Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932)

[Tommaso]

YEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!! CHAMPAGNE!!!!!!!!!

Best news this year so far!

[denti alligator]

Are there reviews of this disc anywhere? Is this the Koerber restoration?

[Tommaso]

There's just one review of the original box set I could find, and it's in Danish, but as far as I could make out, it's definitely the Koerber resto (as was mentioned by others here as well).

Now the only thing I need to find out before I open that bottle is whether the French subs are removable or at least are player-generated and could be gotten rid of by re-burning (if nothing else helps). Has anyone got that box set here?

[denti alligator]

I thought I remembered Schreck posting something about this DVD being cropped. What's the word on that?

[Tommaso]

I think Schreck referred to that horrible Shepard version, but chopped-off heads are indeed a problem with many early sound films whose aspect ratio was at around 1.20 rather than 1.33. I detected nothing wrong with the screen caps in that Danish review, but then of course they were not from all too critical moments in that respect. Fingers crossed, though, and it will quite definitely be much superior to earlier versions in any case.

[Scharphedin2]

Denti, here is what the Danish review roughly says about the cropping:

Billedet præsenteres i 1.33:1. Det er ret mørkt, og man kunne sagtens som producent fristes til at forstærke kontrasten kunstigt. Det har Mk2 heldigvis udeladt, og vi kan som seere selv justere vore skærme. Der er en del snavs af og til, og billedet fremstår i nogle scener blødt.
Der ser ud til at være problemer med beskæringen - jf. de ovennævnte problemer med afskårne hoveder. Det er ret ærgerligt, da vi så kan vente på en endnu bedre version hen af vejen.

The image is presented in academy ratio. It is quite dark, and it would be easy as producer to be tempted to boost the contrast levels artificially. Fortunately, Mk2 has refrained from doing so, and we as viewers can adjust the contrasts on our own monitors. There is quite a bit of dirt and debris at certain times, and in some scenes the image looks soft. There also appears to be some issues with cropping -- see the problems above concerning cut heads. This is really a shame, as we now have to wait for an improved version some time down the road.

[denti alligator]

Is it supposed to be 1.19 or 1.37?

[HerrSchreck]

It's very difficult to determine whether or not this was afilm utilizing the variable density track-- requiring a 1.19 to 1 AR, but my gut tells me that this was a straight 1.33 film. Looking at the caps from dvdsnak:





one can see hints of the aperture marks in the right corner, and since the caps are a full fill-in of the academy shape-- and since no image neg exists (i e the sources for the resto were 1st gen nitrate exhibitor prints in French & German)-- one can only conclude the exhibitor reels were in 1.33

imdb (dubious at times of course) says that it was shot utilizing "an experimental sound" system whereas in fact it was shot utilizing the Tobis Klang sys, which was par for the course in Europe at the time.

What was the real ballbreaker was the sound editing. Falkenberg was the editor and he testified to the nightmare of assembling the various versions of the film. Since they only had a single score ( a gorgeous one by Zeller) of a particular length and since the sound effects, dialog & score had to post coexist on the same track, synching it all together was understandably a nightmare. The music had to coincide with certain events, the film had to end at the right time when the score ended, yet different takes of actors speaking certain lines in multiple languages (as well as overlaid sound recordings of actors doing the same laid over all-version footage) created scene interludes of variegated length.. causing the score's sound effects or music to arrive at the wrong time vs the original or definitive (god knows which one that was, i e which version Zeller ran to compose his score versus) version, owing to the different lengths of time it took to say certain things in various languages.

I never said the disc image was cropped-- I don't have the Coffret Dreyer box, and couldn't testify to the image. The caps above look good however, and the aperture marks tell us we're getting a full-frame transfer. I'll be grabbing that sucker quicker than a phantom can dig a hole in reverse in the evening haze!

[Steven H]

According to filmportal.de (a Danish film database), it's being screened at 1:33. Also, the whole thing is on youtube for those tired of waiting who don't want to pay for the Image disc when something better is surely over the horizon.

[Tommaso]

But they also say 1.33 for "M" and "Testament of Dr. Mabuse", both of which are 1.19.

[der_Artur]

The Mabuse AR is indeed strange, but for the original release of "M" they give the correct AR:

. Erstverleih Vereinigte Star-Film GmbH (Berlin)
.
. Länge 12 Akte, 3208 m, 117
.
. Format 35mm, 1:1,19

Since it is the site of the German Film Institute (not a Danish film database) I believe what they have to say about the "Vampyr" AR:

. Erstverleih Vereinigte Star-Film GmbH (Berlin)
.
. Länge 2271 m, 83 min
.
. Format 35mm, 1:1,33

[Ledos]

The DVDSnak review of the Dreyer movies mentions some tight framing on the MK2 Vampyr. The last screen capture is offered as a way to compare with a clip from the same restoration that was made available as an extra on Criterion's Die Sehnsucht der Veronika Voss disc.

DVDSnak review of MK2 release:


DVDBeaver review of Criterion's disc with the clip:

[Ledos]

While Googling for the Beaver comparison I stumbled across this review from another site:

The Story: The story for Veronika Voss was based loosely on the life of Sybille Schmitz, a famous sultry German actress who was in her glory during the Nazi years of the thirties and the war years. She had starred as early as 1930 in F.W. Murnau's film Vampyr

Must be one of his lost movies!

[Tommaso]

The DVDSnak review of the Dreyer movies mentions some tight framing on the MK2 Vampyr. The last screen capture is offered as a way to compare with a clip from the same restoration that was made available as an extra on Criterion's Die Sehnsucht der Veronika Voss disc.

Urgh.... definitely cropped then, but if it doesn't get worse in other parts, still acceptable in my view. Incidentally, I find the black and white tones in the MK2 much more convincing.

[denti alligator]

But it's only cropped at the top--not at the bottom or on the sides. That's odd. The MK2 definitely seems too wide. Can someone with the proper tools measure the AR on these. Is the MK2 really 1.37? What's the grab from the docu by comparison?

[Ledos]

Can someone with the proper tools measure the AR on these.

All you have to do is right-click on the pictures and choose Properties. Then divide the numbers of pixels under Dimensions (or whatever it's called in your chosen browser). The MK2 is 1.33:1, the Criterion is 1.22:1.

[denti alligator]

Can someone with the proper tools measure the AR on these.

All you have to do is right-click on the pictures and choose Properties. Then divide the numbers of pixels under Dimensions (or whatever it's called in your chosen browser). The MK2 is 1.33:1, the Criterion is 1.22:1.

Well that just about proves it, doesn't it. The MK2 shows the edge of the negative on the sides and the bottom (well, one side), so if there is definitely more image on the top (as shown in the Criterion cap), then this must be a 1.19 AR negative. Am I wrong in reasoning this way?

(I guess there could be more image on the right side that neither cap reveals, in which case it could possibly be 1.37, but this seem highly unlikely.)

[HerrSchreck]

I'd lay the family jewels on 1.33.

The dif between the two is relatively slight and you can sorta sense by the dif in black levels that what we're seeing in the upper right of both caps showing the moaning schmitz is an aperture mark... which since it's in the right place, and showing no black zone on the left for the soundtrack, tells me it's 1.3.

Also carldreyer.com shows the original theater program with stills from the film, and they are 1.33

[denti alligator]

Schreck, you're outta your mind!
The aperture mark is ONLY visible on the Criterion cap (upper right); the one on the MK2 cap is from the embroidery (or whatever that is behind her--woodwork?). Don't you see how much is missing from the top of the MK2? Don't you see the black on the left side and on the bottom? This indicates the edge of the negative. If the mark on the top right of the Criterion is the aperture mark, then it has to be 1.19.

I'd bet my DVD collection that it is.

[HerrSchreck]

Schreck, you're outta your mind!
The aperture mark is ONLY visible on the Criterion cap (upper right); the one on the MK2 cap is from the embroidery (or whatever that is behind her--woodwork?). Don't you see how much is missing from the top of the MK2? Don't you see the black on the left side and on the bottom? This indicates the edge of the negative. If the mark on the top right of the Criterion is the aperture mark, then it has to be 1.19.

I'd bet my DVD collection that it is.

As to my mind, that's old news.

As to your nervous system-- STEADY THERE NELLIE! Whoa!

As to the aperture marks, the mark that's more visible in the upper right of the CC was already visible on the dvdsnak caps when I first posted them, only slightly less so. Go back to my post which first provided the MK2 caps-- you'll see that I saw the caps before vogler's CC cap. I have the VOSS & know what to look for.

As to what they mean, there's something very basic & geometry related that I'm getting at: if the right angle of the upper right aperture mark fits snugly and with standard visibility & space occupation within the cooverage of 1.33, and rounds the 90 degrees properly, then (see the VOSS disc for further evidence), you should see a black stripe running down the lefthand side of the cap. The only reason for the black stripe to not be visible would be a huge amount of zooming in (or offset frame printing, as in the original M disc resulting in a frame divide up top), which clearly is not the case. The cropping in the MK2 is nothing to write home about.

SEE THE ORIGINAL, VINTAGE 1932 LOBBY CARDS & THEATER PROGRAM DENT. IT REPRINTS FRAMES FROM THE FILM INCLUDING THE OPENING TITLES. THE FLICK IS 1.33. Martin Koerber has restored an ass-bucket of variable density sound films (he did the two most famous examples on disc, M & TESTAMENT MABUSE) and so I trust that he didn't (and MK2 didn't) say "screw this pillarboxing shit-- I'm tired and hungry and I need a piece a ass and dammit I'm going with the fake zoom in thing".

I'll meet you at moma for your dvd's next week.

[denti alligator]

if the right angle of the upper right aperture mark fits snugly and with standard visibility & space occupation within the cooverage of 1.33, and rounds the 90 degrees properly, then (see the VOSS disc for further evidence), you should see a black stripe running down the lefthand side of the cap. The only reason for the black stripe to not be visible would be a huge amount of zooming in (or offset frame printing, as in the original M disc resulting in a frame divide up top), which clearly is not the case. The cropping in the MK2 is nothing to write home about.

I don't follow you. There is a black strip clearly visible running down the lefthand side of both caps.

Martin Koerber has restored an ass-bucket of variable density sound films (he did the two most famous examples on disc, M & TESTAMENT MABUSE) and so I trust that he didn't (and MK2 didn't) say "screw this pillarboxing shit-- I'm tired and hungry and I need a piece a ass and dammit I'm going with the fake zoom in thing".

This is the only argument I find convincing. However, I still don't understand your argument as to the geometry. To me, there's some serious cropping only at the top of the frame, though potentially also on the righthand side. If the same amount of image visible on the Criterion on the top is also there on the right (but missing in both caps), then I would agree that this is 1.33. Otherwise, I don't see how it could be.[/quote]

[HerrSchreck]

Dent-- think about it: if you see aperture marks on the right side how in heavens name could they have chopped anything off the right hand side in the telecine gate? Aperture marks appear on the outermost corners, and if you see the rounded curve that means that both sides of the image leading into those 90 deg that constitute the curve/aperture (in this case top & right) have not been cropped. Its basic telecine stuff.

See what I mean?

That "line" you're talking about looks like extra "grab" from the cap screen. The issue is the geometry of the cap, and within that academy shape if there is a large back stripe (not aline of 2 pixels, but the sum of the left & right of a pillarboxed image smashed together to make One.. nothing like that in VOSS or MK2)

[Tommaso]

I have no idea whether this is in any way conclusive, but I just downloaded both grabs and put them into Photoshop in order to get rid of anything not clearly belonging to the picture, i.e. the black bar on the left hand side and the very tiny bit of blackness at the bottom. The resulting pics were 1.32 for the MK2 and 1.22 for the CC. So, apparently nothing has changed.

I agree with Schreck about what he says concerning Koerber's experience and all, but that doesn't necessarily mean that MK2 behaves accordingly. Also, of course, who tells us that the Criterion is necessarily right, or that the caps were taken in the correct way? The only thing we know for sure is that the MK2 IS cropped at the top, as we can see from those caps anyway.

And furthermore: aren't we all supposed to be glad that the MK2 disc exists AT ALL? Cropped or not, this is going to be THE highlight of this year (at least for me), and should the cropping be really disturbing in other scenes, we can always upgrade to MoC if they finally get their disc done (and remember that Nick only hinted at some Dreyer coming but did not necessarily say "Vampyr"). As long as they do removable subs (which is a much more important issue), I'm fine.

[Ledos]

Just recently I had asked Martin Koerber about some other pieces of Vampyr information, so I tried asking this question as well. His reply is that it was 1.19:1.

[denti alligator]

Just recently I had asked Martin Koerber about some other pieces of Vampyr information, so I tried asking this question as well. His reply is that it was 1.19:1.

Schreck: your "family jewels," please. I'll be at MoMA next week waiting.