Final Clearance on Select Buster Keaton Titles from Kino

[All Darc]

I wouldn't be so sure. Blu-Ray it's not even 2K for 4:3 films, but just 1480 pixels left to right, since it have black bars on side of 16:9 screen.
Maybe true 2K or 3K would be better.

UHD would be wasted on silent film. There wouldn't be any appreciable improvement over a blu-ray. The reason they do 4K transfers is to allow headroom for digital restoration filters. It isn't for image quality, because there's only just so much you can get out of an almost century old piece of film. Past a certain point, you're just getting very good rendering of noise.

[Tommie Hicks]

The THREE AGES and COLLEGE prints on the new Kino/Lobster Blurays are the same ones that have been going around for years. I was hoping Serge Bromberg had found some alternate prints in Europe somewhere. It was great seeing THE SCRIBE in HD.

[Lonesome Luke]

Is it just me, but I'm getting a bit annoyed with all these improved versions? (Imagine if they kept putting out the same new Hollywood films because the guys doing it, kept over and under exposing parts of it.) How many times do I have to buy the same films before they get them right? (Now, of course, if you have a different print, that's different. But when it's the same people with the same prints, making improvements, that get's my goat.)

The THREE AGES and COLLEGE prints on the new Kino/Lobster Blurays are the same ones that have been going around for years. I was hoping Serge Bromberg had found some alternate prints in Europe somewhere.

The Three Ages is taken from a European release print, isn't it?

One of the burning questions we asked on the announcement of this Blu-ray Disc edition was, “Since Kino has already released the best-looking edition of Three Ages we know of, why do they need another Blu-ray Disc release?” Perhaps this new edition would be an improvement on their 2009 disc? Well, fortunately, this is the case. The 35mm source print utilized for this release is very-good to excellent but, it needs to be noted, it is a European release print comprised of alternate angles and alternate takes when compared to the American release print utilized for the 2009 Kino Blu-ray Disc noted below.

[Jim Roots]

Is it just me, but I'm getting a bit annoyed with all these improved versions? (Imagine if they kept putting out the same new Hollywood films because the guys doing it, kept over and under exposing parts of it.) How many times do I have to buy the same films before they get them right? (Now, of course, if you have a different print, that's different. But when it's the same people with the same prints, making improvements, that get's my goat.)

You can find a lot of postings throughout NitrateVille over the years, bemoaning yet another release of The General, Metropolis, Phantom of the Opera, and similar warhorses, while thousands of other worthy (and unworthy) silents rust and rot away unavailable in any format. There are plenty of reasons/excuses for this state of affairs, but the bottom line is the bottom line. The warhorses make money, or at least break even; everything else silent is a guaranteed money-loser.

Jim

[All Darc]

Three Ages:

Previous blu ray: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... osition=16" target="_blank

Actual blu ray: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... position=4" target="_blank

Different print source or just sharpness filters ???

Maybe a new print source, that had some blur, but not so much as print used the old blu ray, that get even better with some sharpness correction. Anyway the new blu ray have a lot more image details than the old one.


But for this particular scene the sharpness filter probably was exagerated: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... position=2" target="_blank

Sharpness filters can help. The problem is that manytimes they add sharpness after convert to HD, and not add the filter to the 4K or 2K files, and then convert to HD (1080p).

If you add sharpness before downsample the resolution you will enhance soft details that otherwise would be lost after go to 1080p. So you get more details. But if you add sharpness after convert to 1080p the soft detailçs alread got loss during downsample and you will not get a very good result.

Colege looks good, but somewhat soft a bit. Is they had added just some few sharpness to the 2K files, before go to 1080p, the result would be better and not artifitial.
Remambering that 4:3 HD have just 1480 pixels left to right, while 2K true 4:3 have 2048 pixels left to right.

If Criterion Collection had added some very carefull sharpness correction to the 4K file of CIty Lights (1930) before converto to 1080p.

[bigshot]

I find that a lot of Lobster's transfers are a little soft. I don't mind that. They still look good.