64 / BD 70 Nosferatu

[Bleddyn Williams]

Thanks for the super prompt reply peerpee! Ordered!

[jbaart]

Unfortunately, the Germans did the restoration in SD, despite protestations otherwise. It's going to be a while before a BD can be made --- unless some cheeky label uprezzes the SD.

Sometimes the Murnau-Stiftung's decisions are quite questionable :/

[peerpee]

Not really. At the time, it would have cost 4-5 times more to do it in HD. It's quite understandable why they did it in SD, it's just not a great decision in the long run.

[Minkin]

Looks like Nosferatu succumbs to the 3D trend.How could MoC have failed to utilize this "new restoration" and newly found sound effects track... and I thought the "Gothic Industrial" soundtrack version was the low point for this film.

[Erikht]

Looks like Nosferatu succumbs to the 3D trend.How could MoC have failed to utilize this "new restoration" and newly found sound effects track... and I thought the "Gothic Industrial" soundtrack version was the low point for this film.

Is he ten feet tall and blue?

[Will Barks]

It's going to be a while before a BD can be made --- unless some cheeky label uprezzes the SD.

Seems like this happens now in Italy.

[CorstenoftheFunk]

This was a good movie. The main character was very Freddy Kruger like. It wasn't scary but that's OK as not many films scare me. The two discs are misguiding. 90 minute film on one disc, 50 minute documentary on the other. I was expecting a lot more.

Thanks for reading.

[tojoed]

I'll just mention that there's an 80 page book(let) as well.
But I fear nothing good can come in answering these posts.

[MichaelB]

I'd assume that given a sky-high (for DVD) bitrate of 8.82MB/s and three soundtracks (one in 5.1), there probably wasn't room for a 53-minute documentary on the first disc, at least not without compromising the quality.

And, as has already been pointed out, you get an 80-page booklet (more of a book), containing over 24,000 words of text. When you consider that you also get a full-length commentary and a nearly hour-long documentary, saying "I expected a lot more" isn't so much discourteous as genuinely baffling.

[jbaart]

Don't feed the troll

[Matt]

I think this person's account has been hacked by a child or something, he wasn't previously this... puerile.

[tenia]

Indeed. The first disc is more than 6 Gb and the 2nd one more than 3 Gb. 9.5 Gb as whole. Too much for one DVD-9.

[eerik]

Blu-ray.com member pointed this out:
"Another stunning presentation of internationally important material was made by Marc Rance, director of London-based specialist Watchmaker Films, who revealed the complex restoration processes employed for F.W. Murnau's silent screen classic NOSFERATU (1921). "
http://www.arri.com/news.html?article=6 ... ba056a5cb3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This event took place on 30th May and 1st June this year in Munich, Germany.

Any information about this restoration, Nick?

[peerpee]

No - nothing is planned.

[Orlac]

What I don't get is why Transit's master, for both MOC and KIno, was messed around with so there is locked in interlacing AND Orlok's head is chopped off in the famous ship's hold scene. The version released by the BFI was much superior on this regard. MOC has the German intertitles and original score, plus some very good extras, so it's well worth getting even so. I just...question Transit's efforts.

[sjostrom]

Usually, when you stabilize digitally, the borders go up and down, and unless you have the time to "re-paint" the missing parts on the frames, you crop up to when the dancing borders are not visible anymore. Frequently technicians tend to crop too much, and not scene by scene but for the whole film.

[HerrSchreck]

What's odd, however, is that the prior-to-last master, the one that Shepard licensed from Transit-- whose PQ is not all that different from the last resto (this was the Kino release with the purple cover, with the horrendous scores)-- was as fully stabilized as the last master (to offset shrinkage, etc etc) and featured all of Orlok's head in that famous scene.

So go figya.

[Orlac]

What's odd, however, is that the prior-to-last master, the one that Shepard licensed from Transit-- whose PQ is not all that different from the last resto (this was the Kino release with the purple cover, with the horrendous scores)-- was as fully stabilized as the last master (to offset shrinkage, etc etc) and featured all of Orlok's head in that famous scene.

So go figya.

I wonder if its because the restorations are 1:37.1? A fair other german silents and early talkies seem to be presented restored at something like 1:19:1 (not sure), such as M and Mabuse. Could it be the elements in best shape were cropped back in the day for different prints? A case in point: the US prints of Ecstacy and The Testament Of Dr Mabuse (as they survive on dvd, any way) are massively cropped at the top, comparable to that frame line on the Image dvd of The Cabinet Of Dr Caligair.

[Orlac]

What a commentary...

'Look at that.'

Okay, I'm looking.

'Look at that shot.'

I'm there. Hit me.

'That...'

Yes?

'...is one of the most terrifying shots in German...'

Gosh, not in German?

'...in all cinema...'

Crikey.

'...that frightening...'

Oh it is frightening, you have to say that for it.

'...shadow...'

Oooooooooooo!!!

'...on the wall...'

You know, he's right? That's exactly where it is. Right there on the wall.

'...grasping...'

A lot like a hand.

'...corrupting...'

Ah, a deeper implication I hadn't previously considered.

'...of course, in the novel vampires don't have shadows...'

Not sure about that, and neither is Brad Stevens...but:

'...well they don't cast reflections...but Orlock does, so...'

So what? So he does in the film. So what?

'That's right.'

I don't mean to be churlish about this wonderful DVD, but would it have been so much trouble for R. Dixon Smith (whose writing usually isn't halfway bad) and Brad Stevens to have done a little bit of homework before sitting down to record this complete waste of time? I came away from it feeling like I actually knew less about Nosferatu than I had done 90 minutes earlier.

And yet they seem to have won the non-CC commentary of the year award on this forum for their track on Tabu... I take it that one's much better?

Smith particularly got on my nerves on the commentary. OK, I can forgive him for starting it off with repeating that long de-bunked "fact" that Nosferatu is Romanian for the un-dead, but part way through, he's suddenly really cold and bitchy to Stevens, who is asking questions about German cinema and tinting and presentation and things like that.

For a Nosferatu commentary, David Kalat, David J Skal or Kim Newman would have been superb! Newman tends to sound more like a fan than an expert (though he does know his stuff!), but he is very friendly and jolly and full of apprecation on his commentaries. I remember bursting into applause following Kalat's mammoth 4 hour + commentary for Dr Mabuse The Gambler.

[zedz]

What's odd, however, is that the prior-to-last master, the one that Shepard licensed from Transit-- whose PQ is not all that different from the last resto (this was the Kino release with the purple cover, with the horrendous scores)-- was as fully stabilized as the last master (to offset shrinkage, etc etc) and featured all of Orlok's head in that famous scene.

So go figya.

I wonder if its because the restorations are 1:37.1? A fair other german silents and early talkies seem to be presented restored at something like 1:19:1 (not sure), such as M and Mabuse. Could it be the elements in best shape were cropped back in the day for different prints? A case in point: the US prints of Ecstacy and The Testament Of Dr Mabuse (as they survive on dvd, any way) are massively cropped at the top, comparable to that frame line on the Image dvd of The Cabinet Of Dr Caligair.

The reason for that 1.19 aspect ratio for early sound films is that, with some sound-on-film technologies at that time, the soundtrack impinged on the standard 35mm frame, thus slicing off a bit of space on the side which would normally be filled with image. That's why the narrower frame better preserves the original composition in those specialised instances. But obviously this wouldn't apply to a silent film.

[RidgeShark]

From what I understand about the cropping of Orlok's head on some video editions is that it is an attempt to be as "true" as possible to the original theatrical projections of Nosferatu.

It's obvious that the shot was framed very tightly and so Orlok's head reached the up-most part of the 35mm frame. When it comes time for film projection, this up-most area, along with furthest sections on the right, left, and bottom, gets cropped out because your typical film projector has an aperture that is just a tad smaller than the full 35mm frame. Normally you would never notice it, but for this shot it is painfully obvious. But now with the miracle of modern film to video transfer technology, you would think that the entire image could be scanned at ultra-high resolutions and be shown to everyone, but it's not as easy as that - there are still some obstacles in the way.

In order to be true to the original theatrical experience, some film historians will argue that you have to crop Orlok's head per original film projector aperture specifications. I've read a silent DVD producer argue for this very point. But even if that's not a problem, the image may still get cropped by a producer or video technician who just does not like the rounded corners on a full 35mm frame. Orlok's head is positioned at the very top, where if you go far enough to the right and left on the 35mm frame you will find rounded corners right in line with his head. If you try to crop those out while still showing most of the image, you will crop Orlok's head. The alternative is to crop further in and up which will show Orlok's head, but loses the rat walking around at the very bottom of the frame which is exactly what happened on Kino's original DVD release. Showing the full image, rounded corners and all, will give you Orlok's head and the rat. But it wouldn't be "historically accurate", and it might not be aesthetically pleasing for those who hate rounded corners.

[swo17]

What's not to love about rounded corners?

[Tommaso]

I sometimes wondered why I'm not particularly fond of rounded corners. I guess western people are used to 90° corners from their windows and centuries of painted images. Rounded corners thus draw attention to themselves and to the medium, to the fact that what we see is just a created thing, not a representation of reality. They might make it more difficult to immerse oneself in the film perhaps.

[zedz]

They'd make Nosferatu look like it was remodelled in the 70s in Spanish Hacienda style.

[HerrSchreck]

I absolutely adore rounded corners. Why I was just saying this very thing to a young lady last night.

As for film, I love em too-- makes me feel like I have a copy of the reels in their complete form. As to projectors not being able to accommodate the full 35mm image, I'm not 100 percent sure I buy that, as most have the capacity for adjustment in either direction. I've seen rounded corners in projections, most memorably at the MoMA.

As for a full frame for NOS in telecine, that's no problem either if the operator truly wants-- there are so many transfers that feature all four rounded corners, which were fit within the gate with no problem whatsoever.