Tweet Phantom Of The Opera Ultimate Edition DVD now Out of Print

All Darc, I appreciate your suggestions. Since there are no color shifts between versions apparent in the master tapes, I have asked the DVD place to look into it.

However, it is clearly noted on the Blu-Ray web site that their frame captures are highly processed and it is possible that an error was introduced which does not exist on the actual Blu-Ray.

As to your suggestion that the 20 fps version be achieved by speed-slipping the 24 fps version, here's what I wrote to someone else:

Both runs are from the same negative, but they are two separate transfers; one is not converted from the other. I was told that trying to slip the 24 fps transfer by 20% would introduce many artifacts. (It would have cost a whole lot less money to slip speeds, had we been able to do it). The digital algorithms for stabilization and cleanup are much less effective at 20 fps than at 24 fps; however, sharpness and tonality should be equally good at both speeds. Further, as I was given to understand matters, progressive scanning doesn't work in HD at non-standard speeds. I am not an engineer and am completely green to the world of HD so count on the opinions of those who know more than I do, which includes most of the people who worked on this thing.

David Shepard

David,

Having had a Blackhawk print for many years, it seems to me that the Gaylord Carter score may be out of sync for the first reel or so. Were adjustments made to the score? It seems to be significantly late, especially during the ballet sequence at the start of the film and for the scenes immediately after.

I also noticed that the film speed is slowed down during this early ballet footage and then sped back up when the scene in the manager's office begins.

Visually I think the new blu-ray looks great. It's too bad that Image accidentally "mono-fied" the one score. Keep us posted as to when the corrected disc will be available. Even as-is, the disc's a fine package and a steal at Amazon for $23.

Jim Harwood

Last night while at Barnes and Noble for the Criterion sale, I noticed that they are displaying the PotO Blu Ray among new releases. So if B&N are selling this, I think it got a wider release than intended. Just FYI.

" Gaylord Carter score may be out of sync for the first reel or so. Were adjustments made to the score? It seems to be significantly late, especially during the ballet sequence at the start of the film and for the scenes immediately after. "

I am glad that some one else noticed this.

My copy is also "freezing up" at points in the film.. one point being the underground lake sequence.

The film itself is very sharp. there are scenes where one can almost read background signs in the opera house.
I also like the hand colored effect with the Phantom's cape.

I look forward to the corrected version with it's stereo score.

David, please keep us posted.

Yes, the sync was a major problem in both the Carter and 20 fps orchestral score, and it has been fixed.

David S

Thanks for checking on the colors, David. As All Darc suggested, I don't think it really matters that we're seeing the colors on a computer monitor rather than a television, because the difference between the two versions is still evident.

As you said, blu-ray.com may have somehow altered one of the scans - but I think their manipulation has more to do with reducing the size of the scan rather than screwing around with the colors. I'm sure they were using the same capture software for both versions, and I can't imagine why they'd go and saturate the colors on just one of the versions. Maybe you can send your friend to that link and have him look at the difference between the two versions that we're seeing.

Another thing I was wondering about -- deepdiscount has shipped their copies, Amazon lists POTO as "in stock" (even though my copy hasn't shipped), and it's available at B&N... I assume these are all still the defective copies?

Hi David, you said the chance of us getting the problem disc is "rarer than an upside down airmail stamp", and yet you said the corrected disc has yet to be pressed. My question is: are all the copies that are on sale RIGHT NOW are problem discs?

Yes, the sync was a major problem in both the Carter and 20 fps orchestral score, and it has been fixed.

David S

That is reason enough to exchange discs when possible. I wondered about that. Thanks, David.

All the discs on sale right now are "problem discs". I was told they were going to be recalled but apparently they weren't. But as I said earlier, there will be an exchange procedure for those who wish to exercise it.

David S

All the discs on sale right now are "problem discs". I was told they were going to be recalled but apparently they weren't. But as I said earlier, there will be an exchange procedure for those who wish to exercise it.

David S

HI David - thanks for your valued participation in this thread. Do you anticipate the exchange program will be done directly though Image, or through the dealers that have sold the discs (if so, keep those receipts!)?

I also still have a 16mm Carter sound print in my collection, along with other versions. The 7-minute highlight film I sent you a few years back (with unspoiled boudoir footage and alternate footage and intertitles, not seen in either the show-at-home or GEH versions) ended up being used as an extra in Mark Roth's GM-Essex set.

I received my Image Blu-Ray yesterday. Here are some things I noticed:

1. On the back of the plastic case, the source for the 1925 version is listed as "6 millimeter."
I assume that should be 16 mm.

2. The versions are listed on the case by year, frame rate, with full names of the musical scores.
However, when one starts the film, the "top menu" simply lists the versions by the main score. So
a casual viewer will have to go searching for the case, or experimenting to see what their choices mean.
I'm all for full credit to the music, but this seems wrong.

3. Once I chose a version to watch, I could not get back to the "top menu" without opening/closing
the tray. I thought that I could use the left arrow from a version's menu (where you choose one of the
extras for that version such as Dr. Mirsalis' comentary, etc.) but it would not work.

4. I left more exploration of that for today, because I needed to check to see if I had the latest firmware
for the player, a Panasonic BR player. The player did need an update, which I did. But it did not seem to
help much. Through experimenting with the remote's buttons, I found that I had to use the "down arrow"
button to get back to the column with version selections.

5. Less important, but going up or down thru the version names (score names) does not "wrap around" at
the top or bottom.

6. The colors (orange or not-so-orange) of the scene mentioned above look pretty much the color
that they do on that web page. It doesn't matter to me that much, there are a whole range of tints
used in silents. It seems odd that it is supposedly presenting the same source at different speeds
w/diff. scores, but getting different colors in that scene.

Rick

Thanks, Rick and all. I am passing on all comments to the folks at Image. It is hard to imagine how one project got fouled up in so many different ways. The corrected version will be great by contrast, no matter how it comes out!

David S

All the discs on sale right now are "problem discs". I was told they were going to be recalled but apparently they weren't. But as I said earlier, there will be an exchange procedure for those who wish to exercise it.

David S

This raises a sticky problem. If the problem discs are not going to be recalled, how are we to be sure we will not get another problem disc in exchange? The same problem occurred with the defective Hitchcock set that contained a new transfer of The Lodger a few years back. MGM would not recalled the discs and I heard of buyers exchanging sets three times and still not getting satisfaction. I was lucky enough to get one of the good ones with the exception of the Spellbound disc. I was able to swap that one out and was satisfied. In the case of the Phantom disc I wonder if it would be best to wait until the new pressing and then buy directly from Image Entertainment instead of another outlet?

Mitch (or Conrad), Image Entertainment does not sell to individual consumers but they will be handling the exchange when the new discs are ready. They are not ready yet. As I have said previously, I shall advise when I know more.

David S

Projects like this can go South for a million different reasons. Technicians only see their tiny sliver of the pie and often cause problems in other areas without knowing it. To make things worse, video companies often send out check disks AFTER they've gone into production on the print run. Without someone like David involved, everything would get messed up and nothing would ever get put right. Image is lucky to have him.

Okay, I'm confused here. I actually picked up the Image Phantom Blu-ray yesterday at Dimple Record, and ended up putting it back on the shelf once I'd read that it's in two speeds, 20 and 24 fps. What th' heck? We're not talking silent films in general, we're talking THIS specific film. Isn't ONE of the speeds right? Why would it be included at one WRONG speed and one RIGHT speed? I looked through the thread and found no clue. What with the non-stereo score and this speed issue, I decided to just hold off until I learned more about it, or more likely, wait for the Milestone version, since I love their DVD release of Phantom.

Can anyone, nicely, illuminate me as to why both the 20 and 24 fps inclusions? Thank you.

Because silent film speeds were never standard. And if you pick one speed, someone will complain that you didn't use the other speed, even though they're all valid. Here's a version where you can watch it at two different speeds, with (of course) two different musical scores. There's no government plot here to take advantage of you, feel free to buy the DVD.

I received mine today and... geez, what a mess. All of the issues that have already been discussed are evident... the first version (with the Alloy Orchestra) is oversaturated, including the color sequence. The second version lays off the "saturation" knob, but doesn't clean up the image. The third version (1925) window-boxes the film (Why? Modern TVs don't have a problem with overscan) and is ALSO mastered wrong, as it defaults to wide-screen.

Shame on Image for not recalling product that obviously has some serious problems.

My real wish for POTO is that someone would master the 1925 version with tints, technicolor and hand coloring. (sigh)

From all reports, the surviving 1925 prints are not in great shape, and it's probably hard to justify herculean efforts to fix that up when much of the same footage survives in good shape in 1929 prints. I think the Griggs Moviedrome version that came out a few years ago included a splice-together of the 1925 continuity with the Technicolor sequences added from the 1929 re-release, and Murray Glass had a 16mm print that was done the same way. I expect that neither has the quality of the Image release, though, with access to better source material.

Thank you, Rodney. The Blu-ray I saw was $29, and I think I feel more comfortable waiting to see what Milestone does with it, particularly after what Doug said. Image has done terrific work in the past (their Twilight Zone Blu-rays are gorgeous), but... two speeds on one silent movie, with the other probs, just doesn't sit right with me.

The UK Park Circus release, apparently the "twin" of the US release, isn't being released until the 12th of December. Any idea if it will be the "corrected" version, or if the release date will be pushed back, or if for that matter it will be sold at first with the problems mentioned and if so if we will also get a corrected release.

From all reports, the surviving 1925 prints are not in great shape, and it's probably hard to justify herculean efforts to fix that up when much of the same footage survives in good shape in 1929 prints. I think the Griggs Moviedrome version that came out a few years ago included a splice-together of the 1925 continuity with the Technicolor sequences added from the 1929 re-release, and Murray Glass had a 16mm print that was done the same way. I expect that neither has the quality of the Image release, though, with access to better source material.

The 'show-at-home' 16mm 1925 prints as they currently exist (there are a small number of variations out there) were cobbled together from a variety of sources (considering the many styles of intertitles), and include at least a couple of pieces from the 1930 sound reissue, including the revised title card, and small sections of the 24fps lantern man footage (not related to the midsized closeup shot from the original), and there is looped footage of the exterior matte shot of the opera house (as the horse and carriage crosses the same spot serval times). The show-at-home is a surviving representation, and not much more. The b&w Bal Masque footage that exists, still looks better in the 16mm dupes made from the 1930 version, even though it is identical to the footage of the show-at-home. I'm pretty sure David's Blackhawk release only incorporated Gaylor Carter's organ score when the color footage was used...did silent prints in 16mm and 8/S8 not feature the b&w BM footage prior to that point?

When I created the A/B comparison used by Mark Roth's GM set, I used the b&w BM footage for the continuity of the Lee Erwin organ score that was created for their prints of the reissue version. Erwin recorded a completely new accompaniment for the color footage, and people cut it in later, but since the new arrangement ends abruptly, it destroys the musical continuity of his original score.

I may be going against conventional wisdom, but I find it difficult to believe that the undercranked color Bal Masque footage (along with other lost color pieces) was not included in one of the many premieres (as the film went through so many reshoots) and belongs with the surviving 1930 reissue (considering the standardized intertitles of that release), when there are clear instances of similar takes from different angles, and every shot featuring Chaney is a different take, while many of the extras are in the same areas. It's easy to have an actor wear two different costumes as the jester who confronts Chaney, but it seems like such a laborious process to do it more than once, for the 2 ground shots, then the 2 reverse angle shots from the head of the staircase, plus totally redressing and lighting the stairwell leading to the opera house rooftop for color, with a very plain look for b&w. I'm more inclined to think that the color footage had to be for higher priced premieres and/or roadshow releases, and the b&w for general release.

Okay, I'm confused here. I actually picked up the Image Phantom Blu-ray yesterday at Dimple Record, and ended up putting it back on the shelf once I'd read that it's in two speeds, 20 and 24 fps. What th' heck? We're not talking silent films in general, we're talking THIS specific film. Isn't ONE of the speeds right? Why would it be included at one WRONG speed and one RIGHT speed? I looked through the thread and found no clue. What with the non-stereo score and this speed issue, I decided to just hold off until I learned more about it, or more likely, wait for the Milestone version, since I love their DVD release of Phantom.

Can anyone, nicely, illuminate me as to why both the 20 and 24 fps inclusions? Thank you.

The 24fps version incorporates the Gaylord Carter score as issued on the Blackhawk 16mm, Super-8mm sound, VHS/Beta and laserdiscs. The 20fps version features Gabriel Thibaudeau's commissioned score issued on laserdisc and DVD by Image in 1997.

Corrected masters have been supplied to Park Circus.

David S

Clifford, two of the scores we used were pre-existing, and one was recorded to 24 fps, the other to 20 fps. You say "tomato" and I say "tomah-to" and if you want to call the whole thing off, it's your privilege. But there are good reasons for both speeds, since the existing 1929 version includes original silent footage (20 fps) and re-made scenes (24 fps). Enjoy it both ways.

David S

David, I appreciate what you're saying... and since I began purchasing DVDs early in the format, I've been a voracious purchaser of Image Entertainment product, particularly your vintage offerings, from the $30 barebones Universal-licensed comedies to the 1950s cheezy horror & sci-fi. I used to shop at J&R music in lower Manhattan and come out with a bag full o' Image discs. Now THOSE were the days.

Had your packaging (what I read in the store, anyway) contained as succinct a description as you just gave me, or - perhaps better yet - if it had listed one - correctly speeded - 1929 version as the "actual" version and listed the other with the 1925 version as bonus versions, I would've been more likely to shell out the thirty bucks. As worded, it's confusing, and I don't have time to watch the Phantom of the Opera twice to figure out which is the "correct" or "better" one.

Maybe one of us should just flip a coin and tell him which is the "correct" version and he can watch the film once and be done with it.

EDIT: Aha! I have an answer! I just looked at the disk and I know which is the best. The Alloy Orchestra score isn't very good. It plays everything too straight, and sounds like Cirque d'Solier crossed with cheezy Halloween at times. The image on that version is OK and the speed isn't annoying, but there is a great deal of noise reduction on the image, which I don't prefer. The tints are definitely goosed in this version. Gaylord Carter's soundtrack is good, but it's hard to judge because it appeared to have slipped out of sync.

The orchestral score is very good, 20fps feels right, the tints are spot on and less noise reduction is a good thing to me. The 20fps version is the best. Nothing at all wrong with the 20fps version. Buy with confidence for that.

I was able to navigate the menus by using the top menu button and by pushing down all the way back to the main menu. It's more user friendly to just go left right, but these menus go up down too.

Why is it that EVERYONE sees the difference in tint except the guy who did the tinting?

Obviously, a boat-load of DNR was applied to the film. On the other hand, I have to admit I find it difficult to watch the 2nd copy because of the degree of damage. Maybe something in-between would be best .

David, are there any plans to fix the tinting / DNR / windowboxing issues, or is the best we have to look forward to a fixed menu and soundtrack? I suspect the latter, though I'm hoping all of the various problems can be resolved because the image really does look quite nice.

He said the tinting was identical on his masters. The boosting mut have occured in disk authoring. I think the non dnred version looks great. DNR is better for making a 9 into a 10 than it is for making a 6 into a 7.

Relax guys... The discs will be replaced.


About the 19215 version, I see a few possibilities to restore it.


Possible things today:

Espansive, but would be possible to gatter all 16mm prints from 1925 version, select the best ones and also the most overexposed an the subexposured copies, and use algorithims to merge both, align in similar way that Ultra resoltuion do for technicolor strips. This would increase the dynamic range of the final image, allowing more information to be extrated from shaddows and highlights than what would be by just contrast enhancement tool.

Also the Lowry digital treatment, since it's the only who trully recover details on image by a extraordinary processing (made by 1000 Mac together) that analyze the grain particles logic of forming objects, comparing to other frames carefully, and extrat more details, since grain is randdon and carry more details in a sequence of frames tahn than a single frame.

For future:

Well, the fine texture and details of sets, objects, actor's faces and clouthes it's well preserved in the 35mm master shot from camera negative.
In the future there will probably have technology to add back such fine textures to the 1925 version. Today we start to have algorytims that can get the 3D estimation of all objects in a ascene, creating a precise depth mask for each one. So it's fair to presume that in future, computers will analyze the data, estipulate the shape and add the fine textures logically to the low resolution data of the 16mm versions.


I'm sure that this technology will rise, if George Lucar live for more 20 years. He would not miss the chance to a Star Wars version on Imax.