criterionforum.org

triodelover wrote:

swo17 wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, is lighter with more detail always preferred? See the debate in the Sous le soleil de satan thread.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that lighter with more detail is always preferred. This is a 1931 film, and the film stocks of the time just couldn't achieve the level of contrast available later (like in 1987). To boost contrast and deepen blacks creates an unnatural appearance that wouldn't accurately represent the original (while also obscuring detail). It's like recording a jazz quartet and over-miking the bass. Some folks may like "feeling" the bass, but it's not what the music sounded like acoustically in the recording venue. Jonathan S is correct. If you want that effect you either have or can add controls to your home system to achieve that. The producers of the disc - BD, DVD or CD - shouldn't be making that decision for you.

I want to make a couple of points which hopefully will help clarify the confusion here and elsewhere regarding "M" and the two releases on Blu-ray disc.
I worked in very great detail and length (6 days) with the 35mm film elements that was the source of what later would become the two Blu-ray editions. But let me backtrack a bit and correct a few things:

1) Transit Film had absolutely nothing to do with the restoration effort at all. This is probably a mixup with Metropolis.
2) MTI Technologies has nothing to do with the company (of a very different name) in Melbourne that worked on cleanup and encoding and authoring of the Eureka DVD at the time. In fact, the work by that company lead to several unauthorized alterations in the grayscale causing, indeed, a "contrast boost". The transfer master from us was perfectly fine in that way, with no crushed blacks, no blownout whites, and no added digital sharpness.
3) As for the claim that "film stocks of the time just couldn't achieve the level of contrast available later (like in 1987)" - well, it is exactly the other way around. Who or whatever the source of that definition was, is wrong. In fact, nitrate film stocks because of their attributes based on a very different chemical composition could by far surpass the grayscale capabilities of the later following safety stocks, especially those of the 1980s, which were comparatively very limited in range. The results were far better and more luminous registration in the upper grayscale leading up to white, and extremely velvety dark gray tones leading to a very solid black. This kind of range can just barely be achived with the latest Kodak Vision stocks established in the first years since 2000. By now, you may already guess what "M" really looks like. And "M" is no exception, but the rule.

Now, there is no denying that each and everyone of those who own or want to own the film have their very own individual, very subjective preferences. But so did Lang. And he left very clear documentation as to what "M" should look like, both in form of the film elements themselves as well as written and verbal statements describing his intentions and instructions [re: the set design and lighting]. There are several very clear indicators that even if those statements would not exist and the film elements were to have survived completely skewed would point the way to the correct result. One very important aspect is the first scene, which is playing in the labyrinth-like living quarters that have lots of interconnected backyards that are uniquely tied to the city of Berlin, Germany. The opener with the children, the stairwell, the small, very dark and intentionally gritty rooms of the Elsie's mother's apartment - all this is a scenery that Lang wanted to capture precisely as it was in reality then. And the reality was very, very gritty - there was very little natural light coming in even on a bright sunny day. These locations [which were for the film build as a set on the lot of the Tempelhof studios] were literally pitch dark. I know these quarters [that have been restored and considerably "brightend up" in the last decade or so] very well, since I grew up near there and often visited school mates of mine who used to live there, with these living quarters having changed very little since the 30s at that time. It was depressing, with the stairwells often only lit by a naked bulb, and almost no natural light whatsoever. Without the light of such a bulb you could see little to nothing in front of you. The backyards were just as "dim". Lang often spoke about the enormous attention to detail with which these quarters were build - and lit - on the Tempelhof lot. He wanted to capture the depressing reality of living there "to the t". And as was his nature, he did so with all the other scenes as well. Lang noted that in his attempt to portray evil, one of his artistic tools was to make one of the main characters the shadow. "M" is a dark figure, a shadow, always lurking. Lang captured Lorre with that photography as menacing as he possibly could - and the impact on audiences was just as intense. After the film's opening, people who recognized the then unknown actor on the streets would grab their children in panic calling him, Lorre, "der Kindermörder" (the child murderer). Even much later, with Hitchcock in the UK and in Hollywood, Peter Lorre would be associated with and typecast as an evil man, something that hauted him to his final days. In the eyes of many, Lorre had become the very image he portrayed. Having all that play out in a very bright setting and atmosphere contradicts the entire story and certainly would not have had the impact it did.

Some comments were made that the Criterion Blu-ray Disc is "contrast boosted". In fact, contrast levels were not touched at all. Quite the opposite. We worked together with Criterion on the corrections of the initial transfer master to finalize the film's correct appearance, and it has been a very professional and wonderful experience throughout. As one can see on the Criterion DVD, both gamma curve and the black level in many scenes were a bit elevated, but nowhere near the bright levels that I have noticed on the Eureka BD. As to why this is or how that happend, I do not know. [By the way, the mentioned knuckles are visible way overexposed on the Eureka, as are many signs, etc] The scenes / shots with a an elevated gamma curve and/or black levels and in some also the white levels were corrected in great detail, matching the 35mm elements' image and intent. It now, finally, looks like it was supposed to all these years. The film's dark, menacing atmosphere [another giveaway is the Reward Poster with Lorre's shadow] is now captured as hauting as people saw it during the film's initial run. Shortly thereafter, it was banned by the Nazi regime, the beginning of an odyssey that the film almost did not survive and with many reincarnations such as false reformatting (to 1.37:1, cutting people's heads off) and sound syncs where no sound was supposed to be that had to be "unrestored" to get to the true, correct photochemical restoration Martin Koerber finalized in 2001. And it did not end there...

So, some of those who posted may prefer to see the film with a significantly elevated grayscale, but the Criterion Edition is very much accurate as to the originally intended image and what is actually registering on the 35mm film elements. I for myself can honestly say that, finally, with the gracious offer from Criterion to work together on this "M" Blu-ray edition, I am relieved and very satisfied to know that "M" is correct now also as a final master. Re: technical work the book "M" is closed now, to my great delight. It has been a privilege - and I hope you enjoy it.

Torsten Kaiser
TLEFilms
Film Mastering, Preservation and Restoration Services
Projects in High Definition; 2K, 4K
http://www.TLE-Films.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

swo17 wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, is lighter with more detail always preferred? See the debate in the Sous le soleil de satan thread.

Oh, you old devil's advocate you. (And that's about the most literal use of the phrase I've ever seen, so congratulations.) If anything's a special case, it's that scene.

To play regular advocate and going back to that first example, in the first capture the dress pattern is clearly visible even in shadow. It's darker and I can understand how it might be more difficult to distinguish, especially with, y'know, older eyes or monitors, but no detail has be lost. Further, the Criterion brings out texture that gets a little lost on the MOC, especially on walls, ground, fabric, even that knuckle shadow there. They both look great but, yeah, I like Ike.

=D>

Thank you for taking the time to write that wonderful insight.

I think Mr Torsten Kaiser's comments sealed the deal. Sticking to my Criterion pre-order now, sorry MoC.

Well, if there was ever a definitive statement....

Out of both fairness and curiosity, I would like to hear what Nick has to say in response before rushing to judgement.

captveg wrote:Well, if there was ever a definitive statement....

Herr Kaiser was under contract to Criterion. My request for Nick's input before judging stands.

triodelover wrote:

captveg wrote:Well, if there was ever a definitive statement....

Herr Kaiser was under contract to Criterion. My request for Nick's input before judging stands.

For the record:
re: "under contract": that would be news to me. MoC merely got an HDCAMSR DUB, Nick himself (who I respect very much, he does great work and many titles with his "signature" have found their way here) did not participate at any point in the work on "M"; and he had no access to the film elements.

Torsten Kaiser
Senior Producer
TLEFilms
Film Mastering, Preservation and Restoration Services
Projects in High Definition; 2K, 4K
http://www.TLE-Films.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You all do realize that you can adjust brightness and contrast right on your very own teevee (or monitor), don't you? You can make any movie look as bright or as contrasty as you desire.

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:re: "under contract": that would be news to me. MoC merely got an HDCAMSR DUB, Nick himself (who I respect very much, he does great work and many titles with his "signature" have found their way here) did not participate at any point in the work on "M"; and he had no access to the film elements.

I apologize then. I read your post's wording and assumed your involvement was at Criterion's request and therefore you were contracted by them for your work. Nonetheless, I'm sure someone compensated you for your efforts on Criterion's behalf.

Your comments about Nick run contrary to what he posted in the MoC M thread and I reproduced above. He is listed as the co=producer and unless that is an honorary title, I'll assume he had some involvement. Your post states that nothing was done to alter the Criterion and that the MoC has an "elevated grayscale". In addition to the quote above, MoC have stated in this forum that they took a hands off approach and nothing was done to the HD master. Since there are such stark differences between the two products, someone is being less than forthcoming. I'd just like to know whom.

triodelover wrote:

captveg wrote:Well, if there was ever a definitive statement....

Herr Kaiser was under contract to Criterion. My request for Nick's input before judging stands.

You guys crack me up!

EDIT: For the record, I'm not mocking anyone or any postion...it was just a funny post.

Matt wrote:You all do realize that you can adjust brightness and contrast right on your very own teevee (or monitor), don't you? You can make any movie look as bright or as contrasty as you desire.

That doesn't mean that Criterion applied their preferred black levels to the film consistently - even checking the Beaver caps one can see that some shots on the two editions are identical, while others look like they're from different movies. This indicates that Criterion was applying this level of darkness selectively, which could be read as "subjectively." Nothing Mr. Kaiser has said indicates that anything beyond their whims are on display here.

As much as I appreciate having someone like Mr. Kaiser posting on our boards, and though he probably does have a great amount of knowledge on this subject, nothing in his post is as "definitive" as he claims it is. I heard a lot of "gritty" this and "I've been there" that, but nothing that amounted to proof or even evidence (visiting a neighborhood that might have been Lang's inspiration decades in the past just isn't convincing; nor should one's subjective reading of a location be immediately duplicated in a film restoration. Just ask Harris and Katz about their colors on Vertigo). Just because Lang wanted it gritty doesn't mean he would have wanted it to look DARK. Some of the shots on the Crit edition look like they were shot at night while it is clearly daytime; others look poorly lit.

I'm not taking sides re: which edition is more correct; I have a philosophical preference at this time, and nothing in this thread has proven that M is a "closed book." Looking forward to a response from Nick.

triodelover wrote:[Nick] is listed as the co=producer and unless that is an honorary title, I'll assume he had some involvement. Your post states that nothing was done to alter the Criterion and that the MoC has an "elevated grayscale". In addition to the quote above, MoC have stated in this forum that they took a hands off approach and nothing was done to the HD master.

I'd imagine that Nick is somewhat involved in the production of every MoC disc, but that doesn't necessarily mean he supervised the transfer or had access to film elements. The producer also would gather supplements, clear licenses, etc. It sounds to me like Criterion created the master transfer based on elements provided by TLE, licensed a copy of that raw master to MOC, then worked with TLE to digitally adjust the raw master transfer to make it look more like a projected version of TLE's elements. Since Mr. Kaiser is the one with access to the film elements, I'll take his word that the Criterion is as close as possible to looking like them.

Jeff wrote:[Since Mr. Kaiser is the one with access to the film elements, I'll take his word that the Criterion is as close as possible to looking like them.

I'd still like to hear what Nick or someone else from MoC has to say. I'm in Svevan's camp on this.

triodelover wrote:I'd still like to hear what Nick or someone else from MoC has to say. I'm in Svevan's camp on this.

Don't get me wrong, I would too. Despite Mr. Kaiser's comments and what may or may not be "correct," I think I may still have a slight personal aesthetic preference for the MoC transfer. I'm not as much of a technical purist as some, and generally take an "I like what I like" approach to such things. I'm only buying the Criterion version over the MoC on this one because I'm still Blu-ray region locked.

(I don't want to get into a pissing contest!)

Torsten is rightly backing up the work he's done with Criterion, but making a bunch of 'definitive' and 'final' judgements as to what is 'correct' and what is 'incorrect' is very risky business!

Suggesting that "it now finally looks like it was supposed to all these years" and how certain scenes are "now as haunting as people saw it during the film's initial run" are pretty grandiose, far-fetched statements. How could you possibly know unless: i.) you saw it in 1931, or ii.) you were Fritz Lang? There are so many variables: the BDs are based on a photochemical restoration from *2001* along with interpretations of "Lang's written and verbal descriptions of what he wanted" (!!) -- not to mention the calibration and accuracy of the displays and equipment that are being used and how that equipment relates to consumer equipment in the home. At best it's an approximation, it's certainly not definitive.

I'm not saying the work is wrong, far from it, I'm simply emphasising that we can't ever be so 100% cocksure to make such statements, and that I'd never have the confidence to suggest any work like this was definitive based on the evidence at hand.

What is clear is that the Criterion BD is darker and the MoC BD is lighter. The Criterion BD may not have been "contrast boosted" but it has had its levels tweaked/adjusted "to match the 35mm elements", so much so that, to my eyes, and compared to the MoC BD, it makes the grain more coarse and crushes some shadow detail evident in the MoC BD. (I haven't seen the CC BD in motion so I can't comment on how the grain is handled.)

What's funny is that we're all discussing this and looking at various grabs on displays with different settings or watching the actual BDs on many different types of computer/LCD/plasma screen and we're almost certainly not all looking at exactly the same thing -- eg. Gary spotted a green tinge in the CC BD grabs, but pumping the saturation on them in Photoshop reveals they're entirely b+w, there's no colour in there whatsoever.

The MoC BD doesn't have any additional cleanup, we didn't tweak the levels one way or the other, we didn't use any grain removal filters, we left it in the hands of the original telecine operator and didn't take any liberties with the master.

I think the bottom line here is that they both look fabulous and there's a lot of hair splitting going on. It's very, very interesting to get to the bottom of what's been tweaked, corrected, or manipulated, and why, but at the end of the day no-one's really dropped the ball and made a pig's ear of it (like, >cough<, the StudioCanal CONTEMPT BD!).

For what it's worth, I prefer the finer grain structure and the lighter grayscale spectrum on the MoC BD, it has a different look to it which more resembles the silvery nitrate heaven of this era - but then I would say that wouldn't I? ---- I think both BDs look astonishing.

I'd probably argue that somewhere between the two would probably be ideal, based on the loss of detail in the Criterion shadows -- after all, if detail is there in the MoC BD, it's because it's present in the master materials, and if it's present in the master materials but not on the CC BD, then the CC BD can't be definitive by definition. Far from clearing up the confusion, I think the cat's amongst the pigeons.

(I don't want to get into a pissing contest!)

triodelover wrote:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:re: "under contract": that would be news to me. MoC merely got an HDCAMSR DUB, Nick himself (who I respect very much, he does great work and many titles with his "signature" have found their way here) did not participate at any point in the work on "M"; and he had no access to the film elements.

Your comments about Nick run contrary to what he posted in the MoC M thread and I reproduced above. He is listed as the co=producer and unless that is an honorary title, I'll assume he had some involvement. Your post states that nothing was done to alter the Criterion and that the MoC has an "elevated grayscale". In addition to the quote above, MoC have stated in this forum that they took a hands off approach and nothing was done to the HD master. Since there are such stark differences between the two products, someone is being less than forthcoming. I'd just like to know whom.

I think you misunderstood something points. Maybe read this post first.

The whole thing, according to all information gathered now, seems to be like this:

(in chronological order)

(1) TLEFilms worked on "M" in PAL SD some years ago;

(2) Eureka issued a DVD based on the work;

(3) Criterion wanted to do a SE DVD for M in 2003, but they found no HD materials are available;

(4) Criterion did their own HD transfer without TLEFilms' input, thus featuring a somewhat 'elevated grayscale';

(5) MoC wanted to issue a Blu-ray edition in early 2010, they requested the HD master from Criterion, did nothing to it (the so-called hands off approach), thus inheriting the 'elevated grayscale' in the image;

(6) Almost in the same time Criterion wanted to release their own Blu-ray, but they contacted TLEFilms this time to make some correction on their HD master. In January of 2010 they worked together on this issue. Needless to say, it was too late for MoC to take part in even if they wanted to.

So no one is lying here.

(Any newer information or input is welcomed.)

What I don't understand is that surely you can't gain that much detail brightening a master. If the negative has a deep contrast, along with the positive prints after, lifting the contrast isn't going to reveal much detail at all. So how can the MoC disk look how it does unless that is how the prints look?

EDIT: ah Nick has said this much more fluently towards the end of his post

Svevan wrote:Nothing Mr. Kaiser has said indicates that anything beyond their whims are on display here.

Um... no:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:We worked together with Criterion on the corrections of the initial transfer master to finalize the film's correct appearance, and it has been a very professional and wonderful experience throughout.

And:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:The scenes / shots with a an elevated gamma curve and/or black levels and in some also the white levels were corrected in great detail, matching the 35mm elements' image and intent.

And:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:So, some of those who posted may prefer to see the film with a significantly elevated grayscale, but the Criterion Edition is very much accurate as to the originally intended image and what is actually registering on the 35mm film elements.

Peacock wrote:What I don't understand is that surely you can't gain that much detail brightening a master. If the negative has a deep contrast, along with the positive prints after, lifting the contrast isn't going to reveal much detail at all. So how can the MoC disk look how it does unless that is how the prints look?

I'll be curious to see if I can see some detail on my plasma that isn't showing up in Gary's caps. Of course not every bit of detail that was on the prints would necessarily show up clearly when those prints were originally projected to audiences either. Unless you watch your films like this:

captveg wrote:lots of quotes from Kaiser about "intent"

Each of the quotes you posted states that they've matched the original "intent," yet the source of this knowledge is not referenced in Mr. Kaiser's post. My point stands.

andyli wrote:So no one is lying here.

Nick has addressed most of your post better than I could, but I said that someone is less than forthcoming. That is not the same thing as accusing someone of lying, which I did not do. One may be less than forthcoming and still be telling truth with respect to those things they have chosen to reveal. I apologize if English is not your first language, but when I want to call someone a liar, I don't mince words.

captveg wrote:

Svevan wrote:Nothing Mr. Kaiser has said indicates that anything beyond their whims are on display here.

Um... no:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:We worked together with Criterion on the corrections of the initial transfer master to finalize the film's correct appearance, and it has been a very professional and wonderful experience throughout.

And:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:The scenes / shots with a an elevated gamma curve and/or black levels and in some also the white levels were corrected in great detail, matching the 35mm elements' image and intent.

And:

Torsten Kaiser TLE wrote:So, some of those who posted may prefer to see the film with a significantly elevated grayscale, but the Criterion Edition is very much accurate as to the originally intended image and what is actually registering on the 35mm film elements.

With all due respect, the quotes you've lifted sound like a canned press release. And as I'm sure you're aware, canned press releases are designed to say nothing and offend no one.

My solution is to buy both. I'm still region locked (A), but I've made an exception to my minimalism for MOC and am becoming an MOC completist.