criterionforum.org

Gary Tooze wrote:Whether it looks 'natural' to you or not - this is a more realistic representation of how it was initially presented.
Tack onto that the pictureboxing of the first release, black boosted -

There's a philosophical switch over at the beev!

HerrSchreck wrote:There's a philosophical switch over at the beev!

?? - What do you mean HerrSchreck ? We've always been against picture-boxing (it limits horizontal resolution), but it is only one of many factors in determining which release has superior image quality. Ex. we'd prefer that Criterion's Late Spring filled the frame but even though it doesn't - it is the definitive edition for image, supplements etc.

No 'switch' here.

Gary

No no, not the pictureboxing. It's the "what it looked like at time of release" vs. "what the disc/resto looks like"... reading reviews dissing transfers for "unnatural looking technicolor" viz dvd's (not only from you Gary) has been rolling me over for years. If most dvd fans could see the way most of their favorite color films looked like in the cinema even 30 years back, they wouldn't even recognize them.

The trouble is no one can really know. Robert Harris has stated that for films over 30+ years no one can really recall the color scheme with any accuracy - not the director or the DP. We can only take hints and suggestions of what people remember. Restoration experts rarely have the budget to investigate colors ala Harris did for Vertigo. If you saw the featurette on the first DVD (not the orange spiral cover one) - they describe going back to the old warddrobe to match clothes colors or contacting manufacturuers to get car stock colors accurate.

Luckily on the Beaver ListServ we have rep theatre projectionists that can chime in on ratios etc. or sometimes people who worked on the film and have some input. This isn't a science. How you get a good opinion - is to have many valid ones.

What you say about color is probably true but I don't see how we've had any philosoiphical switch. We do the best we can with the info we have.

Regards,

Gary Tooze wrote:The trouble is no one can really know. Robert Harris has stated that for films over 30+ years no one can really recall the color scheme with any accuracy - not the director or the DP.

Well your points are taken in kind; I don't know that the idea that these issues cannot be "really known" isn't a bit of an overstatement. I think that on a case by case basis the ability to determine what the precise pallete of an old color film was, is never going to be a snap. Witnesses put innocent people in jail constantly, and these are over traumatizing events of extreme violence, never mind an innocuous melodrama from 40 years ago. But vintage preservation positives, and original IB's in good shape can certainly help us out. One thing I think we do "really know" is that the digital age of HD and digital telecine, contrast boosting, color tweaking by colorists... these new elements in the transfer zone combined with the effect of this work being done on new prints of these old films subject to completely new chemical baths & processes, bathing completely new, hyperrealistic film-stocks... it has absolutely and without question obliterated the garish otherworldly look of the slightly fuzzed-out Technicolor (and simple color of all kinds: Agfa, Eastman, etc) of yore... to such an extent that in most cases a simple, uncorrupted honest transfer of an original print (on original stock) of an old classic would be knocked on most review sites (especially when compared to the newly printed, boosted, enhanced, extensively-tweaked transfers on many a WB or CC-style disc) as bleedy & vomitous. MOst modern transfers of unspectacular Technicolor melodramas (those of the 40's & 50's, say, without the radical Sirkian or P&P palettes, those placed in Fox & WB box sets) that do not feature cinematographic tour de forces that have been celebrated and studied for decades.. if these programmers are released nowadays and don't look as close to modern color as possible the disc is open to charges of looking unnatural, sloppy or dirty.

One thing that anyone near forty or over should be able to clearly remember-- and I'm just barely that ballpark (but remember from my childhood in matinees... ah the old full-blown matinee complete w extras)-- is thinking to themselves, when watching a Technicolor (vintage color in general) flick is, "Well, yes, it's in what I guess you could technically call "color"... but it sure doesn't look real... one of these days they'll figure out how to make it look like real life." This lack of realism is what made the men who knew how to exploit these garish qualities Painters in a nearly literal sense, taking tools of artifice and turning them to their advantage, a la the Perinals, the Cardiff's, Seitz's, etc.

And yo Gary-- since we're talking here-- what's with the crapping all over Kino in the DIARY OF A LOST GIRL comp? That's a six year old disc, and quite frankly I don't think it looked too bad at all next to the MoC. On one hand you're wailing on them because its interlaced, then the next moment you're saluting Arte for the cojones to put out NEW BABYLON, which is interlaced.

Don't domestic US co's like Milestone & Kino & Flicker Alley deserve some props for getting this hypermarginalized material out there far ahead of everyone else and at a very very steady tempo while not sinking down to Grapevine or Facets quality? The temporary pause put on Eclipse should give us pause, to reflect on the difficulty to put out, on a monthly basis with no letup, 3-5 discs of the hyperobscurity and the supersexy quality we all so dearly and vocally crave. When you get down into the zone of Bernard, Gremillion, and silents, that platinum CC glimmer we all crave so much is probably tough to maintain, especially at a heavy release rate.

Cheers,

Hi HerrSchreck,

Sorry I don't have the time to respond to your excellent post in more detail, but one thing...

HerrSchreck wrote:what's with the crapping all over Kino

Kino are dreadful - usually very overpriced and almost every one of their releases is either interlaced or a PAL->NTSC transfer... or both! EVERY ONE! I keep giving them chances and keep getting let down. Anytime they come up against a Criterion or MoC - its a no-brainer. I won't judge yet but what do you suppose the results of the Nov 19th dual Nosferatu (Kino and MoC) releases will bear? Exactly. If they are both the Koerber restoration - Kino will find some way to ruin the transfer for NTSC-locked audiences.

Best,
Gary

Gary Tooze wrote:Sorry I don't have the time to respond to your excellent post in more detail,

Well, you asked for clarification, Gary.

Gary Tooze wrote:but one thing...

HerrSchreck wrote:what's with the crapping all over Kino

Kino are dreadful - usually very overpriced and almost every one of their releases is either interlaced or a PAL->NTSC transfer... or both! EVERY ONE! I keep giving them chances and keep getting let down. Anytime they come up against a Criterion or MoC - its a no-brainer. I won't judge yet but what do you suppose the results of the Nov 19th dual Nosferatu (Kino and MoC) releases will bear? Exactly. If they are both the Koerber restoration - Kino will find some way to ruin the transfer for NTSC-locked audiences.

Gary you're just absolutely completely and totally wrong. Interlaced (standard in the realm of silents-- even for CC. see brand new PANDORA, HAXAN, NANOOK) yes, but PAL/NTSC that's just wrong.

Gary you're a review site in a public debate in front of the world. Naked aggressive bias catches people;s attention. Why is NEW BABYLON by ARTE worthy of Cinematic Big Balls Salute, when Kino's NTSC interlaced transfers of equally/more obscure titles heaps of shit??

When it comes to conversion issues, you're talking specifically about their releases of PAL FWMS transfers. Prior to FWMS coming into the picture with these PAL restos (which MoC naturally have the advantage on... which is why you don't see them handling NTSC releases/restos with any enthusiasm if at all in the silent zone, and the silent zone is the main thrust of the Kino catalog, with the vast bulk of the rest operating to service it) you saw Kino doing their own native transfers of these German silents. The new dominance of FWMS in legal/authoritative restoration terms put Kino in the position of having to sign a deal with these guys and use their excellent transfers.

But you said every release is a mess?? What's the story with the sublime massive undertaking w MoMa & Congress to produce the 4 disc EDISON box, the landmark MOVIES BEGIN & KEATON boxes which were miraculous herculean undertakings for their time that paved the way for boxes like Image's AVANT GARDE (also interlaced & exhibiting PAL/NTSC issues) & TREASURES/MORE TREASURES, what's the story with THE BLUE BIRD, ALIBI, LORNA DOONE, the box of Griffiths, bringing out the Pudovkins like THE END OF ST PETERSBERG, STORM OVER ASIA, the sublime Mauritz Stiller releases SIR ARNES TREASURE, & EROTIKON, CABIRIA, 1912's RICHARD III, the 6 or 7 Fairbanks releases, SADIE THOMPSON, DR JEKYLL & MR HYDE, THE PENALTY, A FOOL THERE WAS, AVANT GARDE 1 & 2, THE LOVE OF JEANNE NEY, PETER PAN, UNCLE TOM's CABIN, APPLAUSE, QUE VIVA MEXICO, (there are many more Kino transfers in Image discs, i e DESERTER, AELITA, STRIKE. STORM OVER ASIA, 3 SONGS OF LENIN, KINO EYE., 20,000 UNDER THE SEA, WAY DOWN EAST, the CC NANOOK).

What's most incredible is when Kino takes a PAL transfer that the country of origin is not even utilizing for home video and letting collect dust-- see WAXWORKS, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, WARNING SHADOWS, the material from SFI, (A COTTAGE ON DARTMOOR?), SEX IN CHAINS-- gets the thing out in an edition that minimizes ghosting as much as humanly possible-- and folks from the country of origin complain. You wanta buck up and see some cinema or what? If something doesn't look like its coming out I enthusiastically embrace VHS's, LD's, videotapes of wall projections of super8's....

Those native NTSC releases above are just the discs I own. SOme are a bit old and can't totally hang versus the hi-def, boosted, silent transfers of 2006-07, but they are nice digital transfers, not hideous Cinema Epoch Chinese (which I still appreciate) or Pathfinder Reifenstahls from VHS sources... for a lover of silent cinema they are pure gold and are the crux of his happines (aside from occasionally having to turn the fucking soundtrack down when it's Sosin or Moratta).

There's more titles, of course, and not to mention their track record back in the VHS days, which has tons of gems like SALT FOR SVANETIA, TURKSIB, HAPPINESS, FALL OF THE ROMANOV DYNASTY, etc.

My reflex here is twofold, Gary-- your site is part of a public conversation. Part of the conversation concerns my hugely fanatical love, which is silent film. If someone has the balls to put out masterpieces like MENILMONTANT, WARNING SHADOWS, THE PENALTY, DARTMOOR, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, WAXWORKS, and so many others, and the picture is clean and restored, but getting out the sliver of specific European rarities with a PAL soured tape means that these domestic co's like Milestone, Kino, etc that have to use this PAL tape, the reflex is to rejoice. Nobody has proven that you can do what these guys are doing, and run a native standard progressive transfer each time. I've accepted that this is not going to happen. I don't think that a comparison to MoC is apples to apples, since they stick 95% of the time to material from the PAL standard, and stay away from silents/digibetas from the US.. they rarely premiere previously unseen very rare silents that many folks even on sites like this have even heard of, and they release at an extremely slow, careful clip. Although I hugely appreciate them on their sound catalog, their silent catalog is a high end process of upgrading titles I already own. They do not consistently expand my horizons and make my hopeless dreams come consistently true by delivering rarities out of the sky.

Which leads to the second aspect of my Kino-reflex around here. (I've even been called a shill for them by skuhn8!):

I have nothing to do with these guys, and don't know them. I have some quantitative beefs with them as well.. I rarely go near their catalog of post-1960's material, as I know it exists almost totally to fund more early sound/experimental/silent projects. The company drives itself to get this 1895-1950's eclectic stuff out. The issue is this, in a nutshell:

I don't want these fucking guys to go away. They put out the stuff that massages my eerie head more than anybody else. They more than anyone else consistently put out the material I dream about. Though I'd love to see all-progressive NTSC transfers of the Murnau material, it's a minor hitch because I can always go with MoC, and its' a tiny sliver of the catalog. I love cinema far more than I love dvd technology-- I want to see some films that I didn't even know existed. You know anyone else who is doing what they do, with the obsessive sincerity, fanaticism, and tempo that they do-- and don't spell their logo with an F and an A and a C-E-T-S-- I will jump up onto the bus with you and urinate all over this company. But until then I want them to stay in business, very very badly. If they go, my head is near fucked. That's why I open my mouth to salute them (I used to bash them a lot too) as much as I can versus the endless & misinformed tearing them down.

Having gone through my own extended love-hate relationship with Kino, I've arrived at a position that's very much in line with Schreck's: if you love silent cinema (or if you love film itself more than DVD technology), you've got to give Kino some respect. They're by no means the equivalent of Facets, who almost seem to set out to fuck up their releases. Sure, Kino has some problematic PAL->NTSC issues, but many of their U.S. silents are above reproach (like The Blue Bird). And as for the question of interlacing, just how many silents have been transfered to DVD progressively? It can't be more than a handful.

Like Schreck, I'm also sometimes surprised by how unforgiving Gary's reviews of Kino discs can be. I'm thinking particularly of all the Kino reviews that mention the presence of cue blips as something negative -- when cue blips are often evident on many of Warner's unrestored releases. In the case of some titles, Kino certainly deserve to be called out: Liliom for sure, and even Hangmen Also Die. But I think they also deserve praise for having the balls to finally release a good print of a PD title like Scarlet Street (with worthwhile extras!).

HerrSchreck wrote:Why is NEW BABYLON by ARTE worthy of Cinematic Big Balls Salute, when Kino's NTSC interlaced transfers of equally/more obscure titles heaps of shit??

Let's get the facts straight - I didn't review it and the reviewer (a poster here named Michael St Aubyn) is entitled to his opinion. Just as I am ... and you are - that is what a Forum is all about. If there was something to compare it to that was superior that would be the way to go.

I'm happy for you that you like Kino and it's wonderful to see a passionate silent film fan Herr Schreck. I suppose its unfair to expect everyone to reach Criterion's lofty standards for classic and important releases. As a strict DVD transfer quality reviewer I am not happy with Kino's output and often wish it was a major studio, or Criterion, or MoC, or Studio Canal... or anyone but them releasing ABC film onto digital... and sometimes I am willing to wait till someone with a larger budget or more competent would. [url=http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews14/liliom.htm]THIS ONE[/url] always sticks in my mind. Yeah, yeah - maybe the elements were bad and poor old Kino were doing their best. Sure. Bottom line this is still for sale for more money than Criterion's Breathless. We are coldly objective at times about DVD value. Consumers have budgets and I have to be honest about my opinion. With so much out there in digital disc it's my recommendation to avoid Kino - as a general rule. Again - my opinion as a DVD reviewer.

Best,
Gary

HerrSchreck wrote:Gary you're just absolutely completely and totally wrong. Interlaced (standard in the realm of silents-- even for CC. see brand new PANDORA, HAXAN, NANOOK) yes, but PAL/NTSC that's just wrong.

Interlaced is not "standard" for silents. The fps dictates whether a film can be encoded progressively for video or not. If the film was handcranked (variable fps) or shot at a speed slower than what became norm (24fps), then it's not possible to produce a progressive encode for DVD, HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray.

Only 24fps (or 25fps) films can be progressively encoded for video.

If you have a film that's late teens or early 20s that's 18fps and you want to encode progressively (ie. 1 frame rendered exactly as 1 frame of film, and at the correct speed) the only thing to do is to avoid video streams (PAL/NTSC DVD, HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray) altogether and create a full-res Quicktime encode at 18fps which would only be playable on a computer.

PANDORA'S BOX is 24fps. I don't know why exactly Criterion's recent release was interlaced.

The new FWMS NOSFERATU film restoration was at 18fps, ie. impossible to encode progressively for DVD, HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray. (Technically, it is possible to fudge the progressive encode, but it blurs the image slightly).

The forthcoming MoC NOSFERATU has been encoded to the best of our ability, but I fear Kino's version may compound the inherent interlacing when they standards convert to NTSC. I don't know how anyone could have really done this any other way in the circumstances. The fps can be a real problem.

I'm glad Gary takes it to Kino. DVD reviewing should not be a take-it-easy-on-the-underdog contest. I am very familiar with Kino, have done mucho business with them on the theatrical end, and have great respect for their name and organization. However, they choose to take the cheap way out on their dvd transfers. And they should be called out on it.

I seriously doubt Masters of Cinema has anywhere near the budget Kino has.

But I do want to praise Kino for cinema. Nobody is more honest about the quality of their circulation prints and nobody is more helpful in handing out profitless info to a curator.

Love you, Jessica.

peerpee wrote:Interlaced is not "standard" for silents. The fps dictates whether a film can be encoded progressively for video or not..

You're misinterpreting my point entirely Nick. My point is that it seems to have become the "standard route" by which distributors by and large tend to release silents on dvd. It's the standard that they all have settled on to do their business. I'm not talking in technological terms.. we've all been around the block numerous times about the division of film frame rates into the number of vidframes per second viz a viz an encoders authoring business.

Twenty cigarettes is the standard by which cigarettes are distributed by the pack in the mass market. This doesn't mean that they have to by any scientific / technological means put 20 in there. It's a strict observation of industry practice.

This is what I mean about interlacing of silent releases. BFI, Arte, CC, Eureka (and yes MoC up until a year or two ago before the release schedule slowed down on the silent end), Milestone, Image-Blackhawk, Kino, Flicker Alley, Lionsgate, Pathfinder, Cinema Epoch, and just about every single producer of silent cinema on DVD release the vast bulk of their catalog interlaced. I don't like it, I don't always claim to understand it, it's just the Observed Reality. I just resent the totally absurd myth, still being propagated above, that somebody else is doing something different, when in fact the facts are industry-wide, fairly consistent: 95% of silent cinema releases are interlaced, and beating up on the bravest company for an industry-wide practice is just absurd.

If not NEW BABYLON Gary then how about your reviews of Image's LES VAMPIRES, or Flicker Alley's JUDEX, those wonderful examples from the "primordial soup" of early cinema (have them both and strenuously agree with your reviews)? How about Milestones BEYOND THE ROCKS, interlaced, which you saluted for it's rarity and thus the symbolism of its release? These were heartily recommended, along with the bulk of the interlaced silent catalog from MoC. I find it very difficult to believe you don't harbor some sort of beef with Kino, it seems to ooze from your reviews. I've been wondering about it for years. Forgive me for saying so, but this is a discussion where everybody is equally out in the open and accountable for their words... and it doesn't sound like Hard cold level-eyed measuring of home video quality on a review site, it comes off inconsistent and biased and perhaps personal, where an issue is cause for cheers when it's one company, and cause for poleaxing if done by Kino... sounds like a grudge is churning beneath the surface.

And once more-- I'm not saying "Don't flog the little guy,"... I'm saying "Who in god's name is the Big Guy? Who is this mysterious company who is making silent film and early experimental obscurities their constant daily bread, and going progressive with all native transfers?" For Kino to suck, it's got to be in comparison to somebody. Yes LILIOM sucked ass-- I raged over it too and flung it back at Kims like a frisbee... but the fact is the vast bulk of the best of their catalog, all those wonderful and culturally landmark crown jewels listed above in my previous post, remain ignored on the Beev (and here, now) and so by extension therefore are the more interesting eclectic depths of the extremely rich world of the silent cinema.

GringoTex wrote:I'm glad Gary takes it to Kino. DVD reviewing should not be a take-it-easy-on-the-underdog contest. I am very familiar with Kino, have done mucho business with them on the theatrical end, and have great respect for their name and organization. However, they choose to take the cheap way out on their dvd transfers. And they should be called out on it.

Of course they should, but I must say that like Tryavna I also have this sort of love-hate-relationship with them and have also become mostly convinced by Schreck's repeated and excellent points of defense. The problem is that the Beaver nowadays rarely reviews Kino discs AT ALL, and thus does not report on those discs which actually are good, like the excellent Stillers, which in my view could only marginally be bettered by MoC or other companies. No reviews of these landmark films on the Beaver, nor almost anywhere else. And generally speaking, Kino has gotten much better in recent years, I doubt they would still release anything like their awful "Ashik-Kerib" disc today. Kino's problem is basically that most US players can't play PAL discs, and I fear nothing will be done about it by the industry any time soon. Still I wonder why it's not possible to get FWMS to do the NTSC conversion for them. There must be a reason why the Stillers don't have any problems at all, and I guess the answer lies directly at the Swedish Film Institute.

Nick's info on the impossibility of doing progressive transfers for most silent films is most illuminating. As to MoC's forthcoming silents: of course they have the advantage of being able to use the original PAL masters from FWMS, but I don't believe that the absence of any American or Japanese (PLEASE, NICK!!) silents in the MoC collection has something to do with the difficulties of transferring NTSC to PAL, simply because many of their Japanese sound releases actually are NTSC. So if "Phantom" was an NTSC master, I'm sure it would be released by MoC as NTSC (though I just can't imagine that FWMS are doing only NTSC or PAL now, even if Flickeralley apparently worked from an NTSC master given to them).

I don't have much to add to this conversation, but I just wanted to say that I completely agree with HerrSchreck here. Kino is maybe not doing the best job possible with their silent releases, but at least they are bringing those previously unavailable movies on DVD, unlike most other companies. MoC's discs for example have been better than Kino's, but those are of movies that have usually already been released before.

And besides, Kino just might be doing the 'best possible job' on silent releases since, let's face it, silent cinema just is criminally overlooked by majority of movie fans, and it just might not be commercially profitable to release large amounts of previously unrealeased films with progressive transfers. Not reviewing the Kino discs at all or giving them overly bad reviews is certainly not going to help the situation. And if it's not possible to make an progressive transfer when the fps is lower than 24, it's not even fair to criticize some of the releases.

I also have to add that Gary indeed hasn't been all that fair with the reviews. For example the recent Criterion release for Pandora's Box gets huge praise, and it has about the same amount of combing than the Kino discs I own. And the review for Birth of a Nation isn't that fair either. I decided to go for the Eureka edition because of that review, only to find out that the NTSC to PAL ghosting is very distracting on some scenes, and those problems aren't even mentioned in the review. Though I realise that might be just because that is propably quite an old comparison.

In the past year or so I've become a huge fan of silent cinema. I don't have that many Kino discs yet, but this far I've been very satisfied with them. And without Kino, I probably wouldn't have seen these amazing movies at all. So Kino definitely gets my thanks.

Damn, it seems that pretty much all that has been said already. Oh well.

Tommaso wrote:So if "Phantom" was an NTSC master, I'm sure it would be released by MoC as NTSC (though I just can't imagine that FWMS are doing only NTSC or PAL now, even if Flickeralley apparently worked from an NTSC master given to them).

I'm not 100% certain, but I strongly believe the reason PHANTOM is an NTSC master is that Flicker Alley/Turner Classic Movies ordered a fine grain of the Berriatua resto and performed telecine here in the states.

Here's what the booklet says on the back:

"This new digital film transfer of the motion picture PHANTOM was made on a Spirit Datacine from a 35mm low contrast print at Ascent Media in Burbank Ca at the recommended speed of approx 20 frames per second blah blah... telecine colorist: David Block yadda yadda" and goes on about the restoration work in German and the lab work at L'Immagine Ritro.

So Flicker Alley really pulled a full blown Criterion by ordering a new fine grain on the heels of a resto and performed meticulous telecine from the imported reels. If anyone is a true equivalent of CC it's these guys, because, like JUDEX, the Hughes films, etc, the Valentinos, this guy is going out on the limb each time to invest in his own brawn new transfers of silent films, and knocking it out of the park. Cheers to Jeff Massino.

Anyhow, as he said, this is what Nick is using for his MoC disc, and if it's on par with Flicker Alleys original release, you guys will be stunned. I nominated PHANTOM as DVD of the year last year for the extreme beauty of the transfer as well as the package/extras. It's probably the most beautiful transfer/restoration of a silent film I have ever, ever seen. I was actually surprised that the Beev didn't review it, as he did a nice review/recommend of JUDEX.

SoyCuba wrote:I also have to add that Gary indeed hasn't been all that fair with the reviews. For example the recent Criterion release for Pandora's Box gets huge praise, and it has about the same amount of combing than the Kino discs I own...

This is not about one sole issue. I was fair in that I identified the Criterion combing, but Criterion do digital restoration in the form of removal of dirt and debris plus selected black level and contrast boosting dependant on the scene and level of damage. Kino don't do that - like Image Entertainment they do blanket manipulation - mostly in the form of boosted brightness to hide damage. This is not digital restoration yet they have the gaul to charge as much as Criterion packages.

Is it enough that I seem to be the only DVD reviewer I know who identifies progressive or interlaced transfers. It is just one component of our criteria of making review judgements. I think its unfair to use it against me.

If you are trying to find some uniformity to my praise and criticism simply look at the costs - its a key marker for my judgement of value. I praised Kino's Film Noir - The Dark Side of Hollywood 5-disc Boxset calling it a 'ridiculous deal'. Strange that HerrSchreck didn't bring that up.

HerrSchreck wrote:...sounds like a grudge is churning beneath the surface

Quite possibly - I feel rooked by my purchase of Lilliom (as one example). Is buying that disc at $30 delivered (and it is unwatchable - I've seen bootlegs to DVD that are of better quality) supposed to warm me to Kino?

As many of you may know, I, like you, own a lot of DVDs - it is my opinion, by judging the Kino DVDs that I own, that this company is one in which quality is not a prime consideration and they give some of the least value for your purchasing dollar. This is my experience owning 5000 DVDs and reviewing over 3000 myself. You may differ and you are free to buy what you want.

Best,
Gary

Gary Tooze wrote:As many of you may know, I, like you, own a lot of DVDs - it is my opinion, by judging the Kino DVDs that I own, that this company is one in which quality is not a prime consideration and they give some of the least value for your purchasing dollar. This is my experience owning 5000 DVDs and reviewing over 3000 myself. You may differ and you are free to buy what you want.

Gary, I too own a lot of DVDs (1000s), and a lot of Kino releases. I am always moved by the fact that I am able to have the history of cinema at my fingertips in my own home, and when a DVD is particularly successful in mimicking the beauty of a film through the means of digital technology, I am of course -- like you -- particularly happy. However, my joy is equally great, when a film is released that I had never expected to see in any circumstances in any quality, or, when a DVD opens my eyes to a film that was until then unknown to me. In this respect, no other company has brought me more joy than Kino.

At one point several years ago, when I first began to utilize the internet to research film on DVD, your site was the first one that I began to read consistently. In fact, I would visit it daily to read about new releases all over the world, and I am particularly indebted to you personally for bringing to my attention a number of contemporary Asian filmmakers that I had not heard of previously. At that time, I truly felt that here was a lover of cinema like myself, passionately chasing down releases of films on DVD all over the world, and making known to the public that it was now possible, like never before, to see a lot of international cinema (old and new) that had hitherto been only available at film festivals, and indirectly through rare reviews and articles in film journals.

However, at some point, reading Beaver began to have the opposite effect. Increasingly, I would look at the reviews and comparisons, and decide that most DVDs were not worth owning or seeing, because the quality was just so bad that it would be a crime to view a given film in the edition(s) out there. (I could be wrong, but I also sensed that the site became more and more concerned with the technical quality over quality of the films as such). In any event, for a couple of years, I actually almost quit purchasing DVDs altogether, aside from the odd Criterion release, and I shelved my exploration, if not my joy, of film.

Discovering the Masters of Cinema site, and in particular an article on overlooked releases, I began to purchase DVDs again, and I was consistently impressed with all the things that were being released, and I joined this forum, and every month I am just overwhelmed with the amount of films that are being made available all over the world. I almost completely select the titles I purchase based on the film, and I am very rarely truly disappointed. The imperfections in the transfers just do not speak loudly enough to distract me personally from the pleasure of a good film, especially not if the film is truly rare and obscure, as with many of Kino's (and even Facet's or Alpha or VCI's releases). And Kino's releases just simply do not look that bad in the vast majority of cases.

The one reason I take the time to contribute to this discussion, which is so obviously subjective, is that I feel it is sad if other people, who enjoy the history of cinema, travel the same path that I did for a while, of thinking the vast majority of non-Criterion releases not worthwhile. There is such a huge world of film to be discovered, and there really is no time to wait to see a film. If a better edition comes along, it is another cause of celebration, and if the film is good enough, it is worth the few dollars to purchase another copy (the old one can even be sold or traded away). DVDs (even the most expensive ones) are not "expensive" really. + or - $5 or $10 should not make or break anyone, if they truly desire to see a film, whether the film in question is transferred progressively or not.

My other reason for writing this is that I actually think your site is a really, really good source of information, Gary. To think the amount of time and effort you (and others) have put into writing and posting all those thousands of reviews! It is a very good and informative site, but I think you could make it the greatest film site on the planet by re-focussing on the films. Show people the world of cinema that is available irrespective of the technical quality. Do the screen caps, and comment on the technical apsects of the releases, but let the final verdict be based on the actual quality and importance of the film, and spend a little more time on the merits of the individual film as film. Without intending to be personally insulting, take a break and view a film simply for the pleasure of viewing the film (don't kill the thing you love).

DVDBeaver exists to show which version of films available on DVDs is the best quality... It exists to criticize Kino and other studios for poor transfers and applaud releases of superior quality. It is invaluable for region-free readers and to chide DVDBeaver for not giving sub-rate releases a pass solely on the strength of the film is ludicrous.

domino harvey wrote:DVDBeaver exists to show which version of films available on DVDs is the best quality... It exists to criticize Kino and other studios for poor transfers and applaud releases of superior quality. It is invaluable for region-free readers and to chide DVDBeaver for not giving sub-rate releases a pass solely on the strength of the film is ludicrous.

I certainly did not mean to chide Gary or DVDBeaver. The site is one of the best and most comprehensive sources of information about films and DVD on the internet. My apologies to Gary, if my first mail was offensive.

On the other hand, I do not think that DVDBeaver's focus is as narrow as your post would seem to indicate. Here is DVDBeaver's statement of purpose:



If the second paragraph justifies a critical stand toward Kino and other labels that do not live up the highest potential of what the DVD medium can offer. Then, by the first paragraph, Kino would just as surely be amongst the prime candidates for coverage by DVDBeaver, and to my understanding would be applauded for their efforts to at least bring a wealth of eclectic cinema to the marketplace. Personally, with respect to DVDBeaver's coverage of Kino, I am more surprised by the general lack of coverage, than with the negative reviews of the label's output as such (although I also do think the verdicts on Kino's releases are very harsh).

It was only after I discovered DVDBeaver that I stopped blind-buying Kino / New Yorker / Fox Lorber discs. It showed me and a whole lot of other people that there are more superior versions out there, and a rental can suffice the urge to watch a movie

(...) I had a whole post here but I'm going to leave it where it is. I don't want to start beefing here or make it seem like a pile-on.

And when Domino Harvey (!) slips her leg in the door schrecko is outa here. I might, like.... get myself in trouble again.

In closing Gary, I appreciate your often thankless work, and the service saved me reams of grief in picking up titles. I'd just like to see more silent film, and more acceptance of the technical & financial realities of that most specialized world, particularly when venturing beyond the Langs & the Murnaus & Griffiths.

Yes, I would also give my words of thanks to Gary for doing his invaluable site, and would actually say it's good that he focusses on the technical quality, as the Beaver is the ONLY review site which does that. Whether a film is good, important, or simply only worth seeing is very subjective in most cases, and there are a good many other places (this forum being not the least) where you can read about the content and production history of a particular film if you need help to make your mind up whether you must see it or not.

Gary Tooze wrote: I was fair in that I identified the Criterion combing, but Criterion do digital restoration in the form of removal of dirt and debris plus selected black level and contrast boosting dependant on the scene and level of damage.

I'm not sure how to interpret this, do you see black level and contrast boosting (selected or not) as positive? This is probably the only aspect of current CC releases that continues to annoy me in places, though admittedly they do it in a pretty careful way. But I'm sure the reason why I almost always think that MoC discs look so much more cinematic is precisely the absence of such manipulation, even if the film looks somewhat softer and less sharp often. I never shared the complaints about "Assassination" in this respect, for example, and wouldn't wish for the Naruse films to look like Western b&w productions.

Tommaso wrote:But I'm sure the reason why I almost always think that MoC discs look so much more cinematic is precisely the absence of such manipulation, even if the film looks somewhat softer and less sharp often. I never shared the complaints about "Assassination" in this respect, for example, and wouldn't wish for the Naruse films to look like Western b&w productions.

Totally agreed. I much prefer MoC's philosophy of presentation to Criterion's. (Though I realize this is a value judgment that lots of DVD buyers differ on).

HerrSchreck wrote:

Gary Tooze wrote:Sorry I don't have the time to respond to your excellent post in more detail,

Well, you asked for clarification, Gary.

Gary Tooze wrote:but one thing...

HerrSchreck wrote:what's with the crapping all over Kino

Kino are dreadful - usually very overpriced and almost every one of their releases is either interlaced or a PAL->NTSC transfer... or both! EVERY ONE! I keep giving them chances and keep getting let down. Anytime they come up against a Criterion or MoC - its a no-brainer. I won't judge yet but what do you suppose the results of the Nov 19th dual Nosferatu (Kino and MoC) releases will bear? Exactly. If they are both the Koerber restoration - Kino will find some way to ruin the transfer for NTSC-locked audiences.

Gary you're just absolutely completely and totally wrong. Interlaced (standard in the realm of silents-- even for CC. see brand new PANDORA, HAXAN, NANOOK) yes, but PAL/NTSC that's just wrong.

Gary you're a review site in a public debate in front of the world. Naked aggressive bias catches people;s attention. Why is NEW BABYLON by ARTE worthy of Cinematic Big Balls Salute, when Kino's NTSC interlaced transfers of equally/more obscure titles heaps of shit??

When it comes to conversion issues, you're talking specifically about their releases of PAL FWMS transfers. Prior to FWMS coming into the picture with these PAL restos (which MoC naturally have the advantage on... which is why you don't see them handling NTSC releases/restos with any enthusiasm if at all in the silent zone, and the silent zone is the main thrust of the Kino catalog, with the vast bulk of the rest operating to service it) you saw Kino doing their own native transfers of these German silents. The new dominance of FWMS in legal/authoritative restoration terms put Kino in the position of having to sign a deal with these guys and use their excellent transfers.

But you said every release is a mess?? What's the story with the sublime massive undertaking w MoMa & Congress to produce the 4 disc EDISON box, the landmark MOVIES BEGIN & KEATON boxes which were miraculous herculean undertakings for their time that paved the way for boxes like Image's AVANT GARDE (also interlaced & exhibiting PAL/NTSC issues) & TREASURES/MORE TREASURES, what's the story with THE BLUE BIRD, ALIBI, LORNA DOONE, the box of Griffiths, bringing out the Pudovkins like THE END OF ST PETERSBERG, STORM OVER ASIA, the sublime Mauritz Stiller releases SIR ARNES TREASURE, & EROTIKON, CABIRIA, 1912's RICHARD III, the 6 or 7 Fairbanks releases, SADIE THOMPSON, DR JEKYLL & MR HYDE, THE PENALTY, A FOOL THERE WAS, AVANT GARDE 1 & 2, THE LOVE OF JEANNE NEY, PETER PAN, UNCLE TOM's CABIN, APPLAUSE, QUE VIVA MEXICO, (there are many more Kino transfers in Image discs, i e DESERTER, AELITA, STRIKE. STORM OVER ASIA, 3 SONGS OF LENIN, KINO EYE., 20,000 UNDER THE SEA, WAY DOWN EAST, the CC NANOOK).

What's most incredible is when Kino takes a PAL transfer that the country of origin is not even utilizing for home video and letting collect dust-- see WAXWORKS, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, WARNING SHADOWS, the material from SFI, (A COTTAGE ON DARTMOOR?), SEX IN CHAINS-- gets the thing out in an edition that minimizes ghosting as much as humanly possible-- and folks from the country of origin complain. You wanta buck up and see some cinema or what? If something doesn't look like its coming out I enthusiastically embrace VHS's, LD's, videotapes of wall projections of super8's....

Those native NTSC releases above are just the discs I own. SOme are a bit old and can't totally hang versus the hi-def, boosted, silent transfers of 2006-07, but they are nice digital transfers, not hideous Cinema Epoch Chinese (which I still appreciate) or Pathfinder Reifenstahls from VHS sources... for a lover of silent cinema they are pure gold and are the crux of his happines (aside from occasionally having to turn the fucking soundtrack down when it's Sosin or Moratta).

There's more titles, of course, and not to mention their track record back in the VHS days, which has tons of gems like SALT FOR SVANETIA, TURKSIB, HAPPINESS, FALL OF THE ROMANOV DYNASTY, etc.

My reflex here is twofold, Gary-- your site is part of a public conversation. Part of the conversation concerns my hugely fanatical love, which is silent film. If someone has the balls to put out masterpieces like MENILMONTANT, WARNING SHADOWS, THE PENALTY, DARTMOOR, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, WAXWORKS, and so many others, and the picture is clean and restored, but getting out the sliver of specific European rarities with a PAL soured tape means that these domestic co's like Milestone, Kino, etc that have to use this PAL tape, the reflex is to rejoice. Nobody has proven that you can do what these guys are doing, and run a native standard progressive transfer each time. I've accepted that this is not going to happen. I don't think that a comparison to MoC is apples to apples, since they stick 95% of the time to material from the PAL standard, and stay away from silents/digibetas from the US.. they rarely premiere previously unseen very rare silents that many folks even on sites like this have even heard of, and they release at an extremely slow, careful clip. Although I hugely appreciate them on their sound catalog, their silent catalog is a high end process of upgrading titles I already own. They do not consistently expand my horizons and make my hopeless dreams come consistently true by delivering rarities out of the sky.

Which leads to the second aspect of my Kino-reflex around here. (I've even been called a shill for them by skuhn8!):

I have nothing to do with these guys, and don't know them. I have some quantitative beefs with them as well.. I rarely go near their catalog of post-1960's material, as I know it exists almost totally to fund more early sound/experimental/silent projects. The company drives itself to get this 1895-1950's eclectic stuff out. The issue is this, in a nutshell:

I don't want these fucking guys to go away. They put out the stuff that massages my eerie head more than anybody else. They more than anyone else consistently put out the material I dream about. Though I'd love to see all-progressive NTSC transfers of the Murnau material, it's a minor hitch because I can always go with MoC, and its' a tiny sliver of the catalog. I love cinema far more than I love dvd technology-- I want to see some films that I didn't even know existed. You know anyone else who is doing what they do, with the obsessive sincerity, fanaticism, and tempo that they do-- and don't spell their logo with an F and an A and a C-E-T-S-- I will jump up onto the bus with you and urinate all over this company. But until then I want them to stay in business, very very badly. If they go, my head is near fucked. That's why I open my mouth to salute them (I used to bash them a lot too) as much as I can versus the endless & misinformed tearing them down.

Can we just nominate this for post of the year, or what?

Scharphedin2 wrote:However, my joy is equally great, when a film is released that I had never expected to see in any circumstances in any quality, or, when a DVD opens my eyes to a film that was until then unknown to me. In this respect, no other company has brought me more joy than Kino.

Not trying to be a smartass, but this sounds like a recipe for a Kino appreciation website. Why not start up such a niche site dedicated to highlighting these special, singular releases? DVDBeaver doesn't have to do it all, right? I think it would be an excellent complement to the Beaver, and a starting point for those just discovering or looking to get into more silent film. Why not, right?