criterionforum.org

I remember buying my first batch of DVDs in 2000. Amongst them were Image's The Human Condition, several Criterions (of course), Dersu Uzala, Easy Rider, Badlands and Days of Heaven. I had been very leary of leaving Laserdisc behind, because I really did not believe that a compressed format like DVD would be able to live up to the image quality of LD. Needless to say, I was completely won over. DVD has progressed tremendously since then (even Criterion), and many of those films purchased back then would probably now be considered hopeless (certainly it would be nice with a fresher print of Dersu and Human Condition.)

Then along the way (partly because my means to buy DVDs were limited) I got into this frame of mind that only Criterion's releases were up to snuff, and for a while it really ruined my mood anytime a title I was looking forward to was being released by a label other than Criterion.

In the last two years, as I have started exploring the internet (Beaver, this forum, etc), I have taken the completely opposite stance. Whether it is VHS, LD, DVD or some other format, these are all home video experiences of the film -- essentially models of the real thing, or better yet, a library of paperbag editions of books, rather than the hardbound first editions. Sometimes the quality can be out of this world and almost as good as a real film (in fact, with respect to older titles, it can easily be much better, as anyone frequenting film museums will have to admit). Other times, the quality is less excellent. But, unless the quality is really bad, I am no longer capable of being anything but joyful at having the opportunity, not only to view the film, but to own a "model" of it in my library that I can take out and watch in whole or part any time I desire. And, very probably, even the best of these releases will be improved upon in the future (as we are presently seeing with Criterion's Seven Samurai, Playtime, etc.), whether it be through new transfers, new discoveries of footage, or more exciting extras. That just makes it so much more fun to take an active interest in this little subcurrent of film history that is "home video/film viewing."

Don't let the idea of (often hardly perceptible) deficiencies in transfers ruin the enjoyment of watching these films. Approach it the other way around -- take great pleasure in the fact that you can watch them, and then experience the joy all over again, when a new and even better edition appears down the road.

Specifically with respect to Mabuse -- for generations no audience has been able to see anything approaching the version that is now available from Kino and Eureka. A few years ago I purchased the earlier Image release, which was 220 minutes long, and I was convinced that this was it, and I thought it was a completely awesome experience watching that DVD... just 3 or 4 years ago! The announcement of this new and much longer version blew me away, and I can't wait to get my hands on it, and be enthralled by this film all over again.

Enjoy watching the films

Well, even if you (unbelievably for me) do not see the difference between the Kino "Holy Mountain" and its MoC counterpart as far as image is concerned ( I rarely saw another DVD with more ghosting problems than that Kino one), the MoC would still obviously be superior because it has the German intertitles and NO fiddling around with the several writings in the film-images themselves. And the latter goes for "Mabuse" probably, as it goes for "Michael" and likely the list could be extended.

As Sharphedin2 is talking about the start of the DVD experience a few years ago, I am reminded how awful some of the early Eureka silents were. Actually they commited all the mistakes of Kino: intertitle replacements, NTSC/PAL-conversions with the well-known problems, untinted Griffiths and VHS-style Pudovkins. Then suddenly, somewhere around 2002 they started to turn around, keeping the intertitles, and gradually began doing fantastic releases like their "M" or "Munchhausen", and finally evolving (?) into MoC.
What I want to say with this is simply: someone must have been listening to the complaints, and they saw to making things better. That is why I would argue - although I perfectly understand this idea about simply enjoying the film in the first place - that people who are unhappy with what Kino does should continue to voice their complaints, every time they ruin another film. Sometime, and it may be a long time to go, they WILL have to listen. Even if they cannot improve on the PAL/NTSC-thing, the intertitle problem should be easy to solve.

Can anybody speak of the quality of Kino's von Stroheims?

Langlois68 wrote:Can anybody speak of the quality of Kino's von Stroheims?

Well, they ain't pretty.

Tommaso wrote:every time they ruin another film.

Kino is sloppy, uncaring, unwilling to spend money...but what films have they "ruined?" Or is this just another bit of unleashed hyperbole?

Here is my take on the Kino issue:

I have more than 60 Kino DVDs and I still appreciate their having brought these films to the DVD medium in the first place. I agree completely: having an important film in the digital format is better than not having it at all.

Around six months ago (after resisting to the idea for some time), I got a region-free player. And I am glad that I did! To me, the difference is obvious. I can understand avoiding that step for financial reasons non-R1 DVDs come at an additional cost); otherwise, I feel it is a must for a cinephile. Anyone skeptical about the degree of improvement should try to see, for example, Holy Mountain, Faust or L'atalante as R1 and R2, and then decide.

As a result, I started to replace some R1 titles (many of which are from Kino, Image or Facets), with their superior R2 editions. I already replaced 10 Kino items in that way, and again, I am glad that I did! As soon as there is a competitor R2 edition, it is very likely that the Kino release won't be the best version (from my experience so far).

Somehow the recent Kino discussion focused on the silents, but I think Kino is not significantly better in the sound-era films. There are often disappointments (e.g. the recent Seijun Suzuki Collection ), about the transfer quality.

Based on my experience, I didn't order Mabuse or recent Haneke Collection from Kino right away -- and the reviews/comments I read make me think that I was right. I will order the Mabuse release from Eureka (unless MoC announces an upcoming, improved version) -- and replace gradually other Kino titles in my collection with their superior (mostly R2) releases, as they become available.

The bottom-line is that as projection/TV technologies evolve and get cheaper, and especially as more and more people become "region-free", companies like Kino may be forced to revise/improve their transfer techniques. This is only a possibility, since it isn't clear to me how many DVD buyers will consider buying the more expensive R2 editions. Cinephiles, yes, but I am not sure about their percentage in the DVD customer pools.

It is also possible that Kino (and others, like Facets) will be able to continue with the same transfer practices thanks to the region differences. But for me, they will only bring nice memories from the early days of the DVD-era.

I have always had a region-free player (living in Denmark it was pretty much necessary in the early days). However, until 1-2 years ago I almost hardly bought anything but R1 releases. With the greater awareness of what is out there, I have in the last year purchased DVDs from Russia, Italy, Beligum, Germany, quite a few discs from Japan and France, an a lot from UK, as well as ordering from a variety of smaller vendors in the US.

So, "region-freedom" has both broadened my horizons as to film history, and also brought my enjoyment at watching DVDs to a new level. Like Zone_Resident, I have also upgraded quite a few titles, and in general -- with a little research -- it is often possible to find superior editions of films from countries/companies you would not expect. I was thrilled to discover the Mizoguchi films available (w. subs) from French label Films Sans Frontiers, superior versions of several American and world titles (like The Wind Will Carry Us and Ivan's Childhood) from French label mk2, very nice Jancso titles from French Clavis, great silent releases as already mentioned from UK's Eureka/MoC, and the list goes on (Beaver is great place to look into all this). But the availability of films on DVD is absolutely the main thing for me. Knowing that I can get to see Glauber Rocha's films via Brazil (although I have not yet taken the plunge on that one), several of Franticek Vlacil's films through Facets, several of Anthony Mann's epic films as well as a number of Shinoda, Iwai, Koreeda and Nakagawa titles + Mishima's short film Yukoku through Japan. Films (unavailable in the US) by Howard Hawks, Nicholas Ray, Edward Dmytryk, John Ford and Anthony Mann from various French labels. And the list just goes on and on...

Tommaso wrote:Well, even if you (unbelievably for me) do not see the difference between the Kino "Holy Mountain" and its MoC counterpart as far as image is concerned ( I rarely saw another DVD with more ghosting problems than that Kino one), the MoC would still obviously be superior because it has the German intertitles and NO fiddling around with the several writings in the film-images themselves. And the latter goes for "Mabuse" probably, as it goes for "Michael" and likely the list could be extended..

It's got to be your TV because the MoC Holy Mountain is spiked with combing as it is an interlaced transfer-- I own the Kino and have seen the MoC and quite frankly neither is a 'perfect' release (maybe the NTSC-Pal conversion on your player gives you a double whammy), but both of them are quite nice nonprogressive transfers. Isn't the Eureka MABUSE interlaced? Why isn't anyone screaming about combing?

My point is there is a HUUUUUGE difference between Facets & Kino, at least when it comes to silent films. I go bazonkers like anyone else when combing or ghosting is so uneccessarily severe that it blinkers the viewing process. The reality is that there are very very few Kino silents that fall into this category. When HOLY MOUNTAIN first came out I was so stunned by the beauty of the photography that I showed it to cinephile after cinephile... after cinephile. Niether I nor anyone else could detect anything residing there on the disc besides a nice disc of a gorgeous restoration.

I still would like to know-- who is busting out new progressive transfers for silent films (because this is all it seems to boil down to, since the image in the actual frames are not the question)? WHO?? Who is doing what you guys are looking for? And why is Kino seen as different than Milestone, Criterion, BFI, AEye, Eureka, when it comes to silent films?

You guys keep mentioning MoC, but most of their silents are interlaced (and they are IN the PAL region, too, so the discs could be progressively encoded with greater ease). They are not doing their own transfers on silents, which is why most of them are interlaced and artifact-haunted. FAUST was their first silent in at least a year. There was a comment that maybe if Kino released one silent a year too, maybe their rep would be like MoC's... whereas I see MoC, right now, as a rare but wonderful compliment to the status quo of the silent film market, allowing me to replace the occasional title with a more recent restoration. A delightful luxury, folks. The rarest delicacy. Buying the two or three relatively recent progressively encoded MoC silent discs and now creating an unreasonable & nonextistent, global industry standard with which to beat old veteran companies over the head with, ie BFI, Kino, Milestone, AEye, etc, -- it's absurd.

How many times does Nick have to come on here and personally explain how cost prohibitive it is for him to go back and pull a new transfer for his older interlaced titles? It was cost-prohibitive then, and it's cost prohibitive now. He's now taking the risk on all of our behalf, of investing that extra wad of cash to encode the digibetas he's given progressively, which he's ONLY trying on the FAUST's, the METROPOLIS', the SUNRISE's. No brainers. To now turn around and expect co's to do that for titles half of even YOU people never even heard of (if you guys have never heard of them, forget the real world) like WARNING SHADOWS (German Tommasso thought it had intertitles), the Stillers, Kirsanoff, is about the silliest thing I've ever heard in my life. And this is not just in defense of Kino, it's to take the pressure off of MoC, CC, Milestone, etc, because I want to see these films... and so long as the film has been restored, and a skillful enough handling of the transfer is done to where interlacing or an extra frame exists out of ever 4 or 5 is not visible during the viewing process, I'm in cinema-love paradise. I watch these and am in absolute hog heaven, as long as artifacting is not BERLIN-style intrusive, and this includes, MoC, Kino, Milestone, BFI, CC-- they're all guilty of it. It's status quo for silents.

If MoC can eventually achieve a profit margin that allows them to invest a fortune into producing 1-3 silents (especially ones that no-one's seen before, I mean introduce lost, obscure masterpieces the way the above guys do, i e make it a business Regularly Releasing Silent Film) then they will have changed the rules of the game. Until then, it irritates me because these are the films that I love the most, I love to discuss them and toss ideas around about them, and it breaks my heart to see these masterpieces passed over for essentially mythological reasons and reasons of unreasonable bias. And it's a bringdown hearing a pretty decent discussion site being corroded by such juvenility and vinegar.. particularly considering where the hatred for this one co in particular originates, which is one site and one dude more than anyone else.

And skuhn8, stop drinking. You're getting all nuthouse-tangy again and I can't even understand anything you're writing. Hopefully the trip you're going on includes harp music strummed by Xanaxed nature-freaks, and features lotion-applications & seaweed wrap to the diaper rash on the achybreaky brainparts....

Tribe wrote: Kino is sloppy, uncaring, unwilling to spend money...but what films have they "ruined?" Or is this just another bit of unleashed hyperbole?

Partly it was hyperbole, yes. But since you ask: there are actually two cases where the film-viewing experience (at least for me) actually WAS ruined by them, and these are Paradjanov's "Colour of Pomegranates" and "Ashik-Kerib", and not just because of the hideous ULTRA-LARGE NON-REMOVABLE YELLOW subs, but because of the atrocious image quality, too. Agreedly these are not silents.

HerrSchreck wrote: It's got to be your TV because the MoC Holy Mountain is spiked with combing as it is an interlaced transfer-- I own the Kino and have seen the MoC and quite frankly neither is a 'perfect' release (maybe the NTSC-Pal conversion on your player gives you a double whammy), but both of them are quite nice nonprogressive transfers.

I doubt that it's my TV because it can use both NTSC and PAL images, so there is no need for a player-based NTSC-PAL conversion . What I see is the original NTSC image, and even if the MoC may not be perfect, at least there are no hideous 'lines' on the sides of the mountains... Otherwise I agree with you. I first had the Kino and when seeing the beautiful images I was blown away and didn't think much about the imperfections (just as Sharphedin2 has said). Still I was very happy to be able to replace it when the MoC appeared (if only for the intertitles).

HerrSchreck wrote: And why is Kino seen as different than Milestone, Criterion, BFI, AEye, Eureka, when it comes to silent films?

Because these companies (except AEye, who sometimes appear to be the Kino of Europe, and I also cannot much comment on Milestone) at least nowadays provide us with well-chosen extras, sometimes handsome booklets, careful restorations (interlaced or not) and in most cases original titles with removable subs. Yes, all of these companies surely have put out the occasional substandard dvd in the past (even Criterion, vide "Nanook", or the BFI with their horrible "Man with a movie camera"), but their output has been close to flawless in recent years.
Don't get me wrong: I would not complain about the ghosting and interlacing at all if the other points were fine, but Kino often brings all possible mistakes together, and it's rather the sum of the faults that makes me sometimes screaming at them in admittedly hyperbolic ways.

HerrSchreck wrote: particularly considering where the hatred for this one co in particular originates, which is one site and one dude more than anyone else.

Yes, but he proves his points by the screen shots, and they seldom fail to convince me.

But to end on a positive note: can't we collect something like a good/bad list for Kino as Sharphedin did for Facets? Leaving out all the combatted middle ground, what Kinos can be wholeheartedly recommended if we apply standards like reasonably undamaged materials, good quality transfer,removable subs and anamorphic presentation where applicable? And which ones should be avoided at any cost?

Tommaso wrote:But to end on a positive note: can't we collect something like a good/bad list for Kino as Sharphedin did for Facets? Leaving out all the combatted middle ground, what Kinos can be wholeheartedly recommended if we apply standards like reasonably undamaged materials, good quality transfer,removable subs and anamorphic presentation where applicable? And which ones should be avoided at any cost?

This is probably a very good idea, and might help us move past the current debate into more concrete territory.

To start out, however, I have to disagree with Tribe and say that I find the three von Stroheims to be fine: Queen Kelly, Foolish Wives, and Blind Husbands. All three are important films, all have useful and intelligent extras, and (IMO) all boast reasonably decent transfers for the age of the materials and the DVDs themselves. (Folks might want to hold off on Blind Husbands until the R2 Filmmuseum edition comes out, though.)

HerrSchreck wrote:And skuhn8, stop drinking. You're getting all nuthouse-tangy again and I can't even understand anything you're writing. Hopefully the trip you're going on includes harp music strummed by Xanaxed nature-freaks, and features lotion-applications & seaweed wrap to the diaper rash on the achybreaky brainparts....

Guys, he's picking on me again!! Make him stop. I don't want to get pink-bellied again!

skuhn8 wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:And skuhn8, stop drinking. You're getting all nuthouse-tangy again and I can't even understand anything you're writing. Hopefully the trip you're going on includes harp music strummed by Xanaxed nature-freaks, and features lotion-applications & seaweed wrap to the diaper rash on the achybreaky brainparts....

Guys, he's picking on me again!! Make him stop. I don't want to get pink-bellied again!

Just be glad it's not Putin who's interested in your belly!

Tommaso wrote:[But to end on a positive note: can't we collect something like a good/bad list for Kino as Sharphedin did for Facets? Leaving out all the combatted middle ground, what Kinos can be wholeheartedly recommended if we apply standards like reasonably undamaged materials, good quality transfer,removable subs and anamorphic presentation where applicable? And which ones should be avoided at any cost?

Thus confirming what I've known all along: those who complain the loudest about this co usually knows the least.

And by the way, most silent dvd releases, especially the European silents, are not restored by the labels that put them out on DVD. They do digital cleanup when they do it at all. Film archives & places like LImmagine Ritrovata/Cineteca Commune, FWMS/Bundesarchiv Filmarchiv, etc, Cinemateque Francias are the folks who do film restoration.

As for the Kino list I've had so many comers PMing confessing, after these kinds of heated discussions, they really hadn't investigated their catalog all that much, were petrified to approach their catalog because of the Beaver rep, they asked me to go down the goodbad list and I've done it so many times it's getting really goofy. The folks who whine the loudest are usually the newest to the scene. But I'll do a short form. Any American silent, buy it, avoid the Murnau's except TARTUF (only edition with original print intertitles), TABU (which is Image/Milestone) & NOSF, you can choose between MoC on SPIES (blocky jags vs combing, your choice), on METROP clearly MoC is better:

No serious collector can do without

the 2 Leni's (MAN WHO LAUGHS, WAXWORKS)
Fairbanks,
PENALTY,
EDISON,
AVANT GARDE,
BLUEBIRD,
NIBEL (for now)
JEANNE NEY,
GOLEM on par w Eur (which has reconstr German from Eng titles)
WARNING SHADOWS
All 3 STILLERS,
Their CALIGARI
SEX IN CHAINS
DIF FROM OTHERS
SOVIET AVANT GARDE (only EARTH & E O ST PETERBG so far)
BROKEN BLOSSOMS
INTOLERANCE
LAST DAYS POMPEII
(CABIRIA until CC produces goods)
BIRTH NATION
RICHARD 111 (1912)
SADIE THOMPSON
WOMAN IN THE MOON

These leap to mind. The STROEHEIMS have been discussed over & over again on this site: they are regarded as very worthwhile, though the material itself, from the AFI resto's, is obviously not in the best shape and is responsible for the flaws. I do think the bitrate could be higher on these.

EDIT: Tomasso, they ruined THE COLOR OF POMEGRANITES? That's a near-consensus level good disc. ASHIK KERIB, yes, you're absolutely right, but POMEGRANITES is straight, clean telecine on a pristine vintage print showing you precisely what it looked like upon release. That was a film made on no budget, on the cheapest film stock. I'd really have to disagree on that one. You sure you're talking about the right film?

tryavna wrote:To start out, however, I have to disagree with Tribe and say that I find the three von Stroheims to be fine: Queen Kelly, Foolish Wives, and Blind Husbands. All three are important films, all have useful and intelligent extras, and (IMO) all boast reasonably decent transfers for the age of the materials and the DVDs themselves. (Folks might want to hold off on Blind Husbands until the R2 Filmmuseum edition comes out, though.)

You're right about the extras and the importance of the films themselves (but that wasn't the question). But they are shitty transfers, regardless of the reason, be it age or what have you.

I'm not sorry I have them, but the quality of them isn't all that great.

HerrSchreck wrote:As for the Kino list I've had so many comers PMing confessing, after these kinds of heated discussions, they really hadn't investigated their catalog all that much, were petrified to approach their catalog because of the Beaver rep, they asked me to go down the goodbad list and I've done it so many times it's getting really goofy.

Well Schreck, here's hoping that you never tire of sharing your views and knowledge with the rest of us. Personally, I value you and other forum members' recommendations and thoughts on these matters higher than any other source.

To clarify: I often quote Beaver as an excellent source of information, but I hardly ever base my decisions to purcase a disc strictly on his/their conclusions. All too often screen caps do not speak the whole truth, they are "...the harsh truth of the camera eye..." so to speak. Films look very different in motion than in still. The Beaver is great as a window into the world of what is available on DVD globally, and the straight comparisons (that do not seek out microscopic frozen truths about the transfers) can often be useful in deciding which edition to go with (color palette, sharpness of image, contrast levels, extras, etc.)

For my money, I have never been disappointed with a Kino release, although I can also say that almost all of them could be improved upon. Someone mentioned making a list like the one I did for Facets. In fact, for personal purposes I sometimes draw up lists of titles from labels that I am interested in, and I do have one for Kino. If there is general interest in posting it, and collecting links & opinions on their releases, I can modify and update it for that purpose, and I would be happy to edit/update such a list. Although I do not think that Kino has many "Red/avoid" titles, a list of this type could serve as a good reference point especially for newer forum members. And, certainly also with respect to the DDD 50% sale going on, which I see as a fantastic opportunity to acquire a bushelful of great films that one would maybe otherwise never get around to.

HerrSchreck wrote:EDIT: Tomasso, they ruined THE COLOR OF POMEGRANITES? That's a near-consensus level good disc. ASHIK KERIB, yes, you're absolutely right, but POMEGRANITES is straight, clean telecine on a pristine vintage print showing you precisely what it looked like upon release. That was a film made on no budget, on the cheapest film stock. I'd really have to disagree on that one. You sure you're talking about the right film?

Again, a really valuable comment. This was the Kino release I cam closest to being frustrated with, alhthough as always I was happy to be able to see it, and it had really good extras. I had no idea that the quality of the image was due to the very nature of the film stock. All the more praise to Kino for preserving the film on DVD, as I imagine another 5 or 10 years of life in the vault for this film would only make it look even less glorious.

It's got to be your TV because the MoC Holy Mountain is spiked with combing as it is an interlaced transfer-- I own the Kino and have seen the MoC and quite frankly neither is a 'perfect' release (maybe the NTSC-Pal conversion on your player gives you a double whammy)

If anything it's rather the other way around. Viewers in PAL land do not have to have their players convert from NTSC as all TV's in Europe can show both, so there is no problem in that context. On the other hand, depending on where you're from, the problems you see on MoC's disc might have to do with your player's conversion. If you're in NTSC land, TV's that can handle both formats are uncommon and generally expensive, so they have to have their players convert the PAL signal into NTSC, obviously adding some conversion problems that have nothing to do with the disc.

If this is the case it's a bit ironic to put the blame on another viewer's TV while at the same time criticizing MoC for quality problems that might come from conversion problem on one's own player.

No serious collector can do without
NIBEL (for now)

Die Nibelungen? It's not necessary for me to buy the Kino version - I'm perfectly happy with my Divisa version with German intertitles. It does however not have any English options, which of course can be a problem (there are optional Spanish intertitles though).

GOLEM on par w Eur (which has reconstr German from Eng titles)

I have both the Kino and Transit versions (the latter being identical to MoC), and the Transit clearly looks better. Kino's has some ghosting effects not present on the Transit version - not surprisingly as the former was transferred from PAL. About the German intertitles reconstructed from English ones - where do you have this from? 16 of the German intertitles are in fact restored from a print held by Gosfilmofond, while the remaining were reconstructed from the German censorship files.

Their CALIGARI
WOMAN IN THE MOON

Or Divisa if you're okay with reading German (or Spanish).

Ledos wrote:

It's got to be your TV because the MoC Holy Mountain is spiked with combing as it is an interlaced transfer-- I own the Kino and have seen the MoC and quite frankly neither is a 'perfect' release (maybe the NTSC-Pal conversion on your player gives you a double whammy)

If anything it's rather the other way around. Viewers in PAL land do not have to have their players convert from NTSC as all TV's in Europe can show both, so there is no problem in that context..

That was a typo on my part-- I meant player, not TV.

As to the rest of your post, this is an English speaking board. Divisa Red are such a below board co marketingwise (I once tried to upgrade my Kino FAUST to theirs & couldn't even get a site to work to do the transaction... and they're all completely unsubbed & interlaced anyhow).

The GOLEM resto was constructed primarily from the MoMa English lang. preservation print, with missing gaps filled with a bunch of international prints including that from Gos. It's a composite witches brew of a print, with the intertitles reconstructed by referring to censor cards and material from existing German prints. From
Beaver partner caps: "There are 20 prints of the film in different film archives. As a matter of fact, all of them were originated by three different incomplete matrices. The recent discovery of the colour version (5 tintings) in the Cineteca Italiana di Milano has permitted the renewal of the restoration project, which was undertaken by Fondazione Cineteca Italiana Milano, Cineteca del Comune di Bologna and Filmmuseum Stadtmuseum München, which will continue by comparing and collating all the existing materials of the film."

As you can clearly see, these, from the Eureka, are recreated new intertitles:



And as you can see, the Eureka version is edge enhanced into the stratosphere, and though there's no Kino review there, trust me, it's not this bad. The disc review reads, versus the Elite disc--
"The Eureka R2 transfer, done from the newly restored and most complete Bologna version, offers a much better quality in every aspect. But this does not mean that the transfer is perfect. There is quite a lot of edge enhancement, and heavy aliasing in movements on screen (see frame 5), possibly because the transfer was done from a NTSC-to-PAL conversion (there seems to be no PAL-speed-up) of the Kino edition (see below), or perhaps because the source material was licensed from Transit Film. Transit so far released Der Golem in Germany only on VHS (what a shame!), and it would be interesting to know, whether they gave the same master to Eureka and Kino for their DVD editions."

What disc do you have, this Universum disc? It should be about the same as the Eureka.

Yes, that's the disc I have.

I'm aware that the English version of Der Golem has these reconstructed intertitles, but I was talking about the German version.

About DVDBeaver's comments, what they're observing is not because it was converted from Kino's disc (at least not the German version - I haven't looked much on the English version).

They ask the question "so far released Der Golem in Germany only on VHS (what a shame!), and it would be interesting to know, whether they gave the same master to Eureka and Kino for their DVD editions." Well, they didn't. As far as I know it was Eureka who did their own transfer, which was then used for the identical Eureka and Transit editions.

I don't consider Kino's version that bad at all - it even has rather accurately translated intertitles, at least those I checked - but the Transit/Eureka German version just looks better. Divisa also released this movie but I haven't seen their disc.

Ledos wrote:

Their CALIGARI
WOMAN IN THE MOON

Or Divisa if you're okay with reading German (or Spanish).

You're telling me the Divisa edition of Caligari has the original German intertitles!? Where can I get my hands on this?

Hmm, wait a minute. Is that screenshot from the Eureka version? It doesn't look like the title card from the German version on the Transit release. I would like to post it here, but I can't.

The words are the same, but the text is in blue and the letters have a different design.

Ledos wrote:I'm aware that the English version of Der Golem has these reconstructed intertitles, but I was talking about the German version.

I believe both English AND German are reconstructed. The German was done by Transit and are not the original.

To answer my own question: www.dvdgo.com

They have cheap editions of Nosferatu, Der Golem, Berlin, Symphonie einer Grossstadt, Niebelungen... what are the quality of these? Anyone? I'd like to place an order for them all, if they're worth it.

I would murder to have the actual, vintage intertitles in German from Caligari... especially since I know the translations by heart. I e the print seen in THE METROPOLIS CASE and excerpted on the Kino CALI disc.

Again, Ledos, you're going against the common wisdom status quo of most Kino haters (you did it last week on NOS), who all at least agree that NOSFERATU & GOLEM are the best looking images/discs out there for those releases. You've unusual tastes. The Eureka GOLEM disc is so contrast blasted, what little detail exists is shot to high hell. And THE GERMAN INTERTITLES are reconstructed... that's why I posted them at the top of my last post. Look again. Those are redone versions in the style of the originals.

PS: I've got to drop this topic. I can't keep swinging at pitches from every comer with a subjective beef.

They have cheap editions of Nosferatu, Der Golem, Berlin, Symphonie einer Grossstadt, Niebelungen... what are the quality of these? Anyone? I'd like to place an order for them all, if they're worth it.

Those I have are quite good and there are no ghosting in them. Some of them have some risible modern soundtracks, like Art Zoyd for Faust. I only own some of them, mind you.

I believe both English AND German are reconstructed. The German was done by Transit and are not the original.

As mentioned, 16 intertitles (and 6 inserts) are original in that they are taken from the Gosfilmofond print. The remaining ones are recreated. In any case, the main point is that the German ones reflect exactly the originals contained whereas when translated into English you're one further generation down from the original content.

Again, Ledos, you're going against the common wisdom status quo of most Kino haters (you did it last week on NOS), who all at least agree that NOSFERATU & GOLEM are the best looking images/discs out there for those releases.

Is that the status quo? I've never seen anyone else mention it. There is ghosting on the Kino release, NOT on my Transit release (of course not as it was transferred directly to PAL) and that's a main point for my perception of the quality.

And about Nosferatu, could it be that the majority of those people who think Kino's version is the best are just not aware of the Divisa version?

And THE GERMAN INTERTITLES are reconstructed... that's why I posted them at the top of my last post. Look again. Those are redone versions in the style of the originals.

1) Some German intertitles are reconstructed - 16 are original (how many times do I have to repeat this? )
2) The picture you posted has nothing to do with what my Transit release looks like. It is a different title card. Once again, is the picture you posted from the Eureka release? If so, they have different title cards.

So you're saying the UK market Eureka created GERMAN intertitles for no reason for their english speaking market, then spent a fortune to translate & create subs? That would be the biggest waste of cash I've ever heard. My guess is the Eureka is a total port of what you have (you seem unaware also that Eureka, Kino, etc, aren't doing their own "transfers", they're processing digital videotape provided by one Murnau resto; there's no seperate Eureka, Kino, and Universum "transfer from film to tape, i e telecine). Of course the folks at Eureka could have just staggered outa brain surgery when they spent a fortune creating intertitles no one could read, weren't needed (since youy say the originals exist in a transfer), then created subs for them.

Anyhow, this is all getting tiresome, all around I'm sure. Enjoy what you enjoy, and I mean that.

So you're saying the UK market Eureka created GERMAN intertitles for no reason for their english speaking market, then spent a fortune to translate & create subs?

No, I'm not saying that. I was asking if the picture you posted is taken from the Eureka version?

My guess is the Eureka is a total port of what you have

That was also my guess. Or rather, that the Transit was a total port of the Eureka version. But then this picture you posted has me confused.

(you seem unaware also that Eureka, Kino, etc, aren't doing their own "transfers", they're processing digital videotape provided by one Murnau resto; there's no seperate Eureka, Kino, and Universum "transfer from film to tape, i e telecine).

I am aware that's usually the case. You seem unaware, however, that Eureka has been responsible of some of their own transfers in their cooperation with IML in Melbourne. Eureka also handled the Der Golem transfer.