The Kid: running times?

Thanks for the reply Phil - how're you doing?
PAL/NTSC conversion/speed up isn't an issue here: I live in the UK &
have a multiregion player, so have all the CC Image DVDs (struck from
NTSC masters) & the CC Collection mk2-issued region 2 PAL DVDs (from
PAL masters).
As everyone in this newsgroup is only too painfully aware, NTSC
speedup is only a problem on the region 1 Warner issues, so... any more
ideas?
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On Feb 2, 4:49 pm, Phil P. <p... RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007 14:47:48 -0800, "Brent Reid" <brent.r... RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all, here's a question that been bugging me these last 3 years or
> >so; I suspect the answer is a very simple one that I've overlooked,
> >but any help appreciated all the same.
> >The public domain version(s) of The Kid & that contained on the Image
> >DVD all run to 68 minutes, whereas the mk2/Warners 1971 rerelease cut
> >clocks in at only 50. Obviously, there are those three deleted scenes,
> >which account for 5-6 minutes, but what about the other 12?
> >Without rigging up a side-by-side comparison, I don't recall any
> >further missing material from the 1971 version, & I'm assuming that
> >they both run at pretty close to the same speed, so what gives?
> >Brent
>
> What about the speed up in the PAL to NTSC conversion? How much of the 12 would
> that account for? Personally, it's enough for me to be uncomfortable with their
> versions of the CC talkies (audio-wise).

PAL to NTSC is a difference of 4%. That would only account for about
2min 45sec of a 68 minute presentation. That means somewhere between 8
or 9 minutes of the 18 minute (I'm taking your word for it) difference
is accounted for by obvious scene cuts and digital transfer factors.
I'd have to guess that a significant part of the remaining time might
call into question the assumption "that they both run at pretty close
to the same speed." But I'd also guess there are several minor trims
here and there throughout the film as well.

Just to be perfectly clear, the material contained on the Image
versions is NOT public domain.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On 2 Feb 2007 18:10:24 -0800, "David Totheroh" <dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:

>On Feb 2, 4:49 pm, Phil P. <p... RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2007 14:47:48 -0800, "Brent Reid" <brent.r... RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all, here's a question that been bugging me these last 3 years or
>> >so; I suspect the answer is a very simple one that I've overlooked,
>> >but any help appreciated all the same.
>> >The public domain version(s) of The Kid & that contained on the Image
>> >DVD all run to 68 minutes, whereas the mk2/Warners 1971 rerelease cut
>> >clocks in at only 50. Obviously, there are those three deleted scenes,
>> >which account for 5-6 minutes, but what about the other 12?
>> >Without rigging up a side-by-side comparison, I don't recall any
>> >further missing material from the 1971 version, & I'm assuming that
>> >they both run at pretty close to the same speed, so what gives?
>> >Brent
>>
>> What about the speed up in the PAL to NTSC conversion? How much of the 12 would
>> that account for? Personally, it's enough for me to be uncomfortable with their
>> versions of the CC talkies (audio-wise).
>
>PAL to NTSC is a difference of 4%. That would only account for about
>2min 45sec of a 68 minute presentation. That means somewhere between 8
>or 9 minutes of the 18 minute (I'm taking your word for it) difference
>is accounted for by obvious scene cuts and digital transfer factors.
>I'd have to guess that a significant part of the remaining time might
>call into question the assumption "that they both run at pretty close
>to the same speed." But I'd also guess there are several minor trims
>here and there throughout the film as well.
>
>Just to be perfectly clear, the material contained on the Image
>versions is NOT public domain.

Since Brent's in the UK, he isn't affected by the conversion. I think we know
that the David S. version is speed corrected and that the WB likely isn't,
right? I doesn't seem to me that that would be enough for a 12 minute
difference, though. I guess someone with both versions would have to do an A/B.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

I know the Image DVD's print isn't public domain, thanks David, though
it has been pirated many times. I was just trying to illustrate, as
simply as possible, that there are (very basically speaking) 2
different versions of The Kid out there - 68 & 50 mins in length.

Again, just to be absolutely clear:
Image DVDs = NTSC masters.
MY mk2 region 2 DVDs = PAL masters.
This means that neither version I own suffers from speed-up, slowdown
or other format conversion defects.

It's an interesting point re the possible 'minor trims here & there' -
but whilst not ruling it out, I certainly haven't detected any; ditto
any difference between their respective running speeds.
Besides, it would have to be an awful lot of 'minor trims' to account
for 12 whole minutes, in a film only a little over an hour long!

I've watched this film A LOT - it's usually the first CC I show
friends to try & get them interested in him &/or silent films in
general.
To be honest, I've put off making this post for ages (years, in fact),
for fear of being shot down or appearing stupid for overlooking the
bleeding obvious! It really does bug me though, & I'd love a clear,
unequivocal answer.
I'm surprised no one's ever noticed or commented on this before. I've
read every post back to the start of 2000 (I know: I really should get
out more), as well as searching ones prior to that, & the Internet at
large.

Back to you...
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On Feb 2, 7:18 pm, "Brent Reid" <brent.r....DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I know the Image DVD's print isn't public domain, thanks David, though
> it has been pirated many times. I was just trying to illustrate, as
> simply as possible, that there are (very basically speaking) 2
> different versions of The Kid out there - 68 & 50 mins in length.
>
> Again, just to be absolutely clear:
> Image DVDs = NTSC masters.
> MY mk2 region 2 DVDs = PAL masters.
> This means that neither version I own suffers from speed-up, slowdown
> or other format conversion defects.

You are incorrect in stating that the region 2 Chaplin DVDs aren't
sped up. The MK2 PAL DVDs are most definitely sped up, by 4%, as are
the Warner MK2 DVDs, which are are poor NTSC conversions of the PAL
masters that the MK2 PAL DVDs were made from. Luckily, the Image
versions don't suffer from that.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

Aah, ok - this is gonna get way geekier than I'd hoped for now, but
here goes:
I've only a limited technical knowledge of film stuff, frame rates,
PAL/NTSC conversions, etc., but isn't it possible (/probable?) that
the film masters themselves were transferred at the PAL rate of 25
frames per second? Surely that'd make the most sense as, I think, all
the restoration & video mastering work was done in France?
Even if that's not the case, & the mk2 DVDs do have 4% PAL speedup,
that would still only shave 3 minutes off the running time at very
most.

What's more, the difference is even more marked than I thought: I've
checked the exact runtimes of the ACTUAL edited footage, as presented
on the mk2 DVD.
This excludes the contextualising 'overlap' scenes at the beginning &
end of each clip...
Edna outside the church: 0:45
Edna on the bridge: 1:05
Edna at the party: 2:30
Total = 4.20 (not 5-6 mins, as I said earlier)

To sum up so far, then:
Image DVD version: 68:30 - an equivalent-length cut mastered to PAL
would be around 65:30
Mk2 DVD version: 50:20 + 4:20 edited footage = 54:40

I know that we can't be too picky re the exact relative runtimes, but
as you can see, that still leaves a discrepancy of around 11, maybe up
to 14 mins.
Anyone?
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On Feb 6, 6:18?am, "Brent Reid" <brent.r....DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Aah, ok - this is gonna get way geekier than I'd hoped for now, but
> here goes:
> I've only a limited technical knowledge of film stuff, frame rates,
> PAL/NTSC conversions, etc., but isn't it possible (/probable?) that
> the film masters themselves were transferred at the PAL rate of 25
> frames per second? Surely that'd make the most sense as, I think, all
> the restoration & video mastering work was done in France?
> Even if that's not the case, & the mk2 DVDs do have 4% PAL speedup,
> that would still only shave 3 minutes off the running time at very
> most.
>
> What's more, the difference is even more marked than I thought: I've
> checked the exact runtimes of the ACTUAL edited footage, as presented
> on the mk2 DVD.
> This excludes the contextualising 'overlap' scenes at the beginning &
> end of each clip...
> Edna outside the church: 0:45
> Edna on the bridge: 1:05
> Edna at the party: 2:30
> Total = 4.20 (not 5-6 mins, as I said earlier)
>
> To sum up so far, then:
> Image DVD version: 68:30 - an equivalent-length cut mastered to PAL
> would be around 65:30
> Mk2 DVD version: 50:20 + 4:20 edited footage = 54:40
>
> I know that we can't be too picky re the exact relative runtimes, but
> as you can see, that still leaves a discrepancy of around 11, maybe up
> to 14 mins.
> Anyone?

Isn't this just a matter of what speed THE KID was transfered to
video in the first place? The David Shepard version (hope he's doing
well) was copied at whatever speed seemed appropriate to him (probably
16-18 fps), and the MK2 version was probably transfered at the sound
speed of 24 frames per second.
I'm pretty sure if you saw the authorized version of THE KID in a
theater--with the soundtrack--it would clock in at 50 minutes. You'd
have to play the print at 24 fps, otherwise the soundtrack would be
slower than molasses.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On Feb 6, 6:18 am, "Brent Reid" <brent.r....RemoveThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Aah, ok - this is gonna get way geekier than I'd hoped for now, but
> here goes:
> I've only a limited technical knowledge of film stuff, frame rates,
> PAL/NTSC conversions, etc., but isn't it possible (/probable?) that
> the film masters themselves were transferred at the PAL rate of 25
> frames per second? Surely that'd make the most sense as, I think, all
> the restoration & video mastering work was done in France?
> Even if that's not the case, & the mk2 DVDs do have 4% PAL speedup,
> that would still only shave 3 minutes off the running time at very
> most.
>
> What's more, the difference is even more marked than I thought: I've
> checked the exact runtimes of the ACTUAL edited footage, as presented
> on the mk2 DVD.
> This excludes the contextualising 'overlap' scenes at the beginning &
> end of each clip...
> Edna outside the church: 0:45
> Edna on the bridge: 1:05
> Edna at the party: 2:30
> Total = 4.20 (not 5-6 mins, as I said earlier)
>
> To sum up so far, then:
> Image DVD version: 68:30 - an equivalent-length cut mastered to PAL
> would be around 65:30
> Mk2 DVD version: 50:20 + 4:20 edited footage = 54:40

This isn't the answer, but to get overly geeky myself, shouldn't the
4:20 be subtracted from the 68:30 instead of added to the 50:20? If it
were added, wouldn't you need to account for the 4% ie. 50:20 + (4:20
- 4% = 4:10) = 54:30?

>
> I know that we can't be too picky re the exact relative runtimes, but
> as you can see, that still leaves a discrepancy of around 11, maybe up
> to 14 mins.
> Anyone?

I just got email from someone who should definitely know. They say it
is exactly as Richard C. indicates below. The Shepard transfers were
done at somewhere around 18fps with the music adjusted. The MK2s were
transfered at 24fps. Crunching the numbers, assuming no minor here and
there cuts except the 3 scenes you cite, indicates that Shepard's
transfer averaged 18.73fps relative to the MK2s 24fps. Seems like the
most reasonable explanation for the differences observed.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On 6 Feb, 19:39, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> This isn't the answer, but to get overly geeky myself, shouldn't the
> 4:20 be subtracted from the 68:30 instead of added to the 50:20? If it
> were added, wouldn't you need to account for the 4% ie. 50:20 + (4:20
> - 4% = 4:10) = 54:30?

Ha! Good point, David & I agree, though it still only accounts for a
few seconds!

Ok, I suppose that the explanation I'm going to have to be content
with is that DS's restoration was transferred at an altogether faster
frame rate, as you say: around 18 fps, as opposed to 24/5 fps.

The niggling thing is though, if the entire film was running at over a
6th slower, with CC's soundtrack slowed down (& speed/pitch
corrected) to match, wouldn't someone have at least noticed it &
commented before now? That's surely quite a noticeable difference, & I
can't tell. Is it even possible to pitch correct music to that extent,
& still have it sound natural?

I know that DS decided to match his version to CC's 1971 reissue
score, with some edits where sections where simply repeated, to
'stretch' it out. Trouble is, I can't find him saying anywhere that he
had to actually 'slow down' the soundtrack as well, to fit his altered
frame rate.

I know DS is a very busy bunny, but really wish that he/Film
Preservation Associates & Photoplay Productions Ltd (Kevin Brownlow et
al) had a website, where they could post some up-to-date info on
current & past projects... please guys, if you're out there?

Thanks for your input everyone; really appreciate it.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times? 

On Feb 7, 3:52�am, "Brent Reid" <brent.r... DeleteThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 6 Feb, 19:39, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > This isn't the answer, but to get overly geeky myself, shouldn't the
> > 4:20 be subtracted from the 68:30 instead of added to the 50:20? If it
> > were added, wouldn't you need to account for the 4% ie. 50:20 + (4:20
> > - 4% = 4:10) = 54:30?
>
> Ha! Good point, David & I agree, though it still only accounts for a
> few seconds!
>
> Ok, I suppose that the explanation I'm going to have to be content
> with is that DS's restoration was transferred at an altogether faster
> frame rate, as you say: around 18 fps, as opposed to 24/5 fps.

A slower frame rate, actually.

>
> The niggling thing is though, if the entire film was running at over a
> 6th  slower, with CC's soundtrack slowed down (& speed/pitch
> corrected) to match, wouldn't someone have at least noticed it &
> commented before now? That's surely quite a noticeable difference, & I
> can't tell. Is it even possible to pitch correct music to that extent,
> & still have it sound natural?
>
> I know that DS decided to match his version to CC's 1971 reissue
> score, with some edits where sections where simply repeated,  to
> 'stretch' it out. Trouble is, I can't find him saying anywhere that he
> had to actually 'slow down' the soundtrack as well, to fit his altered
> frame rate.
>
> I know DS is a very busy bunny, but really wish that he/Film
> Preservation Associates & Photoplay Productions Ltd (Kevin Brownlow et
> al) had a website, where they could post some up-to-date info on
> current & past projects... please guys, if you're out there?
>
> Thanks for your input everyone; really appreciate it.

From the back cover of the Fox Video/David Shepard 1993 laserdisc of
THE KID: "Exclusive! Corrected film speeds that restore these silent
classics to their intended style and pace."
I believe the soundtrack was altered through editing and not speed
change, although some speed change might have taken place.
 >> Stay informed about: The Kid: running times?