directly appropriated as well). In theory, making a set of moving illustrations might also have been permissible.

[HerrSchreck]

Mike, I think we're in agreement here, just debating what was going on in Grau et al's heads at the time, which will no doubt go on forever.

I mentioned a few posts up about the undeveloped state of case law at the time whereby "warning examples" did not yet exist in full. Very hard to know at this vantage point.

Nonetheless, your statement

the changes would have been intended as a protective cloak -- in the hope that they could argue that they had made just enough changes to escape a successful claim of copyright violation

again plays into my mere curiosity: why, if they were trying to weave a protective legal cloak about the picture by changing the names, locations, excise hunks of the story, etc, would they then go and fire a phosphorescent mortar up into the air for the Stoker estate to see... they're basically begging to be sued by placing DRACULA as it's source (albeit "freely" based or not... which in this case sounds to me more like a tongue in cheek way of saying "without paying" rather than "loosely"... sound like Im being cute but I'm not since the tale is a duplication of the book).

It's either a) a wire thin escape of "breach" that they've arranged for themselves, or b) they may have seen examples prior where similar films escaped suits, or c) they just kept the concept out in a special blind spot and just "hoped everything would be okay", the film would go and come, finish it's run, and not attract too much attention but make some profit. That would be the "slipping one by" scenario which I find feasable. They just probably saw it happen before successfully (no suit on a foreign adaptation beyond the home state of the estate, and hoped they'd have similar luck). In this case slipping one by wouldn't be so much bosh as it was probably a combo of B & C: something to be hoped for and in fact demonstrably possible and probably even regularly practiced at the time.

[Michael Kerpan]

I think that acknowledging the obvious couldn't hurt.

The film was not only undeniably _inspired_ by Stoker's novel -- the makers affirmatively WANTED their audience to know this fact. They clearly wished to get the full benefit of a Dracula connection -- but I would note that the mere attempt at hanging onto the coat tails of a popular book would not have been actionable under copyright law -- no matter how much it might have enraged the copyright holder of the book. (Trademark law would be different -- but the notion of trying to trademark characters had not yet been spawned).

The key concept here turns on whether Murnau's version appropriated not just Stoker's ideas but his expression of those ideas. Using different character names (etc.) would have been the (absolutely essential) first step in trying to signal that one was NOT copying the expression -- but only the general unprotectable ideas underlying the story. They HAD to change enough aspects to allow a defense that _expression_ had not been copied. The protection of this protective cloak did not arise from deception in any way -- but from the nature and extent of changes themselves.

Being frank about the source of the _ideas_ could well be viewed as a _defensive_ action -- signalling "we are NOT trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes -- we are aware of what we are doing -- and we think what we are doing is legally permissible".

[markhax]

The film was not only undeniably _inspired_ by Stoker's novel -- the makers affirmatively WANTED their audience to know this fact. They clearly wished to get the full benefit of a Dracula connection -- but I would note that the mere attempt at hanging onto the coat tails of a popular book would not have been actionable under copyright law -- no matter how much it might have enraged the copyright holder of the book. (Trademark law would be different -- but the notion of trying to trademark characters had not yet been spawned).

The key concept here turns on whether Murnau's version appropriated not just Stoker's ideas but his expression of those ideas. Using different character names (etc.) would have been the (absolutely essential) first step in trying to signal that one was NOT copying the expression -- but only the general unprotectable ideas underlying the story. They HAD to change enough aspects to allow a defense that _expression_ had not been copied. The protection of this protective cloak did not arise from deception in any way -- but from the nature and extent of changes themselves.

Being frank about the source of the _ideas_ could well be viewed as a _defensive_ action -- signalling "we are NOT trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes -- we are aware of what we are doing -- and we think what we are doing is legally permissible".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, three reviews of the premiere mentioned the Stoker connection. There was a lot of advance publicity for the film in the various Weimar film magazines, and I would guess that the Stoker novel was also mentioned then for the reasons you state. .

And there is one major, essential difference between the novel and the film that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, namely the plague. Luciano Berriatua, the Murnau authority who wrote the 53-minute bonus track, sees this as crucial. In an essay he published about a decade ago he argues that disease is the only part of the Nosferatu phenomenon that is real. The novel, as Berriatúa notes, is based on the ancient religious idea that the soul is located in the blood. As he sees it, Murnau and Grau secularize the story by making Nosferatu an agent or personification of disease. It is this element that leads Berriatúa to see it as in part a realist film, in which Nosferatu becomes a superstitious explanation of the plague that befalls Wisborg in 1838. In other words, Nosferatu is a figment of the imagination, the rats are real; the plague is real. As he writes : “Nosferatu is the phantasm of the plague that is transported by the rats.â€

[HerrSchreck]

Certainly all of these opinions are up for grabs, and hearing these sorts of expressions from Thinking & Informed Minds are what I was looking for in throwing up what I still see as either breathtakingly bad business/legal sense on behalf of Grau & Murnau as regards this film... or something like wishful thinking/high hopes in the Luck dept. Or at least Obliviousness.

We could proclaim with a certainty propogated by our own interior vantage points (aesthetic as well as historical) devolped over a long time of loving this film and it's director, and digesting loads of information over the years, certain ideas we feel shed conclusive light on what Murnau & Grau were thinking. "expression" and "ideas" can sound very concrete as legal concepts but from work to work to work, and in the realm of case law, fact is they really don't mean a damned thing-- especially if a defendant is short on legal funds to mount a well reasoned and researched defense. One expresses one's ideas via expression, and one can have many ideas about forms of expression. In a patently wild tale of unique plot but of simplest style, the idea is the commodity-- plotting and character. In a book of Burroughs cut-ups, we are dealing with nearly plotless, pure expression. And when it comes to a silent film, how does one concretely assure one's self that via almost purely visual images one is absolutely not riffing on one's expression? These are both works of gothic-style horror, vampire tales involving a journey by a good man sent by a vampiric co-conspirator to close a real estate deal at a leaning and shadowy old castle arrived at at midnight. The plot, the characters-- the tale, the settings-- the means of unnerving and frightening the audience by promulgating ideas about a central figure of a walking dead/undead man who arises at midnight to drink blood from the living for sustenance by drifting through the shadows first of Transylvania in the Carpathians and then in the home town of the broker, are all precisely the same. The differences rendered by Grau (as elucidated by Berriatua et al) are utterly fantastic and make the take even more frightening in my view.
Regarding the differences, I far prefer Orlok to Dracula, and I far prefer seeing the hometown in which the count comes to mount his attack as the spiritual home of Gothic Horror, Germany, rather than foggy London. Let's also recall how a) undeveloped the medium of gothic tales of horror were at the time, causing Dracula the novel to stand out that much more in the consciousness of the world, and b) how even more youthful the medium of film was at the time, particularly in terms of a "horror" genre: there were no "vampire" movies-- they did DRACULA, end of story. Lawsuit at the leisure of the Stoker's.. end of story, hands down.

But again, I really think they had a bit of a deliberate, hopeful blind spot where they just sort of hoped nothing would happen. If they weren't ill-advised, naive, or gambling, they were just dumb. Getting down to minutiae of legal e's is time killing-- they were doing DRacula, in it's all it's large and small details.. end of story. No further discussion needed. Quite frankly, despite the fact that this is probably the film 've seen more times than any other, is undoubtedly the film that (along w the 1930's Universals) was my route into capital C Cinema, and despite the fact that F W Murnau has been my favorite director forever, I think it's time to state the obvious, which hasn't been stated: it was a bonehead move they made, and it very nearly deprived us of one the finest and most important films ever made. Unless they were just totally oblivious, or ill-informed, "boneheaded" may be harsh. But if they were conscious of the fact that disaster could ensue if they were perceived as adapting the novel Dracula, they were just boneheads to think they could survive a lawsuit. It's bad enough staring at pictures of Chaney in LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT... could you imagine staring depressedly at pictures of HerrSchreck in his makeup & prosthetic add-ons without getting to see the moving images??? The torment?? Greater cinematic torture I simply cannot envision.

I could see if they planned to make a quick throwaway pic on the cheap, take the money and run to the next film/co so there'd be no company to sue. But to put all that time, effort, art, money and travel into what they clearly labored over, and jeopardize it's future that way... kind of irresponsible.

Lastly in terms of adaptations, loose or tight: remember Mike, how fortunes are paid to authors of novels to make films which bear virtually no resemblance whatsoever to the cinematic work that results. A good producer knows that the simple association with a famous novel is enough to get herds into the cinema pronto, even if the film is panned upon release. People want to See That Book They Read, or at least See That Character and Hear Him Speak. In fact I'd go far as saying that the vast majority of novels that are officially adapted, with money paid and contracts signed to the author of estate thereby, are far less faithful to their sources than NOS is to Stoker. In terms of cinema, it is actually a pretty faithful rendering, as cinema and literature are such grossly uncomplimentary animals in most cases. Getting superfaithful correspondences like CLOCKWORK ORANGE of DRUGSTORE COWBOY (which is so faithful even the dialog is virtually line for line) are extremely rare. Most directors don't give a fuck about writers and demolish their books-- some of them come out with masterpieces like Dassin viz RIFIFI or NIGHT & THE CITY (but that didn't prevent him from being essentially stuck up at gunpoint by the angry LeBreton).

PS-- Dave-- isn't the MoC like the Transit and Kino interlaced? The film runs at 16 or 18fps, and (I was fooled by my player's upscaling the Kino, I guess, because even w the upscaling I saw no duped frames as is typical w native interlaced discs...originally I thought the Kino was progressive) it's pretty much common knowledge now they're all interlaced.

[Tommaso]

Sorry Schreck, no bad intentions to mess with your brain by freely adapting your prose. Hope you don't follow this up with a widow-Stoker-like lawsuit...

Seriously, I thought that your original point was that perhaps the Stoker reference in the titles might not have been in the film when it was first released, and that you saw the cleanliness of the titles as an indication for this. So digitalized or not, I wanted to argue that what we read is the same text as on the very first prints.

I wonder what would have happened if they had NOT included the Stoker reference. I guess that the result would probably have been very bad press, as a lot of reviewers would have accused them of outright plagiarism, all the changes notwithstanding. And in a time that cared so much for artistic originality (at least in the more 'established' arts) such an accusation would have been much more damaging than it would probably be today.

[chollyp]

Hi Group,

I have been reading this forum for a couple of years but when the MoC Nosferatu came out, I was compelled to sign-up and throw in my two cents. I am not a video professional but simply a fanatical, obsessive film nerd with boatloads of 8mm film, laserdiscs, and DVDs. I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I am also making assumptions based on my knowledge and my analysis of the video content. I was not there when MoC did their work and I don't know what they did in their processes. Perhaps they could shed some light on the transfer and encoding process from the point of receiving the videos from Transit through the encoding of the DVD.

I analyzed the MoC Nosferatu using the following free software: GordianKnot, VirtualDub, and AviSynth. This video processing software enables all sort of functions including deinterlacing, inverse telecine (pulldown removal), frame rate conversions, etc. If you are a film geek like me, you may want to get copies and actually get your fingers into the video. Doom9.net is where I got my copies.

Bottom line is: The MoC disc is both combed (frame blended) and "ghosted" (field blended).

I have some frame and field grabs to illustrate this located here. The frames on the left are the video frames. The two corresponding "shorter" frames to the right are the constituent video fields.

This is all a side effect of the strict adherence to the original projection speed of 18fps. 18fps could be changed to 25fps by repeating certain fields (applying a pulldown), which would result in combing. I don't have a problem with combing for transferring film footage with an intended frame rate less than 24fps. To paraphrase HerrSchrek's comment in an earlier post, this is common with silent films. However, because 18fps just doesn't divide neatly into 25fps, this would result in judder or little stops/stutters/hiccups in motion that appear at regular intervals. To make the frame rate change smooth requires field blending and that is what was done here. If the frame rate conversion process used some sort of bob-type deinterlacing, that would explain the softness of the image.

An alternative would've been to slow the film frame rate to 16.667fps (2/3 25fps), a 3:3 pulldown (used to change 19.98fps to 29.976fps for NTSC) could've be used. The progressive film content would be in the video stream intact with every third video frame being a blend of two adjacent frames. It would be combed but NOT ghosted and the frame rate would look comparable to 18fps.

I appreciate the desire for strict adherence to the "original" frame rate and all but the point is this: the majority of all DVDs produced (both PAL and NTSC) are not at the original film frame rate. 24fps film is typically sped up to 25fps for PAL and slowed very slightly to 23.976fps for NTSC.

In the PAL scenario, it is possible to transform 24fps to 25fps without speed up but the resultant video is heavily combed, ghosted, both, or has judder because one frame was repeated. It is trade off between image quality and projection speed and the typical choice by DVD encoders is to change the film speed so that it cooperates with the video to get the best image. With this disc, the choice was made as frame rate over image quality.

I assume Transit provided MoC with and already converted 18-->25fps PAL master and that MoC did the best they could with it.

Even with the flaws, it still looks incredible. Can you just imagine that it could've looked even better? Well, it could've.

My open question to the board is: if a tradeoff were required, which would you choose: Projection speed or image quality?

[Ledos]

My open question to the board is: if a tradeoff were required, which would you choose: Projection speed or image quality?

It depends on the extent of the effect on image quality, of course, but in general I prefer silent film transfers to respect the intended projection speed.

However, it should be possible to achieve it without doing field blending that results in combing. If you have a film with a speed of 18 fps, shouldn't it just be possible to repeat 7 (or 6, in the case of NTSC) frames out of each 18 to achieve 25 (24) frames pr. second? The digital equivalent of stretch printing. This would of course result in a 'stuttering' of the image (some frames will appear to display twice as long as others) but this would, in my opinion, be preferable to combing effects.

[Ledos]

About the filmmakers' motives for changing the character names - the whole thing boils down to the often repeated claim that it was done to avoid copyright problems. However, can this claim be traced back to any substantial sources? There's little doubt that the intertitle crediting Stoker is an original one so it does indicate that there might have been other reasons. I wouldn't be surpriced if the claim turns out to be the same as so much other long accepted 'facts' about silent films - namely a myth.

[HerrSchreck]

You're coming close to what for me is a Hitting The Nail On The Head in terms of this subject matter, which is (and is the reason I read so little cinematic"scholarship" in the zones of my interest)-- which is that if you could cross reference both the 1) largescale picture drawn of the cinema, and 2) line by line statements of facts not to mention conclusions drawn by assumption, a huge portion of silent film scholarship is beyond merely misinformative: it has laid down certain paradigms which are actual obstacles to the truth. The bulk should be pulped for Ikea footstools.

In the above posts I've been trying to smoke out other peoples feelings about the adaptation in an effort to try and smoke out my own feelings about it. My own sense is that Kerpan is right, but up to a point (based on my own feelings)-- Grau et al didn't think they were sneaking one by anyone. The similarities would have been completely obvious. So in that sense the "sneaking one under the noses of the world" thing IS indeed bosh. They werent fooling anyone.

But on the other hand, since we know their plan was not to go bankrupt, but to have the film come out, make money, have the company thrive without legal trouble and not be dissolved and not have all prints destroyed, I think in essence they had high hopes that they would -- in essence -- hope to accomplish what amounted to sneaking one by. There's no other way to describe -- if the rules were clear cut, and if they were aware of the consequences -- what they tried to do.

The adaptation was so ridiculously obvious, they put so much effort and blood sweat and tears into the thing... they had such a fantastically exceptional product with such a riveting central character unseen in the cinema before or since, Chaney included, the risking all of this (and especially thinking they could crawl like Kurtz snail along the edge of a straight legel razor and survive the hackles of Ms. Stoker, aroused) was just dopey. The tour de force nature of the film insured the inevitable.

On the image quality/projection speed issue, I commend any attempt to overcome technical restrictions to provide an authentic vid experience of its original vintage. The elapsing of time impacts the director's editing choices, and fucking with the projection speed fucks with the directors original intentions, which we have no right to do.

I second Nick Wrigleys loathing of "video" as the knobby old horse that carries these images to us. As a means of transportation, it is archaic, earthbound, cruddy and irritating. It's strictly from hunger, man, and seeing these 21st Century digital beauties crushed by the landlocked restrictions of an old analog form used in mid-1900's fucking television is just absurd (yes I know theyre digital betas, I'm talking about the vid frame rates etc).

[greggster59]

I just checked out my newly arrived copy of Nosferatu. All I can say is GORGEOUSNESS & GORGEOSITY !

Nice work.

[RidgeShark]

My copy finally arrived yesterday - along with Tabu and Faust. I've only gotten through Nosferatu and I'm very happy with it.

The packaging is beautiful for each movie - I'm especially pleased that a home video company finally released Nosferatu with this artwork. Eureka/MoC shows great taste. The booklet is fantastic as well.

Nosferatu's video transfer looks spectacular. As a digital video enthusiast, I can't help but appreciate the monstrously large bitrate given to the film. My only criticism is in regards to the cropping, which I know isn't MoC's fault. Hopefully this will be corrected by Murnau-Stiftung by the time an officially licensed Blu-ray edition comes out.

I want to thank peerpee and the rest of the crew at Eureka/MoC for this lovely package. It's an exciting home video release and I hope it will be a big success.

[MichaelB]

I appreciate the desire for strict adherence to the "original" frame rate and all but the point is this: the majority of all DVDs produced (both PAL and NTSC) are not at the original film frame rate. 24fps film is typically sped up to 25fps for PAL and slowed very slightly to 23.976fps for NTSC.

But the key word here is "very slightly". Most people won't notice a 24fps-to-25fps speedup - in fact, the only clue is usually a change of pitch in the sound, which you'll only spot if you're extremely familiar with the original (at the correct speed).

On the other hand, 18fps-to-25fps is a huge difference, which would be impossible to miss - and with a film like Nosferatu the results would look ridiculous.

So there's very little doubt to my mind that the framerate should be prioritised. Indeed, when I ran a repertory cinema, we made a point of screening Nosferatu in 16mm, as our 35mm projectors didn't have an adjustable framerate.

[chollyp]

Thanks for the responses.

...shouldn't it just be possible to repeat 7 (or 6, in the case of NTSC) frames out of each 18 to achieve 25 (24) frames pr. second? The digital equivalent of stretch printing.

Sure. Actually, Chaplin, when re-releasing some of his silents at 24fps with soundtracks and uhm...unfortunately some narration ...used stretch printing to maintain proper temporal speed. I tried it out with a clip from MoC Metropolis and it looks OK. That could be a valid option.

On the other hand, 18fps-to-25fps is a huge difference, which would be impossible to miss - and with a film like Nosferatu the results would look ridiculous.

Absolutely. 18fps-to-25fps would be way too fast. The MoC Metropolis comes to mind. Excellent presentation by the way (other than the speed) and my first MoC disc. Actually, slowed down to 18fps or 16.667fps (with the soundtrack adjusted), Metropolis looks more natural.

However, 18fps-to-16.667fps is not a huge difference. I do have 3 versions of Nosferatu on film (2 on 8mm, 1 on Super 8) and 18fps (or even 16fps) is definitely the way to go.

I guess my point is that we collectively as both consumers (DVD producers) can live with the frame rate changes required for most DVDs produced today, especially since they are relatively minor and are close enough to the original frame rate so as not to be overly distracting.

In the case of Nosferatu however, the "original" frame rate of 18fps was considered the absolute unwavering standard and the result is a most beautiful, breathtaking, tears-of-joy inducing transfer...with ghosting and combing.

Silents to video is a tough proposition, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Multiple solutions, which one to choose?

1. 18-to-25 (progressive) - way too freakin' fast
2. 18-to-25 (repeating frames, progressive) - just a little stuttery but overall OK
3. 18-to-25 (blended) - combing/ghosting (MoC version)
4. 20-to-25 (3:2 pulldown, like NTSC) - 2 out of 5 frames combed, runs a little fast
5. 16.667-to-25 (3:3 pulldown) - 1 out of 3 frames combed
6. (Whatever)-to-25-to-29.98 - Kino...'nuff said

Thanks for tolerating my rants and ramblings.

[Tommaso]

Absolutely. 18fps-to-25fps would be way too fast. The MoC Metropolis comes to mind. Excellent presentation by the way (other than the speed) and my first MoC disc. Actually, slowed down to 18fps or 16.667fps (with the soundtrack adjusted), Metropolis looks more natural.

Absolutely, though again it's not MoC's fault, but FWMS'. Does anyone know why exactly Patalas/Koerber opted for 24fps after apparently trying out several projection speeds? In any case, I had the chance to see "Metropolis" live with the Babelsberg Orchestra in 2000 at the Hannover World Fair, projected at 18 or 20fps, and it looked far more convincing (that was before the Transit disc came out). Incidentally, when arte showed the film on TV (again, with the new music!) they also used a slower speed. It was about 20 min. longer than the disc, so I wonder whether FWMS made a new master in the meantime which they used for the various dvd editions around.

[HerrSchreck]

Is anyone else as interested as I am in seeing the version re-released as Die zwölfte Stunde or Eine Nacht des Grauens in 1930 in a sound version? I think it's the most natural extra/supplement in the world, and they give the film nary a mention besides a line reference about the remake, and the fact that it is used as a source for elements of the restoration.

Has any one actually seen it?

[chollyp]

I would absolutely love to see Die zwölfte Stunde or Eine Nacht des Grauens. I assume there are prints available since some footage was used in the restoration. It would've made a great supplemental feature to the Nosferatu disc...regardless of frame rate.

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.