Louis Feuillade : The Complete Crime Serials (1913-1918) (Masters of Cinema)

[Sinthetic]

This is the first MoC I’ve been really excited about in a while and when it arrived on Saturday I was blown away with the way this has been put together. Beautiful box with full art digipacks and a comprehensive book.

Watched the first of Fantomas last night and this thing is 100+ years old, the fact that it looks like this is nothing short of astonishing. This is going to be so much fun over the next 6 weeks watching a serial per night.

I have no doubt this will be the set of the year.

[filmlover22]

Did know that!

[koberulz]

On the one hand, I'm annoyed everyone else is getting theirs and I still don't have mine. On the other hand, it's gonna sit on a shelf for some months once I get it anyway...

[GaryCouzens]

Originally Posted by koberulz

On the one hand, I'm annoyed everyone else is getting theirs and I still don't have mine. On the other hand, it's gonna sit on a shelf for some months once I get it anyway...

Mine arrived today from Amazon. And your second sentence will likely apply to me as well!

[filmlover22]

Originally Posted by koberulz

On the one hand, I'm annoyed everyone else is getting theirs and I still don't have mine. On the other hand, it's gonna sit on a shelf for some years once I get it anyway...

Fixed it so it also applied to me

I just finished watching the first 2 serials from the Kino versions, so I expect for me to watch the last 2 first, and then revisit the first 2 with any new supplements later.

[jrcasey1960]

The anomalies everyone has been posting about are either frame blending ("ghosting") or frame interpolation (warping) to convert the non-standard blu ray format frame rates (16-18fps) to the standard of 24fps. Another method that can be used is to have frames repeated to attain 24fps, which results in choppy motion and pans. These are all used for progressive outputs.

Another way to convert these non-standard frame rates is to use interlacing, which is another can of worms.

Sadly, there are no non-artifact producing methods to convert these slower frame rates. Otherwise, you transfer them at 24fps and the action is unnaturally fast.

[Akibiyori]

Originally Posted by jrcasey1960

Another way to convert these non-standard frame rates is to use interlacing, which is another can of worms.

Sadly, there are no non-artifact producing methods to convert these slower frame rates. Otherwise, you transfer them at 24fps and the action is unnaturally fast.

Interlacing doesn’t produce combing artifacts with proper equipment, it all depends on the player’s deinterlacing capability. Criterion releases like Safety Last (22 FPS), Passion of Joan of Arc, and Phantom Carriage (20 FPS both), or the Milestone Mary Pickfords don’t show them on my setup - all completely smooth forward motion, no halting from repeat frames, and no combing artifacts. This is the way it used to be for silent transfers of various frame rates, from 16 FPS up.

Now everything has to be jerky 24p. I have no idea what happened here though.

[StuPod]

Originally Posted by jrcasey1960

The anomalies everyone has been posting about are either frame blending ("ghosting") or frame interpolation (warping) to convert the non-standard blu ray format frame rates (16-18fps) to the standard of 24fps. Another method that can be used is to have frames repeated to attain 24fps, which results in choppy motion and pans. These are all used for progressive outputs.

Another way to convert these non-standard frame rates is to use interlacing, which is another can of worms.

Sadly, there are no non-artifact producing methods to convert these slower frame rates. Otherwise, you transfer them at 24fps and the action is unnaturally fast.

So why do Judex and Tih Minh look perfectly solid with no blended frames? As indeed does every other 1910s/20s-era movie I own on blu-ray?

[Keoma]

Originally Posted by StuPod

So why do Judex and Tih Minh look perfectly solid with no blended frames? As indeed does every other 1910s/20s-era movie I own on blu-ray?

Likely because these masters are newer/better. Eureka is probably using the best available sources in all cases.

[Hiruko]

Originally Posted by StuPod

So why do Judex and Tih Minh look perfectly solid with no blended frames? As indeed does every other 1910s/20s-era movie I own on blu-ray?

I asked myself the same question, if there is no way to convert lower frame rate into 24fps without generating artifacts why are all those other masters looking much better?
Is it because they're duplicating frames? If so I have to say that I prefer this method, because they don't especially feel choppy to me whereas Les Vampires does feel ever so slightly odd in motion

[jard]

Set arrived in the mail today and the set itself, the design, the book are just gorgeous. I watched the first episode of Fantomas and, unfortunate ghosting issues aside, it also looks pretty great. The slight tint is really beautiful.

[principehomura]

I discovered about this boxset just yesterday.
Just the other week I made a huge haul after a long time and now I can't or would feel guilt in making a new one so soon.
Damn!

[PGW]

I would much rather have the blurring and motion artifacts than have the entire thing in stutter-vision. Some people aren't bothered by repeated frames - I'm not one of them.

[KamomeShokudo]

A flippant comment, nothing more. I'm a big fan of silent cinema and own easily over a hundred silent films on blu-ray, I've never seen this kind of ghosting before, so paired with such a lavish effort by Eureka it feels like such a needless misstep. And when some people take the "just be grateful" approach, it leads to such frustration. The automatic clean-up tools also literally changing the image just feels absolutely wild to me when we're talking about classic silent films, you'd think this kind of material would be restored with the utmost of care and consideration towards preserving it as close to the source as possible. So no, film preservation isn't done for, but it's becoming increasingly compromised and the more the mentality of "ah well, let's just make do with it" passes by, it'll get even worse. Some of these crowd funded silent film restorations are also touted as "4K restorations" and they're literally just running a scan of the film through Topaz...

[Tatifan]

Originally Posted by KamomeShokudo

A flippant comment, nothing more. I'm a big fan of silent cinema and own easily over a hundred silent films on blu-ray, I've never seen this kind of ghosting before, so paired with such a lavish effort by Eureka it feels like such a needless misstep. And when some people take the "just be grateful" approach, it leads to such frustration. The automatic clean-up tools also literally changing the image just feels absolutely wild to me when we're talking about classic silent films, you'd think this kind of material would be restored with the utmost of care and consideration towards preserving it as close to the source as possible. So no, film preservation isn't done for, but it's becoming increasingly compromised and the more the mentality of "ah well, let's just make do with it" passes by, it'll get even worse. Some of these crowd funded silent film restorations are also touted as "4K restorations" and they're literally just running a scan of the film through Topaz...

Yeah, I hear you. I'm amazed at SOME of the things that CAN be done now as far as image stabilization, and spot repairs, but horrified at DNR and the very real possibility of erasing detail with automated stuff. I'm probably ignorant of some of the damage that's being done and the frame rate stuff is indeed a can of worms.

I'm more aware of audio over-processing, which is where I've got some hands on time with the software. De-clicking software is great IF used only just as much as needed and then switched over to manual debris removal. Denoising is very difficult to keep from overusing .....it's like removing cream from a cup of coffee.....and I despise the automatic harmonic rebalance software. I feel most pre-dolby era film soundtracks are WAY over processed these days, but all reviewers notice is if there's hiss or pops, not whether the amplitude has been neutered and steamrolled into oblivion.

[filmlover22]

since I no longer have the Kino version of Les Vampires, has anybody compared it to see if it had the same visual appearance?

[jard]

Kino Les Vampires has a completely different restoration source. Their blu was sourced from the 1996 restoration and looks completely different than this one, which uses the 4k restoration Gaumont worked on in 2014.

[fatboyslim142]

Originally Posted by jard

Kino Les Vampires has a completely different restoration source. Their blu was sourced from the 1996 restoration and looks completely different than this one, which uses the 4k restoration Gaumont worked on in 2014.

The Kino release came out 2 years earlier than the 2014 restoration.

[jard]

Originally Posted by fatboyslim142

The Kino release came out 2 years earlier than the 2014 restoration.

Yes

[filmlover22]

okay, after reading so much about these first two films being problematic, I decided to watch some of Eureka's Fantomas. Immediately, I was drawn into the world of Fantomas and enjoying the movie, when I realized I needed to STOP enjoying the film and focus on what was wrong with the picture After forcibly taking myself out of the picture, and REALLY concentrating, I did some evidence of slight stuttering and ghosting. Obviously it didn't bother my enjoyment of the film. though I sold my Kino Les Vampires, I still had Kino's Fantomas and immediately played the same few minutes to compare. Guess what? those imperfections were also on the Kino! It didn't bother me when I watched the Kino, and no surprise, they didn't bother me when I saw the Eureka.
I understand for some people that these issues may detract from your enjoying these fantastic films. All I can say is, that, imho, if this is you then I doubt you would enjoy the Kino (or possibly any other release) of these films.

The only issue I had with the Eureka was that I found the blue tint a 'tad' too dark for my taste. The Kino was a shade lighter. Not a deal breaker, but this struck me while the other issues did not.

For me, this is definitely not "well, we have to accept what we have because this is all that we got." This is a "holy crap, these films look fantastic! and this set is one of my favorite sets of the year."

Side note: Eureka's approach to jelly band is brilliant, imho. it solves all the issues I have had with jelly bands and the paper slips on the back of steelbooks. The jelly band has a bottom, so the set sits INSIDE the jelly band (or whatever we should call these things). Even better, the back slip (which describes what is in the set) is not a separate piece of paper glued/taped to the set. Instead it is PART of the jelly band in the back. Absolutely brilliant. I wish indicator and all steelbooks would take this approach.

anyway, for me, this issue is closed, settled, and I won't think about it anymore.

others, of course, may (and probably will) feel very differently. All I can say is for those who may have been put off buying this set due to the negative comments, imho, I thinking you are missing out on a truly remarkable experience.

YMMV.