Modern Times - WB vs. Image

"Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMISWHACK.DeleteThis@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message news:<X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> <Phil P> wrote in message news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
> > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
> library -
> > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my Toshiba
> player
> > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
> >
> > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black values,
> and
> > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
>
> Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
> point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that greyscale
> details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying the
> MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
>
> Derek

Phil, was your disk PAL or conversion? I have only the PAL of _Modern
Times_, which looks very good played on my cheap Cyberhome and NTSC
TV. It has more
contrast than the Image, and is noticably sharper, but I don't see any
significant loss of detail, and it doesn't have the ghosting problem
that some people complain about on the Warner conversion disks.

I prefer it to the Image, but this is purely a matter of taste.

All of the MK2 disks that I've screened so far are darker than the
Image versions, which in general are rather low in contrast. In some
cases (i.e. _The Pilgrim_) the MK2s are definitely too dark. In other
cases, the Image looks better in some scenes, the MK2 in others. Some
middle ground between the two approaches might be ideal, but that's
not what we have.

I'm disappointed with the source print quality of _City Lights_ and
_The Circus_ in both versions. _City Lights_ looks better to me when
it's darker, but the image is soft in both versions, and I've heard
that the print used for live orchestra screenings is sharper and
cleaner, so why was an inferior print used for the MK2 DVD? _Circus_
looks pallid and fuzzy in the Image, garish and fuzzy in the MK2.

The MK2 package of _The Kid_ is excellelnt, however, including the
transfer of the film, and the conversion looks good also. So far, the
conversion problems seem to be concentrated in the first box set.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

It was the conversion from PAL. Didn't you notice the cropping? It was really
evident when comparing the two versions. WRT the contrast/sharpness issues, the
controls on my tv (32" Toshiba flat) were able to compensate for most of that.
But I do agree that in general the Image version is less sharp and has less
contrast.

Another problem with the Image disc is that the audio track seems to vary in
volume at various points in the disc (not just the natural dynamics of the
music) . I'll have to check the MK2 again to see if it has the same problem.

Phil

On 17 Mar 2004 00:35:24 -0800, constance.kuriyama.TakeThisOut@ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:

>"Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMISWHACK.TakeThisOut@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message news:<X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>> <Phil P> wrote in message news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
>> > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
>> library -
>> > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my Toshiba
>> player
>> > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
>> >
>> > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black values,
>> and
>> > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
>>
>> Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
>> point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that greyscale
>> details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying the
>> MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
>>
>> Derek
>
>Phil, was your disk PAL or conversion? I have only the PAL of _Modern
>Times_, which looks very good played on my cheap Cyberhome and NTSC
>TV. It has more
>contrast than the Image, and is noticably sharper, but I don't see any
>significant loss of detail, and it doesn't have the ghosting problem
>that some people complain about on the Warner conversion disks.
>
>I prefer it to the Image, but this is purely a matter of taste.
>
>All of the MK2 disks that I've screened so far are darker than the
>Image versions, which in general are rather low in contrast. In some
>cases (i.e. _The Pilgrim_) the MK2s are definitely too dark. In other
>cases, the Image looks better in some scenes, the MK2 in others. Some
>middle ground between the two approaches might be ideal, but that's
>not what we have.
>
>I'm disappointed with the source print quality of _City Lights_ and
>_The Circus_ in both versions. _City Lights_ looks better to me when
>it's darker, but the image is soft in both versions, and I've heard
>that the print used for live orchestra screenings is sharper and
>cleaner, so why was an inferior print used for the MK2 DVD? _Circus_
>looks pallid and fuzzy in the Image, garish and fuzzy in the MK2.
>
>The MK2 package of _The Kid_ is excellelnt, however, including the
>transfer of the film, and the conversion looks good also. So far, the
>conversion problems seem to be concentrated in the first box set.
>
>Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

Phil P wrote in message news:<425h50hhvok215jgtrtr83eo1l9r9f0919.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> It was the conversion from PAL. Didn't you notice the cropping? It was really
> evident when comparing the two versions.

Bruce Lawton mentioned this on the silents group, so I ran through the
feeding
machine sequence on both versions (successively; can't do a
side-by-side) and could not see a significant difference, since
nothing important was missing. What I did notice were the black masks
on the left side and bottom of the screen on the Image, which looked
lopsided and bothered me more than the cropping.

WRT the contrast/sharpness issues, the
> controls on my tv (32" Toshiba flat) were able to compensate for most of that.
> But I do agree that in general the Image version is less sharp and has less
> contrast.

I think either extreme could be corrected at least partly by adjusting
the monitor. I haven't tried it yet.

As for the PAL speedup, I can't hear it, though I can understand why a
sound
expert would. I can see it on some disks at some moments, but the
effect is
well within my range of tolerance.

Image sharpness is more important to me than perfect sound.

> Another problem with the Image disc is that the audio track seems to vary in
> volume at various points in the disc (not just the natural dynamics of the
> music) . I'll have to check the MK2 again to see if it has the same problem.
>
> Phil

Do let us know--it's not my specialty.

Connie K.

> On 17 Mar 2004 00:35:24 -0800, constance.kuriyama.TakeThisOut@ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
> >"Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMISWHACK.TakeThisOut@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message news:<X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> >> <Phil P> wrote in message news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
> >> > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
> library -
> >> > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my Toshiba
> player
> >> > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
> >> >
> >> > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black values,
> and
> >> > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
> >>
> >> Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
> >> point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that greyscale
> >> details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying the
> >> MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
> >>
> >> Derek
> >
> >Phil, was your disk PAL or conversion? I have only the PAL of _Modern
> >Times_, which looks very good played on my cheap Cyberhome and NTSC
> >TV. It has more
> >contrast than the Image, and is noticably sharper, but I don't see any
> >significant loss of detail, and it doesn't have the ghosting problem
> >that some people complain about on the Warner conversion disks.
> >
> >I prefer it to the Image, but this is purely a matter of taste.
> >
> >All of the MK2 disks that I've screened so far are darker than the
> >Image versions, which in general are rather low in contrast. In some
> >cases (i.e. _The Pilgrim_) the MK2s are definitely too dark. In other
> >cases, the Image looks better in some scenes, the MK2 in others. Some
> >middle ground between the two approaches might be ideal, but that's
> >not what we have.
> >
> >I'm disappointed with the source print quality of _City Lights_ and
> >_The Circus_ in both versions. _City Lights_ looks better to me when
> >it's darker, but the image is soft in both versions, and I've heard
> >that the print used for live orchestra screenings is sharper and
> >cleaner, so why was an inferior print used for the MK2 DVD? _Circus_
> >looks pallid and fuzzy in the Image, garish and fuzzy in the MK2.
> >
> >The MK2 package of _The Kid_ is excellelnt, however, including the
> >transfer of the film, and the conversion looks good also. So far, the
> >conversion problems seem to be concentrated in the first box set.
> >
> >Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

<Phil P> wrote in message news:425h50hhvok215jgtrtr83eo1l9r9f0919@4ax.com...
> It was the conversion from PAL. Didn't you notice the cropping? It was
really
> evident when comparing the two versions. WRT the contrast/sharpness
issues, the
> controls on my tv (32" Toshiba flat) were able to compensate for most of
that.
> But I do agree that in general the Image version is less sharp and has
less
> contrast.
>
> Another problem with the Image disc is that the audio track seems to vary
in
> volume at various points in the disc (not just the natural dynamics of the
> music) . I'll have to check the MK2 again to see if it has the same
problem.
>
> Phil

Yes, Phil, you are correct, the Image DVD of MODERN TIMES has definite audio
problems; there's no bass at all during the first half of the film, and then
it finally kicks in and sounds fine (I think this happens around the time
that Charlie gets his second factory job). The sound is a bit weak up until
then. That's my only beef with the transfer, and I still prefer it to the
incomplete MK2. Regarding the "Determined to go back to jail" intertitle,
where is the correct placement of it? It always seemed fine to me where it
was. So much to learn...
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

Differences in sound level on the Image MODERN TIMES may be due to the fact
that two separate master lavender positives of the complete feature were
transferred and then cut together on video to complete the final master that
appeared on the laserdisc and Image DVD. This could certainly lead to sound
level variances if the track in each case was retained from each separate
source used. David Shepard, who oversaw this process, could probably shed more
light on this.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

On 17 Mar 2004 18:11:31 -0800, constance.kuriyama DeleteThis @ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:

>Phil P wrote in message news:<425h50hhvok215jgtrtr83eo1l9r9f0919 DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
>> It was the conversion from PAL. Didn't you notice the cropping? It was really
>> evident when comparing the two versions.
>
>Bruce Lawton mentioned this on the silents group, so I ran through the
>feeding
>machine sequence on both versions (successively; can't do a
>side-by-side) and could not see a significant difference, since
>nothing important was missing. What I did notice were the black masks
>on the left side and bottom of the screen on the Image, which looked
>lopsided and bothered me more than the cropping.

Interesting. On my tv with my dvd player, the Image MT dvd is framed evenly on
all sides. I prefer this to losing some of the frame on the WB.

>
> WRT the contrast/sharpness issues, the
>> controls on my tv (32" Toshiba flat) were able to compensate for most of that.
>> But I do agree that in general the Image version is less sharp and has less
>> contrast.
>
>I think either extreme could be corrected at least partly by adjusting
>the monitor. I haven't tried it yet.
>
>As for the PAL speedup, I can't hear it, though I can understand why a
>sound
>expert would. I can see it on some disks at some moments, but the
>effect is
>well within my range of tolerance.
>
>Image sharpness is more important to me than perfect sound.
>
>> Another problem with the Image disc is that the audio track seems to vary in
>> volume at various points in the disc (not just the natural dynamics of the
>> music) . I'll have to check the MK2 again to see if it has the same problem.
>>
>> Phil
>
>Do let us know--it's not my specialty.
>
>Connie K.
>
>> On 17 Mar 2004 00:35:24 -0800, constance.kuriyama DeleteThis @ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMISWHACK DeleteThis @twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message news:<X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>> >> <Phil P> wrote in message news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
>> >> > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
>> library -
>> >> > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my Toshiba
>> player
>> >> > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black values,
>> and
>> >> > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
>> >> point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that greyscale
>> >> details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying the
>> >> MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
>> >>
>> >> Derek
>> >
>> >Phil, was your disk PAL or conversion? I have only the PAL of _Modern
>> >Times_, which looks very good played on my cheap Cyberhome and NTSC
>> >TV. It has more
>> >contrast than the Image, and is noticably sharper, but I don't see any
>> >significant loss of detail, and it doesn't have the ghosting problem
>> >that some people complain about on the Warner conversion disks.
>> >
>> >I prefer it to the Image, but this is purely a matter of taste.
>> >
>> >All of the MK2 disks that I've screened so far are darker than the
>> >Image versions, which in general are rather low in contrast. In some
>> >cases (i.e. _The Pilgrim_) the MK2s are definitely too dark. In other
>> >cases, the Image looks better in some scenes, the MK2 in others. Some
>> >middle ground between the two approaches might be ideal, but that's
>> >not what we have.
>> >
>> >I'm disappointed with the source print quality of _City Lights_ and
>> >_The Circus_ in both versions. _City Lights_ looks better to me when
>> >it's darker, but the image is soft in both versions, and I've heard
>> >that the print used for live orchestra screenings is sharper and
>> >cleaner, so why was an inferior print used for the MK2 DVD? _Circus_
>> >looks pallid and fuzzy in the Image, garish and fuzzy in the MK2.
>> >
>> >The MK2 package of _The Kid_ is excellelnt, however, including the
>> >transfer of the film, and the conversion looks good also. So far, the
>> >conversion problems seem to be concentrated in the first box set.
>> >
>> >Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:05:11 -0800, "WaverBoy" <waverboyNOSPAM.DeleteThis@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
><Phil P> wrote in message news:425h50hhvok215jgtrtr83eo1l9r9f0919@4ax.com...
>> It was the conversion from PAL. Didn't you notice the cropping? It was
>really
>> evident when comparing the two versions. WRT the contrast/sharpness
>issues, the
>> controls on my tv (32" Toshiba flat) were able to compensate for most of
>that.
>> But I do agree that in general the Image version is less sharp and has
>less
>> contrast.
>>
>> Another problem with the Image disc is that the audio track seems to vary
>in
>> volume at various points in the disc (not just the natural dynamics of the
>> music) . I'll have to check the MK2 again to see if it has the same
>problem.
>>
>> Phil
>
>Yes, Phil, you are correct, the Image DVD of MODERN TIMES has definite audio
>problems; there's no bass at all during the first half of the film, and then
>it finally kicks in and sounds fine (I think this happens around the time
>that Charlie gets his second factory job). The sound is a bit weak up until
>then. That's my only beef with the transfer, and I still prefer it to the
>incomplete MK2. Regarding the "Determined to go back to jail" intertitle,
>where is the correct placement of it? It always seemed fine to me where it
>was. So much to learn...
>

From memory: It pops up while Charlie is getting fired at the shipyard, and the
next scene is Paulette. It belongs just before CC goes in the diner for his
feast.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

Phil P wrote in message news:<hhcu50d3utguu1jbbv3q8edqfl3pil4ibi.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> On 17 Mar 2004 18:11:31 -0800, constance.kuriyama.TakeThisOut@ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
> >Phil P wrote in message news:<425h50hhvok215jgtrtr83eo1l9r9f0919.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> >> It was the conversion from PAL. Didn't you notice the cropping? It was really
> >> evident when comparing the two versions.
> >
> >Bruce Lawton mentioned this on the silents group, so I ran through the
> >feeding
> >machine sequence on both versions (successively; can't do a
> >side-by-side) and could not see a significant difference, since
> >nothing important was missing. What I did notice were the black masks
> >on the left side and bottom of the screen on the Image, which looked
> >lopsided and bothered me more than the cropping.
>
> Interesting. On my tv with my dvd player, the Image MT dvd is framed evenly on
> all sides. I prefer this to losing some of the frame on the WB.

It may be the player--or the all-region setting. I'll try it on anotoher one.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

In article <X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>, Derek Gee
<dgeeSPAMISWHACK.RemoveThis@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:

> <Phil P> wrote in message news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
> > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
> library -
> > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my Toshiba
> player
> > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
> >
> > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black values,
> and
> > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
>
> Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
> point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that greyscale
> details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying the
> MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
>
> Derek

Well, I just got R2 release of "The Gold Rush," which was on sale at
amazon.co.uk for 65% off (making it a hair cheaper than buying a
domestic U.S. copy).

I can report that, as expected, it does not have the ghosting problems
seen in the U.S. version (my brother has the box, so I was able to
compare).

There are other things about it that annoy me, however.

Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that the boneheads managed
to get the title of the film wrong? It's THE GOLD RUSH, morons, not
GOLD RUSH. It's a wonder their packaging for THE KID doesn't simply say
KID.

Second of all, what European sadist thought up the bright idea of
having the back cover notes printed using white text on a yellow
background? Slap. Slap. Slap. If you look really closely, though, under
a light, you can read it, and learn to your delight and astonishment
that the disc actually contains a documentary by Serge Le Peron with
the participation of Idrissa Quedraogo. I haven't gotten around to that
yet, though, since I'm busy watching the "twenty three minutes of
scenes from films in the Chaplin Collection" clip-o-mercial...

Of course, the biggest problem with "The Gold Rush" is that it includes
the 1942 version. I just hate to see that foisted once again upon an
unsuspecting world. I would much rather have seen them ditch that one
into the nearest lake, and put the resources into recording a decent
orchestral score for the 1925 version.

Doug
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

Doug Sulpy <dsulpy DeleteThis @ptd.net> wrote in message news:<240320041301052903%dsulpy@ptd.net>...

> Well, I just got R2 release of "The Gold Rush," which was on sale at
> amazon.co.uk for 65% off (making it a hair cheaper than buying a
> domestic U.S. copy).
>
> I can report that, as expected, it does not have the ghosting problems
> seen in the U.S. version (my brother has the box, so I was able to
> compare).
>
> There are other things about it that annoy me, however.
>
> Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else that the boneheads managed
> to get the title of the film wrong? It's THE GOLD RUSH, morons, not
> GOLD RUSH. It's a wonder their packaging for THE KID doesn't simply say
> KID.
>
> Second of all, what European sadist thought up the bright idea of
> having the back cover notes printed using white text on a yellow
> background? Slap. Slap. Slap. If you look really closely, though, under
> a light, you can read it

Since I bought that one from Alapage, I had none of these problems.
The French set has an entirely different design. And they include the
definite article in the title.

, and learn to your delight and astonishment
> that the disc actually contains a documentary by Serge Le Peron with
> the participation of Idrissa Quedraogo. I haven't gotten around to that
> yet, though, since I'm busy watching the "twenty three minutes of
> scenes from films in the Chaplin Collection" clip-o-mercial...
>
> Of course, the biggest problem with "The Gold Rush" is that it includes
> the 1942 version. I just hate to see that foisted once again upon an
> unsuspecting world. I would much rather have seen them ditch that one
> into the nearest lake, and put the resources into recording a decent
> orchestral score for the 1925 version.
>
> Doug

Pure vandalism. ;-) A true film historian would want both versions,
including the scores they were actually screened with, preserved.

And besides, restorations of '25 will never have the image quality of
'42.

I very much like the R2 _Gold Rush_.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

"Doug Sulpy" <dsulpy RemoveThis @ptd.net> wrote in message
news:240320041301052903%dsulpy@ptd.net...
> In article <X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>, Derek Gee
> <dgeeSPAMISWHACK RemoveThis @twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > <Phil P> wrote in message
news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
> > > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
> > library -
> > > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my
Toshiba
> > player
> > > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
> > >
> > > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black
values,
> > and
> > > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
> >
> > Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
> > point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that
greyscale
> > details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying
the
> > MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
> >
> > Derek
>
> Well, I just got R2 release of "The Gold Rush," which was on sale at
> amazon.co.uk for 65% off (making it a hair cheaper than buying a
> domestic U.S. copy).
>
> I can report that, as expected, it does not have the ghosting problems
> seen in the U.S. version (my brother has the box, so I was able to
> compare).

That implies that the method of converting PAL to NTSC used by MK2 is at
fault, if your inexpensive (by pro video standards) DVD chip converter can
convert it without the blurred frames!

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

"Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMISWHACK DeleteThis @twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message news:<JFs8c.68835$8G2.29286@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> "Doug Sulpy" <dsulpy DeleteThis @ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:240320041301052903%dsulpy@ptd.net...
> > In article <X3O5c.22304$8G2.19083@fe3.columbus.rr.com>, Derek Gee
> > <dgeeSPAMISWHACK DeleteThis @twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <Phil P> wrote in message
> news:tn3f50p0g18ut184us3cvbj2vcipagrkfm@4ax.com...
> > > > I finally got my hands on the new MT dvd (borrowed it from the public
> library -
> > > > the price was right!), and A-B'd it with the Image disc using my
> Toshiba
> player
> > > > and the Pioneer DVD drive in my computer.
> > > >
> > > > The Warner disc was somewhat better in terms of contrast and black
> values,
> and
> > > > was a bit sharper, but that was the only superiority.
> > >
> > > Actually, I thought that the contrast and black values were an inferior
> > > point, as whoever did the MK2 transfer darkened it so much that
> greyscale
> > > details are clearly missing. I'd advise that if you're thinking buying
> the
> > > MK2 version, buy it for the extras, not the main feature.
> > >
> > > Derek
> >
> > Well, I just got R2 release of "The Gold Rush," which was on sale at
> > amazon.co.uk for 65% off (making it a hair cheaper than buying a
> > domestic U.S. copy).
> >
> > I can report that, as expected, it does not have the ghosting problems
> > seen in the U.S. version (my brother has the box, so I was able to
> > compare).
>
> That implies that the method of converting PAL to NTSC used by MK2 is at
> fault, if your inexpensive (by pro video standards) DVD chip converter can
> convert it without the blurred frames!
>
> Derek

I got the same results on what is probably an even less expensive
built-in
converter.

Warner, not MK2, did the conversions, but it's hard to tell who is to
blame for
some of the features of this set. Cineteca di Bologna seems to be
responsible for the quality of some of the source prints. Their
restored 35mm print of _The Pilgrim_ is reportedly too dark, so that
may be at least partly what is showing up in the video versions.
*Someone* on the European end has cropped the films for sound
aperture, which accounts for the missing picture information in some
of them. The light streak that shows up intermittantly near the end of
the '42 _Gold Rush_ is probably a glitch in the video version, but
given the fact that a very obvious black scratch was left in _City
Lights_, I have to think that source print quality was an underlying
issue
in more than one case. MK2 could have taken the scratch out, but why
was it there in the first place?

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image 

"Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMISWHACK.TakeThisOut@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote

> That implies that the method of converting PAL to NTSC used by MK2 is at
> fault, if your inexpensive (by pro video standards) DVD chip converter can
> convert it without the blurred frames!
>
> Derek

Unless, of course, you use the 'pause' button to identify the blurring
problem
(or lack thereof)! The paused NTSC still frame may exhibit the blurring, the
PAL frame won't (whether converted to NTSC or not), I suppose. Can anyone
with more technical / electronic / video knowledge clarify this?

Uli
 >> Stay informed about: Modern Times - WB vs. Image