Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

Vinegar Syndrome, Deaf Crocodile, Imprint, Cinema Guild, and more.
Message
Author
Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Kino

#26 Post by Jonathan S » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:18 am

nsps wrote:I'm curious as to why Kino decided to declare the most commonly seen version, which is superior in the case of every notable divergence, to be the "alternative" version (even if they do make an effort in the video essay to declare neither to be definitive). Was it based entirely on print quality?
That's what confused me - thanks for clearing that up. On another forum, someone believed that the UK set Buster Keaton Chronicles also has the lesser-known cut. I had that (mostly awful) set only briefly, but I recall that used a Rohauer version which ties in with the "Keaton Estate" rather than Killiam. I've probably seen it myself, without realising, in 35mm and/or on Channel 4 which used to show Rohauer prints.

I'm puzzled by the contrast issue. Matt Paprocki writes that it's "so blown out, it can be nearly blinding" and even Gary Tooze's more positive review mentions "occasionally whites may be excessively bright. Black levels are generally very strong". But the actual framegrabs on Beaver mostly look too low in contrast (grey and flat), as an e-mail comment now added to Gary's review also suggests. I'm assuming Beaver's grabs and comments pertain to the "Keaton Estate" version too. I can't offer any opinion as I don't have the disc.

unclehulot
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: here and there

Re: Kino

#27 Post by unclehulot » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:55 pm

Matt Paprocki wrote:
It always amazes me when some guy writes a review like this speaking with confidence about the "transfer" having various attributes, but who can have NO familiarity with the source materials used! If he had read Bret Wood's comments about the contrast issues he might have learned that the producer found these issues part of the look of the film, and not put the blame on the transfer. I guess we are going to have to go through this crap of self appointed BD specialist blog "critics" sharing their expertise on silent era films not all looking as pristine as Gone with the Wind on BD, by folks that probably haven't seen 2% of the number of silent films that many of us on this board have seen. But then, I'm probably stating the obvious...most of us here know better than to believe such rookie stuff!
To clear this up, I gave this disc two looks, one before the interview, and then another after. I do not buy that's how it was shot, mostly because of the alternate cut, but also because Bret's statement on the edge enhancement made no sense:
the battle becomes the fight between Blu-ray compression and film grain, especially in scenes were there are not a lot of sharp edges, and the computer is trying to interpret subtle variations in a single color
If that's the case, why does the Killiam version not show the same issue? Why wouldn't every Blu-ray with a thick grain structure show the same problems?

I offered Bret the chance to go live on our podcast. After some back and forth on how to record it, he ended up backing out. It's a shame too, since I had a lot of additional questions to ask, including ones that were brought up by various forums, including the music selection.

It was totally in my benefit to score this disc highly. I had the first chance to review this, an exclusive I worked out last year. I got one of the first discs off the line. I didn't rate is highly of course (except the movie!), because it simply has nothing to do with the source in my opinion. No one shoots films this brightly, and again, the Killiam cut is fine, just wildly inconsistent in terms of sharpness, which would have been acceptable. I provided time stamps for anyone to see the worst when they see the disc. I've seen 650+ discs, and can see when something has been brightened, especially at this level.
Thanks for explaining further, and pardon my rudeness in assuming I knew where you were coming from on this. I guess it's my frustration sometimes with critics NOT having knowledge or sensitivity to the source material and the various anomalies that can occur before the transfer gets underway. Please accept my apology!

User avatar
nsps
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: Kino

#28 Post by nsps » Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:14 pm

One hint that parts are indeed a bit too bright is that the grain structure completely disappears into certain components of a shot, while remaining heavy in other parts of the frame. This can also be a compression issue, but the grain becoming completely invisible suggests the brightness is too high, although I didn't find it completely overwhelming like Mr. Paproki. Conversely, in the Killiam print, which may have been encoded at a lower bitrate (is it definitely from an HD source? some of the bits I sampled look like they may be upconverted, but it could be the compression or softness…), sometimes the grain appears locked in position instead of moving naturally, but it is always there. Looking at the Killiam version, I'm guessing that part of the motivation for upping the contrast was to get the blacks to look richer.

Remember the argument over "Last Year at Marienbad's" more gradual contrast compared to the Artificial Eye edition? Some who looked at the still comparisons felt that Criterion's version was weaker because the blacks weren't as rich, when in fact it offered considerable more detail, and the blackest blacks were still as dark as they should be. The transfer on the "KIlliam" version doesn't have rich blacks on its title cards, but it's darkest areas are quite black. It's possible that it is, in fact, not contrasty enough on this evidence. (You can often pull more details out of the shadows than were visible in projection (see CITIZEN KANE).)

In my opinion, the quality on the Killiam print is all that really matters. The "Keaton Estate" print is nice to reference, but shouldn't be the main feature. I know the differences aren't that major, but the weaker takes lessen the experience of the film for me. The detail, compression and condition are much better on the grain in the "Keaton Estate" print, but perhaps the brightness and contrast are more accurate on the "Killiam" print, it's hard to say. I love that Kino released this disc, and look forward to more from them, but I can't help but think they lessened the film's stature by emphasizing the wrong version.

(Maybe this disc deserves its own thread?)
Last edited by nsps on Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

#29 Post by denti alligator » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:02 pm

The Beav only shows the Estate print, right? I'd like to see caps of comparable scenes side by side.

User avatar
nsps
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

#30 Post by nsps » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:10 pm

Hopefully Gary can make some of the Killiam print. I'd make some, but I don't have a blu-ray drive.

Matt Paprocki
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Kino

#31 Post by Matt Paprocki » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:15 pm

Thanks for explaining further, and pardon my rudeness in assuming I knew where you were coming from on this. I guess it's my frustration sometimes with critics NOT having knowledge or sensitivity to the source material and the various anomalies that can occur before the transfer gets underway. Please accept my apology!
Not a problem. Accepted and thank you. I totally understand the apprehension. It's the internet and unless you know what you're reading, you can never be sure it's true. There are a lot of people out there who don't understand this stuff, and while I'm by no means perfect, I believe I have at least some grip as to what's going on. :D
One hint that parts are indeed a bit too bright is that the grain structure completely disappears into certain components of a shot, while remaining heavy in other parts of the frame. This can also be a compression issue, but the grain becoming completely invisible suggests the brightness is too high, although I didn't find it completely overwhelming like Mr. Paproki. Conversely, in the Killiam print, which may have been encoded at a lower bitrate (is it definitely from an HD source? some of the bits I sampled look like they may be upconverted, but it could be the compression or softness…), sometimes the grain appears locked in position instead of moving naturally, but it is always there. Looking at the Killiam version, I'm guessing that part of the motivation for upping the contrast was to get the blacks to look richer.
Like I said earlier, look at the jail scene. Pay attention to the posters. During shots that move on Sr., the posters text is completely lost. It's simply gone, like they're white sheets of paper. In long shots, you can see it, although the whites still blow out a bit. That is the case of the contrast running way too hot and bright, amongst many, many examples. If it were the source print, the grain wouldn't be suddenly disappearing like that either. The General did not have these issues, and besides the edge enhancement, looked pretty damned good.

The Killiam print does have a lower bitrate, but I don't think that's an issue. I didn't notice any segments of real severe artifacting, just a jumpy, faded, flat source. I'm sure that's why they made this the secondary option.

User avatar
nsps
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: Kino

#32 Post by nsps » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:13 am

Matt Paprocki wrote: The Killiam print does have a lower bitrate, but I don't think that's an issue. I didn't notice any segments of real severe artifacting, just a jumpy, faded, flat source. I'm sure that's why they made this the secondary option.
There were parts in which the grain structure looks unnatural and static. The same chunks of grain will stay on a face or prop for extended periods of time (which is what made me think it could be unconverted, although probably not.)

User avatar
nsps
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

#33 Post by nsps » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:13 am

david hare wrote:I am not certain but I have the darndest feeling the standout shot of Keaton standing as the facade of the house collpaes onto and around him, is a diferrent TAKE in each print: he has a slight facial reaction/tic which looks more noticeable in the Estate version than the Killiam.
I'm going to have to take a look at this when I get back from San Francisco. If true, it would certainly counter the folklore that it was only done once…

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

#34 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:51 am

nsps wrote:
david hare wrote:I am not certain but I have the darndest feeling the standout shot of Keaton standing as the facade of the house collpaes onto and around him, is a diferrent TAKE in each print: he has a slight facial reaction/tic which looks more noticeable in the Estate version than the Killiam.
I'm going to have to take a look at this when I get back from San Francisco. If true, it would certainly counter the folklore that it was only done once…
I don't have this release yet, but you should try comparing the movement of the crew member who can be briefly seen through the left window (giving the facade a "push") to determine if the shot was done twice.

Titus
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:40 pm

Re: Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

#35 Post by Titus » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:55 pm

I was watching the Killiam version of this earlier tonight, and noticed something strange with the transfer. At around the 30 minute mark, the picture becomes a lot hazier. There's a shot of Keaton reading the note from Kitty, then it cuts to a shot of the note itself, and then back to Keaton again -- when it cuts back to Keaton, the picture looks blurry and out of focus, and it remains like that (more or less) for the remainder of the film.

Anybody else that's got a copy of this Blu Ray notice this quirk?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Kino: Steamboat Bill, Jr.

#36 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:16 am

I finally picked up this release and am reasonably satisfied with it.

The Killiam version does go soft right after Keaton reads the note from Kitty; it looks like the film shifted to a weak 16mm print at this point and only returns to the clarity of the first half when Keaton dives in to rescue Kitty's father. Disappointing to be sure.

I was also able to verify that the famous collapse of the house facade is only done once; the camera placement for the Killiam version is to the immediate left of the camera used for the Estate version (the framing of the Killiam camera is slightly lower as well). It's possible that the lead-in medium shot was done more than once, but probably not given that two cameras were already covering this entire scene. The majority of the hurricane sequence looks like it was shot with the two cameras covering the same take, although there are exceptions: the shot of Keaton entering the barn with the mules was from two different takes.

Overall, I think the Estate version (which Kino treats as the primary version) is the better film in terms of camera placement and blocking. For example: the camera angle of the old man jumping out of the window does not break the 180 degree rule as it does in the Killiam version. Having said that, I agree with "nsps" that the take of the "tree ride" in the Estate version is terrible and nowhere near as good as the version in Killiam.

Post Reply