New Chaplin Mutuals and Keystone Sets from Flicker Alley

[ClayKing]

Amazon has Blu-ray players starting at $32 that include analog audio-video output. Anyone who can't afford that probably shouldn't be spending money on a Chaplin set.

[Mike Gebert]

That's my point: sometimes suitable connections are NOT possible, if an old TV has only composite video connections, which many Blu-ray players don't have.

Right, but you just have to find one that does. Not too hard.

And the reason the big studios include blu-ray and dvd in a lot of new releases isn't because it costs them nothing. The problem was that having to choose between them resulted in people not buying new releases at all. So it pays off to include both and that moves people to blu-ray faster when they already have a set of blu-ray titles at home before they buy the new player. Then they are hooked and start spending money to upgrade everything again, BWAHAHAHAHA!

[SilentsPlease]

That's my point: sometimes suitable connections are NOT possible, if an old TV has only composite video connections, which many Blu-ray players don't have.

Right, but you just have to find one that does. Not too hard.

But it is. There is something called "analog sunset" that just became effective this year, as mandated by the industry: no Blu-ray player made after Jan 1st 2014 is allowed to have analog video outputs. You may refer to this article or others like it. Manufacturers were told about this a few years ago, and have started making new models in the last few years to abide by the new mandate. The models with analog video outputs will become rarer and harder to find, and, of course, will eventually get no support from manufacturers.

And the reason the big studios include blu-ray and dvd in a lot of new releases isn't because it costs them nothing. The problem was that having to choose between them resulted in people not buying new releases at all. So it pays off to include both and that moves people to blu-ray faster when they already have a set of blu-ray titles at home before they buy the new player. Then they are hooked and start spending money to upgrade everything again, BWAHAHAHAHA!

The reason for them to push Blu-rays is the same reason for the aforementioned industry mandate to do away analog video: piracy protection. Analog video is much easier to copy than digital video encrypted in HDMI. Including DVD is, I think, a way of conceding that there are still many people not capable of playing Blu-rays. The way to make money off of those people is to sell them both Blu-ray and DVD.

[moglia]

Amazon has Blu-ray players starting at $32 that include analog audio-video output. Anyone who can't afford that probably shouldn't be spending money on a Chaplin set.

Agreed.


Looking forward to seeing "Fatty and Mabel Adrift" at a decent running speed. The one on Slapstick Encyclopedia is so molasses slow it practically runs almost an extra reel longer in time or at least it feels that way.

[s.w.a.c.]

I've recommended this player before, but if you can track down a Seiki blu-ray player, you're all set. It plays most video files off of a flash drive, it can be programmed to be region free for DVDs and region-switchable for foreign blu-rays, and has analog video outputs. Wal-Mart Canada used to carry them for $80 or so, but they're worth every penny.

It's annoying how far they're carrying anti-piracy with blu-ray technology, I have to keep upgrading my blu-ray firmware to keep up with the latest round of copy-protection measures, and the blu-ray drive on my computer refuses to play certain discs altogether. After my last computer firmware update, I was told I couldn't play some blu-ray discs because I had an analog monitor (yes, I still have a CRT computer monitor, but it has a big screen and still works perfectly). So it's not that it couldn't play the disc, it just WOULDN'T, which is highly annoying considering I bought the disc and it's presumably my property. But apparently not, according to my computer.

[SilentsPlease]

I've recommended this player before, but if you can track down a Seiki blu-ray player, you're all set. It plays most video files off of a flash drive, it can be programmed to be region free for DVDs and region-switchable for foreign blu-rays, and has analog video outputs. Wal-Mart Canada used to carry them for $80 or so, but they're worth every penny.

It's annoying how far they're carrying anti-piracy with blu-ray technology, I have to keep upgrading my blu-ray firmware to keep up with the latest round of copy-protection measures, and the blu-ray drive on my computer refuses to play certain discs altogether. After my last computer firmware update, I was told I couldn't play some blu-ray discs because I had an analog monitor (yes, I still have a CRT computer monitor, but it has a big screen and still works perfectly). So it's not that it couldn't play the disc, it just WOULDN'T, which is highly annoying considering I bought the disc and it's presumably my property. But apparently not, according to my computer.

Your reluctance to upgrade your own display only proves my point that many other people may also be reluctant to do the necessary upgrades to watch Blu-rays. The discontinuance of Blu-ray players with analog video outputs, a possible need to upgrade your display, and various technical annoyances should make many people feel reluctant to go Blu-ray.

[DShepFilm]

The following is from my colleague Serge Bromberg; and I agree with him. David Shepard

Dear friends and Chaplin lovers,

We have been informed of your many remarks about the Chaplin project restorations of the Keystone, Essanay and Mutual films. At BFI, Cineteca di Bologna and Lobster, we try to learn from your remarks, and see what we can correct. As you can imagine, we're spending fortunes hunting the best material, using the most complex technologies to restore the films at their best, and also scoring the films with the highest ambition. We are very proud of the result (which will be even much better in the US Mutual Blu Ray as we've had more time to improve the restorations), want to thank all the archives and collectors who have provided material, and assure you that we are only seeking for the best.

Alas, sometimes, choices have to be made, and facts are facts. For example, a lot of remarks have been made about The Immigrant. But as you certainly know, there were two negatives on each Mutual film, and if the edit is different, we have made the only choice possible of restoring Neg A (the reference camera for Chaplin), using the less possible material from neg B only to fill in gaps where neg A material is not available. We are not trying to make the longest possible film, which would be an illegitimate act for a restorer, compiling two versions of a film that were never assembled before. In The Immigrant, the edit of all the neg A material is consistent, and it does not have the extra shots we can see in neg B : this is why we have not kept them. In The Cure, Albert Austin could have thrown 3 times bottles through the window into the well we've retained only the two in neg. A.

Some other choices are due to the disappearance of some shots or images in good quality. A few frames missing in the middle of a shot are not deadly (believe me, if they exist somewhere in prime quality, we would have found them), and filling the gap with 16mm material –even from Kodascope prints made from 35mm negatives -- can be very uncomfortable for screening. If you have the French DVD set, you have probably noticed that the last shot of The Adventurer has a short 16mm insert, that we felt necessary. You have probably not noticed that there were actually two, but we got better results for the other one. They are from a Kodascope print. We are still seeking good material to improve this last shot.

The same is true for the scene with Eric Campbell's hat in The Pawnshop . It is missing from every single nitrate element we have from neg A, and it is possible (not certain, I admit) that this was removed by Chaplin's editor. Who are we to know ?
Please keep telling us about mistakes. The films are still on 2K files, and will only be put back on 35mm film next year. Until then, we can always make changes, so the films will be preserved for eternity in their best shape".

[Mike Gebert]

The discontinuance of Blu-ray players with analog video outputs, a possible need to upgrade your display, and various technical annoyances should make many people feel reluctant to go Blu-ray.

If an upgraded display qualifies as an annoyance, no, you shouldn't go Blu-ray.

But hey, everything is still out there. Laserdiscs offer a nice picture on a CRT with analog outputs, and they're cheaper than ever.

[Great Hierophant]

Including a Blu-ray and a DVD in the same package allows a studio to charge extra than a DVD or a Blu-ray alone. DVDs add almost nothing to the cost of the package.

Having a DVD included is definitely a plus if you want to watch the movie on a small screen. A portable DVD player, a laptop with a DVD drive, a car DVD player or a hotel DVD player all are still common enough. They are also easy to rip.

But for a big modern screen, Blu-ray and HDMI are the way to go. Trying to squeeze 1080 resolution through a composite or S-Video connection is far from ideal. Component video is okay for HD cable, but Blu-ray can do better. Also, an HDMI cable is one cable compared with five RCA jacks of a component cable, and if you know where to shop they are cheap. As a digital cable, it works or it doesn't.

I have a serious issue with my MoC Nosferatu Blu-ray. The disc is too recent for the version of PowerDVD (10) that came bundled with my Blu-ray drive. There are no updates for the OEM PowerDVD 10, so my player doesn't have the keys to decrypt the disc. Neither does VLC with the publicly available keys. My Blu-ray player is a Region 1/A PS3. The only solutions I have are to rip it with MakeMKV or to buy a newer version of PowerDVD (or some other commercial player) or buy AnyDVD HD.

[moglia]

Including a Blu-ray and a DVD in the same package allows a studio to charge extra than a DVD or a Blu-ray alone. DVDs add almost nothing to the cost of the package.

Depends on what is considered "almost nothing".

Mr Gierucki has mentioned:

If someone would like to donate the additional $16,000.00 of studio costs required to
produce a DVD version of the set (Sennett) -- we will be happy to donate our time to prepare it.

Neither Brittany or I have BR players or HD TVs.
We will also need to buy BR players in order to watch our own work!
No one gets rich restoring silent comedies.

On a major media release yes agreed, that cost would be nothing in effect, but on a very small scale efforts such as the Sennett 16K was insurmountable.

[SilentsPlease]

The discontinuance of Blu-ray players with analog video outputs, a possible need to upgrade your display, and various technical annoyances should make many people feel reluctant to go Blu-ray.

If an upgraded display qualifies as an annoyance, no, you shouldn't go Blu-ray.

But hey, everything is still out there. Laserdiscs offer a nice picture on a CRT with analog outputs, and they're cheaper than ever.

Go read s.w.a.c.'s previous post and you'll have an understanding of how a new display could be a technical annoyance to many people. I personally don't think it's an annoyance, but I can understand why many people do, which is what you don't seem to understand. I think we've gone OT long enough, Mr. Site Admin. The conclusion is clear: many people still DO have legitimate reasons to feel reluctant about upgrading to Blu-ray and new displays. Let's stop belaboring this and go back to discussing these wonderful upcoming silents. Silents please.

[Mike Gebert]

I read s.w.a.c.'s post just fine, thanks, and while the information in it is valuable, I must admit that the math does not strike me as making a lot of sense. You have a player that's $60 and a disc for the average movie that's like $22 on sale and the concern is that as part of that you are precluded from violating copyright in some, mostly benign sort of way that you were capable of with a $300 laserdisc player and a $69 Criterion laserdisc. (Except that a million ways of violating copyright mostly benignly exist anyway.) And dammit, they should have spent another $16K to make that possible.

I guess I see better-cheaper-but-more-restrictive as just not such a bad deal under those circumstances.

But thanks for reminding me to get this thread back on its proper subject which is, no doubt, frame rates and combing effects...

[Gloria Rampage]

Mike Gebert
But thanks for reminding me to get this thread back on its proper subject which is, no doubt, frame rates and combing effects...

Forgot jitter.

[Rob Farr]

And judder.

[Mike Gebert]

Jitter and Judder is my favorite underappreciated Gilbert & Sullivan opera.

[Roscoe]

"Absolutely, Mr. Judder?"
"Positively, Mr. Jitter!"

[s.w.a.c.]

I read s.w.a.c.'s post just fine, thanks, and while the information in it is valuable, I must admit that the math does not strike me as making a lot of sense.

Well, nothing new there as far as most of my posts go, but mostly I was expressing my frustration at the fact that I'd have to buy a new monitor (having a Samsung CRT monitor that works perfectly well for my needs) not because the format is incompatible (some blu-rays play just fine), but because this new level of copy-protection was demanding it. Something about the idea of petulant electronics just rubs me the wrong way.

Granted, new flatscreen computer monitors can be had at bargain prices, but it's the needless waste of it that's irksome to me. You can't even give away a CRT monitor these days, it'd probably just go straight to the electronics recycling depot rather than going to the trouble of trying to find someone who wants it for $10 or whatever.

[s.w.a.c.]

Jitter and Judder is my favorite underappreciated Gilbert & Sullivan opera.

I thought they were an off-brand Billy West-esque rip off of the comic stylings of Biffle & Shuster.

[silentfilm]

All that jitters is not gold...

[jacksparrow900]

I saw that Arte has dvds out of new Essanay Restorations. Will we be seeing blu ray sometime later this year.

[DShepFilm]

The present ARTE edition of the Essanays has been out for many years and is identical to the set issued here by Image Entertainment in 1999. It is also available from the BFI. The new ones are barely started.

David Shepard

[EddieLarkin]

A taste of how these will look on Blu-ray over at DVDBeaver:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_ ... lu-ray.htm" target="_blank

Presumably, like the new French Arte DVDs, this set is missing the further work that has been performed for the Flicker Alley set.

Interestingly, all of these are 1080i, which should please those susceptible to judder, assuming interlacing will also be used on the domestic release.

[All Darc]

Strange, maybe DVD Beaver get screen captures of some instants of dupe portions.

Once I saw a article where David Shepard said The Imigrant film element he found was a 35mm dupe negative form 1920's or so, and it was so great quality the imagined initialy it was the câmera negative. In the DVD Beaver captures The Imigrante looks excelent, while other few captures from suposed original prints looks good but not so good.

Can a internegative so old look so good??? Or was it a internegative made later with quality duplication film emulsion?

TCM showed 87 of the restored Sennett films two years ago. I recorded all of them, and I'm also going to buy the Blu-ray just to support the people involved. Here are two clips from the TCM broadcast, showing how the picture quality varies widely:

The Curtain Pole (1909)
Bangville Police (1913)

[SilentsPlease]

I read s.w.a.c.'s post just fine, thanks, and while the information in it is valuable, I must admit that the math does not strike me as making a lot of sense. You have a player that's $60 and a disc for the average movie that's like $22 on sale and the concern is that as part of that you are precluded from violating copyright in some, mostly benign sort of way that you were capable of with a $300 laserdisc player and a $69 Criterion laserdisc. (Except that a million ways of violating copyright mostly benignly exist anyway.) And dammit, they should have spent another $16K to make that possible.

I guess I see better-cheaper-but-more-restrictive as just not such a bad deal under those circumstances.

But thanks for reminding me to get this thread back on its proper subject which is, no doubt, frame rates and combing effects...

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit you lost an argument? All this silly song-and-dance routine is very unbecoming for a site admin.

The COST of a display should deter someone from going Blu. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

I carefully tailored my last few posts to introduce facts in a pace comfortable for even the slowest people to absorb, only to be met with immature wise remarks, from an admin, no less.

Not so much fun at the receiving end of sarcasm, isn't it.

[Mike Gebert]

The COST of a display should deter someone from going Blu. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Apparently you cannot conceive that someone actually disagrees with you on this one. To accept your point to a certain extent, I am mildly annoyed at the moment that my wife cannot watch my Breaking Bad blu-rays on her laptop on the treadmill as she wishes. Nevertheless, on the whole I genuinely believe that we get more and better things for less money than ever. And they look great on my 5-year-old Sony DLP TV. Few things in life have been a better use of $1200, in fact (which would be half as much now, for a rough equivalent).

I will forego sarcasm at what follows, no matter how tempting...

[Gloria Rampage]

DShepFilm
the Essanays has been out for many years...... set issued here by Image Entertainment in 1999.

Very first DVDs I ever purchased.

[All Darc]

"Late last year David Shepard stated "On almost all of the films, we had multiple elements from both A and B negatives. There are differences between them.

Almost everything we used was a first generation full aperture 35mm nitrate print. All were scanned at 2K, edited together with new reproduction 1916-1917 intertitle cards, and digitally restored and repaired on a Phoenix Revival system. (The new main titles are not reproductions and clearly identify the films as modern restorations).

We used A negative sources unless a shot was obviously missing, incomplete or badly damaged, in which case we substituted the most similar shot from a B negative source.

What we did not do is conflate the A and B versions to make a longer film than was originally released in either neg version."

I wonder how the B câmera looks in each film. The the B câmera for The Rink looks better...
In some Howard Loyd films they choose the export negative as much as possible for superior quality. Metropolis also choose image quality as first option instead of artistic.
Anyway most Chaplin Mutuals films appear to look already very good.

With almost all films with A and B negatives (prints) maybe they could sellect the most approprietade for stereo composition. Creat some stereoscopic images.

[bigshot]

Blu-Rays of classic films are the best reason to go out and get a player and nice big flatscreen monitor (or better yet, HD projector). The experience of seeing Wings or City Girl on a first class system is NOTHING like seeing them on VHS, LD or DVD. Blu-ray is as close as we're ever going to get to a time machine to be able to see these films as they were originally screened on first release. I've been around for most of the era of home video, and the concept of "movies at home" has finally come to fruition. I can't wait to see the Mutuals in perfect condition with great musical accompaniment on the ten foot screen in my home theater. A dream come true.

[fwtep]

I agree with "bigshot." I've said it on here before, but at $850 for a great HD projector you can't go wrong. Even with just a white-painted wall it looks fantastic-- far more like watching a movie than watching on a CRT or flatscreen TV.

[All Darc]

Talking about "time machine"...

I wonder if there is some register on film of a real audience back in silent era watching Chaplin, Laurel&Hardy or Keaton comedies. How audience behave on movie theater... Things like that.