30 / BD 150 Buster Keaton: Complete Short Films 1917-1923
-
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 am
- Location: Florie-dah
The 40 minute "rule" also applies to most festivals. 30 minutes or less? You made a short film! 40 minutes or more? You made a feature! I know this because I made a 34 minute film a year ago and I had to cut it down to 30 to make it an acceptable entry for a festival.
Doesn't the AFI also have the 40 minute thing as some kind of rule?
Regardless Sherlock, Jr. ought to qualify as feature length anyway, if not so much on the basis of time as quality. One of the greatest films ever. Nick, I can't wait for this one... and I thought there was no way for anyone to beat Faust!
Doesn't the AFI also have the 40 minute thing as some kind of rule?
Regardless Sherlock, Jr. ought to qualify as feature length anyway, if not so much on the basis of time as quality. One of the greatest films ever. Nick, I can't wait for this one... and I thought there was no way for anyone to beat Faust!
-
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
After writing a piece in the book explaining exactly the situation with materials, and spending the last 3 months on this project doing everything possible to make it as good as it could be, it's very disheartening to read comments like: "I believe that they could have done a much better job on the technical side of this project than they did."
Because -- short of receiving a seventy-million dinar grant from a Saudi Arabian sultanate to chemically restore and wet-gate 32 individual films, which exist in fragments across hundreds of locations worldwide -- we did everything physically possible with the masters we had. Masters which had taken years to put together.
Our choice was basically to do interlaced transfers (which Arte had already done), to deinterlace and make a progressive transfer (which is what we did), or not to release anything at all. Keen to know about this "much better job" we could have done, Gregg?
Because -- short of receiving a seventy-million dinar grant from a Saudi Arabian sultanate to chemically restore and wet-gate 32 individual films, which exist in fragments across hundreds of locations worldwide -- we did everything physically possible with the masters we had. Masters which had taken years to put together.
Our choice was basically to do interlaced transfers (which Arte had already done), to deinterlace and make a progressive transfer (which is what we did), or not to release anything at all. Keen to know about this "much better job" we could have done, Gregg?
- greggster59
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:37 pm
There is significant loss of detail in many of the MOC transfers compared to the interlaced set from Arte. This was true viewing it both on a PC monitor and 50 inch HDTV. The one clear exception was Cops. It is also true that the MOC average bit rate was lower. I suspect this is the cause.peerpee wrote:Our choice was basically to do interlaced transfers (which Arte had already done), to deinterlace and make a progressive transfer (which is what we did), or not to release anything at all. Keen to know about this "much better job" we could have done, Gregg?
So much work was put in to this set and it shows. When I express disappointment with the technical work done for this release, I am referring to the low bit rate transfer process. I have a hunch that a higher bit rate might have addressed this issue. This has nothing to do with the source material.
Best,
GF
- vogler
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
- Location: England
I just read the review and to be honest this is the typical kind of review I expect from Beaver when reviewing silents. I feel 100% certain that you did the best you could given the available materials, especially since it is obvious that these are films that you care about and the set is obviously very important to you. The screen captures look great to me. Beaver always seems to judge dvds on the same technical criteria but it seems unfair to expect a dvd set of extremely old and rare Keaton shorts to even begin to approach the quality of all the well known and loved 'art-house' classics that companies such as Criterion regularly release.peerpee wrote:After writing a piece in the book explaining exactly the situation with materials, and spending the last 3 months on this project doing everything possible to make it as good as it could be, it's very disheartening to read comments like: "I believe that they could have done a much better job on the technical side of this project than they did."
The Rediscover Jacques Feyder set comes to mind also. The beaver review proclaims 'I think there are some valid reasons to shake our collective fists at Image Entertainment on this one.' but I think if you ask the opinion of any real fan of silent film you will get a very different response. For example see Schreck's comments on the Feyder thread here and a number of the comments after that. My response would be something like 'there are many valid reasons for silent fans to be eternally grateful for this wonderful set of French classics'. In addition the Feyder set wasn't even progressive and this Keaton set is. I can't wait to get my copy.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I would sadly say this is typical of the Beaver reviews as a whole. They do an excellent job of showing menu screens, providing links to other information and doing frame grabs. They are also invaluable for their comparisons. However they do get bogged down in hyperbole when it comes to the review side of things, and do seem to get a bit petty with some of the comments, and recently I just don't bother to read the reviews at all.vogler wrote:I just read the review and to be honest this is the typical kind of review I expect from Beaver when reviewing silents.
I would say again though that their comparisons showing us exactly what will be on the DVD we'll be paying out for are what make the site extremely important, not the views expressed on what they think of the film, or even some of the extreme nitpicking that occurs that perhaps very few other people would notice (without a projector or other expensive equipment). It is great they point these things out but again the over the top pronouncements or petitions or boycotts do seem a bit extreme.
Plus, as politics show, a strong 'belief' in something doesn't necessarily make it true!
- vogler
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
- Location: England
I totally agree with this and I find DVDbeaver to be a very valuable resource in this respect. I don't really have any interest in criticising DVDbeaver, I just feel that MOC deserve more credit for the huge amount of time and effort they put into projects like this rather than having their efforts dismissed with comments such as the aforementioned 'I believe that they could have done a much better job on the technical side of this project than they did.'colinr0380 wrote:I would say again though that their comparisons showing us exactly what will be on the DVD we'll be paying out for are what make the site extremely important, not the views expressed on what they think of the film, or even some of the extreme nitpicking that occurs that perhaps very few other people would notice
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:33 pm
- Location: Billerica MA USA
To lose yourself in a collection of films you've never seen, and enjoy a good long read about them... this is the definition of a great Xmas present for me, so I've asked for it.
I understand that the set might not be technically perfect, but it just looks like it has too much to enjoy to miss out on!
I understand that the set might not be technically perfect, but it just looks like it has too much to enjoy to miss out on!
- greggster59
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:37 pm
vogler wrote: I don't really have any interest in criticising DVDbeaver, I just feel that MOC deserve more credit for the huge amount of time and effort they put into projects like this rather than having their efforts dismissed with comments such as the aforementioned 'I believe that they could have done a much better job on the technical side of this project than they did.'
My comment was not a dismissal. It was a criticism. The transfers in the MOC release were deinterlaced but were also compressed more then the Arte interlaced set. This higher compression rate, IMO, was at least partly responsible for my conclusion. I have no complaints with regards to the source material.
Check out "The Bellboy" from 1918 on disc one of the MOC set. I did not use captures from this short in the review. The bit rate here is very high at an average of 6.26mb/s. Even through the print damage, the image looks pretty good thanks to less video compression. By comparison, look at 'The Playhouse' from 1921 on disc three. Even though the print of this short is superior to the one used in 'The Bellboy' the comparatively high compression applied to 'The Playhouse's" video transfer (4.19mb/s average) overly softens the image and obscures some fine detail.
My criticism is directed at the decision to use so much compression in the progressive transfer. If the bit rate for the entire set averaged around 6mb/s, I think it would have been a noticeable improvement over the Arte release all around. Our goal at DVDBeaver is to critique DVD transfers of films and artists that we are enthusiastic about. If I wasn't prepared to nitpick, I would have no reason to do the review. The evidence is presented in the form of still captures to help readers decide for themselves if they agree with the reviewer or not.
That said, I feel that the MOC release of the Buster Keaton shorts is a very important archival set. Do not hesitate to buy it if you are at all interested in Buster Keaton. But I stand by my critique.
Best,
GF
-
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
"Lower bitrate" does not necessarily equal a "more visually destructive compression". Especially in this case, as Arte's encodes were done over 5 years ago, and ours utilise excellent new Cinemacraft multi-pass software.greggster59 wrote:My comment was not a dismissal. It was a criticism. The transfers in the MOC release were deinterlaced but were also compressed more then the Arte interlaced set. This higher compression rate, IMO, was at least partly responsible for my conclusion. I have no complaints with regards to the source material.
Nothing wrong with nitpicking if it's based on facts, rather than speculation! We tested higher bitrates and it didn't noticeably affect the sharpness. We had to encode the material in advance and keep the bitrates as they were in case new material or extras arose throughout the production process. The slight sharpness differences you're seeing on some films are overwhelmingly caused by the fact that the MoC set was encoded progressively.My criticism is directed at the decision to use so much compression in the progressive transfer. If the bit rate for the entire set averaged around 6mb/s, I think it would have been a noticeable improvement over the Arte release all around. Our goal at DVDBeaver is to critique DVD transfers of films and artists that we are enthusiastic about. If I wasn't prepared to nitpick, I would have no reason to do the review. The evidence is presented in the form of still captures to help readers decide for themselves if they agree with the reviewer or not.
The Arte is interlaced, and is prone to looking slightly sharper *when paused* if you get a non-combed grab. For the MoC release, the masters had pulldown removed, were deinterlaced, and encoded progressively. This results in the slightly less sharp *still* grabs.
What is very important in such comparisons, but hardly ever discussed in DVD reviews, is what the DVD looks like in *motion* and how the encoding affects this. Interlaced discs can look sharp when paused, but have motion issues on certain displays which result in a blurring of motion as the interlaced frames are displayed. Progressive discs in motion usually look far more normal and smooth to the eye, and are far more pleasing across a wide range of different display technologies -- which is why we encoded this set progressively.
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
100% on the money. Quite frankly that Beev review is par for the course-- a reviewing service which is completely oblivious to the unique terrain of silent film economics and disc production, which is always going to exist within a certain remove from the CC and WB discs (and most of the recent MOC's) which they so highly praise. Without categorical product perspective, the reviewing process is a disservice.vogler wrote:I just read the review and to be honest this is the typical kind of review I expect from Beaver when reviewing silents. I feel 100% certain that you did the best you could given the available materials, especially since it is obvious that these are films that you care about and the set is obviously very important to you. The screen captures look great to me. Beaver always seems to judge dvds on the same technical criteria but it seems unfair to expect a dvd set of extremely old and rare Keaton shorts to even begin to approach the quality of all the well known and loved 'art-house' classics that companies such as Criterion regularly release.peerpee wrote:After writing a piece in the book explaining exactly the situation with materials, and spending the last 3 months on this project doing everything possible to make it as good as it could be, it's very disheartening to read comments like: "I believe that they could have done a much better job on the technical side of this project than they did."
The Rediscover Jacques Feyder set comes to mind also. .
These criticisms levelled at MoC on this release, and the general refusal to review Kino's silent discs "until they get their act together" (no EDISON, MAN WHO LAUGHS, WARNING SHADOWS, 3 STILLERS, NIBELUNGEN, TARTUFF, FAIRBANKS BOX, ASPHALT, most Griffiths, etc etc, as well as the two fantastic Mamoulians, all absolutely sublime releases), the "shaking of the collective fist" at HVe for the sublime Feyder box, no PHANTOM (I could go on & on.. no Milestone TABU, HINDLE WAKES, TERRE, CHESS PLAYER, YEVGENI BAUER etc) amounts to the absolute equivalent of a Consumer Reports reviewer blasting an efficient, well powered, gas-efficient, crash-safe, Toyota or Honda, specifically because they lack the power and feature-rich luxury resident in a Maserati or Porsche or Morgan.
There simply is not the audience for silents for companies to run brand new telecine on large projects like this (especially when a digital tape from a recent run-thru exists.. in or out of one's own Pal/NTSC protocol; CC does it-- see MK2 Bresson's, Shepard's NANOOK, the same Library of Congress Robeson telecine used by Kino for their old VHS's) encode progressively and/or at soaring bitrates (which would amp up the number of discs required for this Keaton MoC set, bump into Nick & Doug's profit margins, and possibly kill the utility of this project from their perspective in the first place) for the vast bulk of releases. I actually worry about MoC because they put so much into this and other recent silent releases.. it frightens me that they may be overshooting into their own margins and put the co in trouble-- I don't want to lose these guys and would gladly settle for a 4.8 bitrate on a labor of love like this; quite frankly I was stunned that they went progressive on this, considering the vast bulk of material. And yes, 4.8 mb/s progressive is always going to look better onscreen than, say, 5-6 mb/s interlaced. We owe them nothing but gratitude gratitude gratitude for putting so much time and effort into a project like this. The caps are a clear, vast improvement over the original Arte run off the very same digibeta.
How can it be that the NYTimes, New Yorker, Film Comment, Premeire, et al say "All Hail Kino!", or "Imagining a film world without Kino is like imagining a park without trees,"... and that Milestone is worshipped by industrial icons like Scorsese, The National Society of Film Critics (the 03 HERITAGE award), et al, but yet, these indispensable services are mostly ignored, or when reviewed, are slammed for evidence of not operating on a WB disc-production budget.
Whereas we're all entitled to our own opinion, the only problem I have with this is kids come onto this site after discovering his service and take up the groupthink techdweeb rallying cry over the most negligible of freeze-frame artifacts, completely invisible during the viewing process, and-- sight unseen-- dismiss out of hand over nonsensical red herrings some of the most vibrant forces in film distribution both in the cinema and on disc.
Ignore the criticism Nick-- congratulations on a fine set which I'll be buying without hesitation.
- Steven H
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: NC
Great post, HerrSchreck. It's easy to lose sight of what matters most, and when it comes to silents, we're usually lucky they even exist. I find the words "not extant" far worse than "interlaced" or "less sharp". I guess it's just a matter of what we're looking for. My problem this year is cash, as I'm sure it's a number of people's. I might have the funds for an extra box set or two, and I'm split about ten ways (this, McLaren, Ruiz, Feyder...) The booklet in this might have it edge it out though (as it should.)
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
This is absolutely right - I think people do place an excessive reliance on bitrate as a quality yardstick, as it's often pretty meaningless, or at least needs placing in context.peerpee wrote:"Lower bitrate" does not necessarily equal a "more visually destructive compression". Especially in this case, as Arte's encodes were done over 5 years ago, and ours utilise excellent new Cinemacraft multi-pass software.
For instance, Ruscico discs are far from perfect, but their bitrates are absolutely sky-high - 8-9 MB/sec is not uncommon. In fact, as this Beaver review demonstrates, the equivalent Criterion might have a lower average bitrate (6.17 versus 6.70 - there are doubtless more extreme examples for those who care to look) and yet Gary is in no doubt whatsoever as to which transfer looks superior.
When I put the BFI's Quay Brothers set together, I deliberately kept the running time down on disc one in order to push the bitrate to the absolute maximum, and explicitly instructed the authoring house to do this. But if you look at the disc, you'll see that the final bitrate is nowhere near the 8-9 MB/sec that they had the space for (as the Beaver review reveals, the average bitrate - at least for the first three titles, which is the clump that he sampled - was 5.98-6.17 MB/sec). Yet, as seems to be the universal consensus, from the viewer's perspective the transfers are as close to perfect as makes no practical difference - from which I conclude that the bitrate is as high as it needed to be.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Another great example of low-bitrate gorgeous image is MGM's release of the obscure (but Gunther Krampf-- of PANDORA-- photog'd) Gaumont British '33 vehicle THE GHOUL. Aside from a brief period of muddy contrast with Ernest Thesiger creeping thru the London fog handing off the note, the film looks almost totally like a Criterion release, and the SL disc is encoded at bitrates at times around 3mb/s.
And thank heavens it looks as good as it does, considering it's one of the most beautifully photographed talkies of all time, and the miraculously discovered print of this once-lost (but for a hideous Czech-subbed print) little piece of early 30's horror-heaven is in absolutely pristine, almost camera-neg condition.
And thank heavens it looks as good as it does, considering it's one of the most beautifully photographed talkies of all time, and the miraculously discovered print of this once-lost (but for a hideous Czech-subbed print) little piece of early 30's horror-heaven is in absolutely pristine, almost camera-neg condition.
- Kinsayder
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:22 pm
- Location: UK
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
- Paul Moran
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:06 pm
- Location: UK
Have any other Denon owners had problems with Disc 3 in this set?
My main player is a multi-region Denon DVD2900. It had no problems with discs 1, 2 and 4, but refused to load disc 3 on the first attempt. On subsequent attempts, it either refused to load, or loaded very slowly then was unable to play a selected item without lots of errors (freezes, blocks, jumps, etc).
My Region 2 Denon ADV-M71 also refused to load the disc (I only tried it once).
However, my old Region 2 Pioneer DV-737, my two multi-region Sony DVD recorders (RDR-GXD310 and RDR-HXD710), and my PC DVD-RW (NEC ND-3530A) loaded it without any problems, and I've played the disc all the way through on the Sony RDR-HXD710.
I've noticed on several occasions that my Denon players seem to be the least tolerant of the six devices, so this may be a problem peculiar to my Denons, or it may be indicative of a wider Denon compatibility issue.
BTW, many thanks to Eureka/MoC for this release, which I enjoyed very much. I admit to being a little disappointed by some of the transfers, but I've read page 4 of the book, so I understand the difficulties.
My main player is a multi-region Denon DVD2900. It had no problems with discs 1, 2 and 4, but refused to load disc 3 on the first attempt. On subsequent attempts, it either refused to load, or loaded very slowly then was unable to play a selected item without lots of errors (freezes, blocks, jumps, etc).
My Region 2 Denon ADV-M71 also refused to load the disc (I only tried it once).
However, my old Region 2 Pioneer DV-737, my two multi-region Sony DVD recorders (RDR-GXD310 and RDR-HXD710), and my PC DVD-RW (NEC ND-3530A) loaded it without any problems, and I've played the disc all the way through on the Sony RDR-HXD710.
I've noticed on several occasions that my Denon players seem to be the least tolerant of the six devices, so this may be a problem peculiar to my Denons, or it may be indicative of a wider Denon compatibility issue.
BTW, many thanks to Eureka/MoC for this release, which I enjoyed very much. I admit to being a little disappointed by some of the transfers, but I've read page 4 of the book, so I understand the difficulties.
- Caligula
- Carthago delenda est
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:32 am
- Location: George, South Africa