Dekalog and Other Television Works

[MichaelB]

Beaver.

[tenia]

Menawhile, at Svet-ray.com : http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... tcount=131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MichaelB]

Yes, I've seen. Even by his usual standards, his arguments are specious at best and ridiculous at worst.

Mainly because what he doesn't mention - presumably because it would completely torpedo his decidedly confused thesis - is that the decision to shoot at 25fps would have been made at the time of production. And at the time of production Kieślowski was under the entirely reasonable impression that he was making a television series that would most likely be shown exclusively on Polish and West German television. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not Svet saw it theatrically in eastern Europe, because the then groundbreaking decision to release it theatrically was not taken until long after production had been completed - and at the time it would have been considered utter fantasy. After all, how many other Polish TV series had secured international theatrical releases in their entirety? Before or since? I'm pretty sure that the answer's "none".

So anyone who seriously thinks that he shot it at 24fps needs to ask themselves the simple question: why? What possible reason would Kieślowski have had for going against a technical convention that wasn't just universal in Polish television at the time but in European television as a whole. given that there was no serious likelihood that it would be screened any other way to the vast majority of its intended audience?

Exactly the same arguments apply to the BFI's decision to release their Alan Clarke, Ken Russell and Peter Watkins sets in 25fps, of course. And we know that Criterion has to slow European television down to 24fps because of technical limitations beyond their control because Peter Becker has explicitly said so. Just to be clear, I have every sympathy with Criterion here, as I know full well what it's like to be up against immovable technical obstacles - but that's the situation that confronted them both with Berlin Alexanderplatz and with Dekalog.

[peerpee]

In DEKALOG episode 1, there are numerous shots of television sets and computer monitors. All cathode ray tubes, all running at European 50Hz. All rendered perfectly smoothly in DEKALOG with no flicker or rolling, and all must have been shot at 25fps.

[Big Ben]

I personally see no problem with double dipping here. I'll be picking up the Criterion and the Arrow.

A more technical question from someone who has only the smallest amount of experience with the 25FPS format. Is it common for people to to not be able to tell the difference? I certainly can't. Maybe it's because of my lack of exposure to it but still.

[EddieLarkin]

Certainly not in motion, but some people are sensitive to the change in pitch.

[jsteffe]

Yes, I've seen. Even by his usual standards, his arguments are specious at best and ridiculous at worst.

Mainly because what he doesn't mention - presumably because it would completely torpedo his decidedly confused thesis - is that the decision to shoot at 25fps would have been made at the time of production. And at the time of production Kieślowski was under the entirely reasonable impression that he was making a television series that would most likely be shown exclusively on Polish and West German television. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not Svet saw it theatrically in eastern Europe, because the then groundbreaking decision to release it theatrically was not taken until long after production had been completed - and at the time it would have been considered utter fantasy. After all, how many other Polish TV series had secured international theatrical releases in their entirety? Before or since? I'm pretty sure that the answer's "none".

So anyone who seriously thinks that he shot it at 24fps needs to ask themselves the simple question: why? What possible reason would Kieślowski have had for going against a technical convention that wasn't just universal in Polish television at the time but in European television as a whole. given that there was no serious likelihood that it would be screened any other way to the vast majority of its intended audience?

Exactly the same arguments apply to the BFI's decision to release their Alan Clarke, Ken Russell and Peter Watkins sets in 25fps, of course. And we know that Criterion has to slow European television down to 24fps because of technical limitations beyond their control because Peter Becker has explicitly said so. Just to be clear, I have every sympathy with Criterion here, as I know full well what it's like to be up against immovable technical obstacles - but that's the situation that confronted them both with Berlin Alexanderplatz and with Dekalog.

I did some reading in Variety and other sources to trace the distribution history of the series. Just to reiterate what MichaelB and others have said here and earlier, the original TV series was not initially planned for theatrical release, only the two feature film versions. In 1989, after the two feature films' success at international festivals, Kieslowski's earlier works received renewed attention and that is when they first raised the possibility of showing all of the TV episodes theatrically.

Incidentally, prior to that his most successful film internationally was Camera Buff/Amator.

[MichaelB]

All completely true. And of course the mere existence of the spin-off theatrical features makes it clear that there were no plans back in 1987/88 to release the entire series theatrically. Indeed, such plans were only formulated because they needed more money than they thought they'd be able to realise from television sales.

As you say, Kieślowski simply didn't have a big enough international reputation back then. Only two of his features - Camera Buff and No End - had had any proper commercial distribution internationally, and we're only talking small-scale arthouse releases. His feature debut The Scar wouldn't be disinterred until after he became famous enough to attract completists, and Blind Chance was shelved for years, and I'm not sure it had been released before production started on Dekalog. As for everything else in his filmography - the documentaries, the TV movies - they were hardly ever shown outside Poland except via occasional festival screenings.

He certainly wasn't unknown internationally in 1987, but he was no more famous than, say, his near-contemporary Wojciech Marczewski, who arguably made a bigger splash between 1978 and 81 before falling silent in protest at martial law.

[Zot!]

Didn't criterion already admit that they would have prefered to present this in 25fps?

[jsteffe]

I believe the issue is not that Criterion could not release the TV series in 25fps (for technical reasons), but Svet's speculation that it *should* be seen in 24fps rather than 25fps. That doesn't make sense, because as a European TV series the film footage was shot for 25fps projection, and the *sound* was recorded and mixed for that speed as well.

[tenia]

And he's now basically saying both Michael and Nick are wrong about the history of the Decalogue presentations and theatrical deals, eluding the cathode TV sync pointed out by Nick.

[Arrow]

And he's now basically saying both Michael and Nick are wrong about the history of the Decalogue presentations and theatrical deals, eluding the cathode TV sync pointed out by Nick.

They're remarkably patient, I would've gone full Code Red and shelved the release.

[Moshrom]

In DEKALOG episode 1, there are numerous shots of television sets and computer monitors. All cathode ray tubes, all running at European 50Hz. All rendered perfectly smoothly in DEKALOG with no flicker or rolling, and all must have been shot at 25fps.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't slowing down this footage from 25 to 24 fps (as Criterion have done) not have any effect on the smoothness of the footage during these scenes? After all, a frame hasn't been removed from every second of footage -- each frame is now just onscreen for 2 ms less than it was before.

There's no real argument against 25 fps as the intended framerate, but I'm not sure this argument in favour of it actually holds...

[Werewolf by Night]

I think you're confusing the filming (which is what peerpee is referring to) with the playback. If it were filmed at 24fps, video playing on the TVs and monitors in the shots would have been out of sync and would appear to be "rolling."

[Moshrom]

I think you're confusing the filming (which is what peerpee is referring to) with the playback. If it were filmed at 24fps, video playing on the TVs and monitors in the shots would have been out of sync and would appear to be "rolling."

Aah, I see! So the Criterion blu-ray would also appear to be smooth and in-sync, as would every previous DVD release.

[criterionsnob]

I can't seem to find any discussion about the 1.33 Criterion vs. 1.39.5:1 Arrow aspect ratio noted in the Beaver review. Which one is correct?

[MichaelB]

I can't seem to find any discussion about the 1.33 Criterion vs. 1.39.5:1 Arrow aspect ratio noted in the Beaver review. Which one is correct?

To be honest, it's hard to say. We did consider cropping the picture to 1.33:1, as Criterion seems to have done, but when comparing them side by side I found that I consistently preferred the slightly wider image - and these masters were approved by many of the original cinematographers.

The absolutely crucial thing, bearing in mind the Polish BDs' now notorious top-and-bottom cropping to 16:9, was that I wanted to be certain that it really was the case of slightly more picture at the sides, as opposed to slightly less at the top and bottom - but once that was confirmed I couldn't see any need to crop the picture. I think the Beaver grabs confirm that this was the right decision - particularly the one from Dekalog Nine where the protagonist's head is slightly cropped at 1.33:1 but fully visible at 1.39:1.

[Costa]

And he's now basically saying both Michael and Nick are wrong about the history of the Decalogue presentations and theatrical deals, eluding the cathode TV sync pointed out by Nick.

They're remarkably patient, I would've gone full Code Red and shelved the release.

And good for them, because that shows their ethos, something I can't say for the Criterion reviewer of that site.
I was recently appaled reading his unethical and unprofessional bashing of the DVDbeaver reviewer:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... tcount=359
I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Even if Mr Toose works that way, I don't think it was the place of another reviewer (ANY reviewer) to criticize him that way.
And for what is worth, Mr. Toose should be credited for being as impartial as he can (from the reviews I have read) according to his beliefs, in his reviews.

[fdm]

It's rather common for them to do that over there, him in particular. Their party line I think.

[tenia]

While I don't think it's correct for official representatives of the site to bash Gary that explicitly, it's not as if they were the only ones to think so, or even to explicitly say so. It's also hard to blame them when we know the remarks about the accuracy of Beaver's screencaps are accurate and that many of Gary's textual assessments would benefit from a better technical knowledge.

This being written, these types of remarks could benefit from more tact...

[Never Cursed]

Is Svet incorrect? No, beaver reviews definitely have odd screencaps, and Tooze definitely doesn't watch an entire disc before reviewing it. Given the amount of discs he's sent a month, I doubt he could.

However, I infinitely prefer Tooze. He's humble, pleasant, and quickly fixes any glaring mistakes in his reviews if they are pointed out. I certainly trust him more than Svet, and Tooze is clearly the smarter of the two.

[Costa]

Is Svet incorrect?

Even if he is correct, it's not his place to insult a "colleague" so that he can look good and more legitimate.
And in the end, who is a professional and expert reviewer?
Is there any school for bluray reviewers that I am not aware of?
I wouldn't have a problem if that post was done by a regular member, but some things look quite bad when certain people say or do them.

I also trust DVDbeaver more and don't read the Criterion reviews at bluray.com.
They are always so predictable, giving stellar reviews to even crystal-clear inferior releases..
And I wish the reviewer was more open to discussion about a release, and not ready to insult every time anyone has a different opinion than his (or suspend him so that he is silenced).

[MichaelB]

Reviewers insult each other all the time - there've been some almighty spats in the past between people like Rex Reed and John Simon (who even wrote a splendidly bitchy essay titled "Why Reed Can't Write") and of course Gore Vidal and Pauline Kael must have attacked pretty much all their fellow scribes at some point or other. More recently there was Tony Rayns' evisceration of the work of his notional Sight & Sound colleague Tim Lucas, although I doubt the two have ever met and I suspect they're not on each other's Christmas card list.

So I'd find it pretty hard to be too exercised about something similar.

[David M.]

And in the end, who is a professional and expert reviewer?
Is there any school for bluray reviewers that I am not aware of?

There's not, which raises an interesting point. Ideally, reviewers would have some experience and understanding of both historical and current film transfer and post production environments. Also, they should be viewing on calibrated displays that don't alter the image, so they can see exactly what's on the discs they're reviewing. I don't think that's the case for most reviewers, however.

The best alternative right now would be for reviewers to go to an ISF or THX class to learn about accurate imaging - however, they cover display calibration first and foremost and don't really delve into video transfer.

[tenia]

Outside of this, you at least need a knowledge of your own limitations (in your own knowledge and/or your setup). When I was told I missed this and that, I went back to how I reviewed discs to ensure I wouldn’t miss them next time.

My setup isn’t calibrated, it merely received a few setups by myself through the Spears & Munsil BD tool (and before that through BD THX calibration tools). And it’s a plasma, so I (now) know it will potentially dither potential compression artifacts.
My parents (and in some cases my grandparents) weren’t born when most of the movies I’m reviewing were released in theatres.

But at least, when I don’t know... I say I don’t know. I recently reviewed The Hills Have Eyes and I have no freaking clue whether or not the on-disc color grading is faithful to what the filmmakers wanted to achieve. It’s all over the place and since the elements used for the restorations are CRIs (notoriously unstable elements), it’s hard to say if this is OK or if this is the result of the unstable elements. So I just literally wrote that in my review. And I think it’s OK : sometimes, at least, just write what you see, because What You See Is All There Is.

It’s intuitive to go and try and make a pattern out of this, and try to over-interpret the visual results, and I think, sometimes, reviewers just either do it too much or too little. But over-interpreting things can be as non consumer-friendly than being overly generic.

There should be a detailed listing of the pros and cons (and I do believe many reviews failed to give readers the detailed part of the listing, favouring a so-generic 2-liners one didn’t actually needed to see the disc to write it), but it’s useless to try and create a theory out of thin air too. If you have the elements for it, you shouldn’t refrain to use them of course (and a few labels are keen on passing very detailed information about the restoration process), but if you don’t, don’t make it look as if you know for sure, because you don’t. That will NEVER prevent a review to be as thorough as possible.

There might be specific delicate points such as on-set filters (see the discussion about Hitchcock’s Marnie on BD) or color-timings (which is THE most sensitive topic on dedicated boards), but you don’t need to be 60 years old to know DNR and EE or macroblocks and other technicalities. And since the remaining bulk of information simply means you have the proper set of expectations, you can very much answer 90-95% of what a reader might wonder.

On the other end, it seems that some people knowing a lot on movies and film elements are not very knowledgeable when it comes to reviewing digital presentations.

(as a side note, I’m currently getting a bit less upfront technical details that I used to about the discs I’m reviewing, so I’m left sometimes guessing what the restorations are sourced from and the resolution used, and I’m happy / proud to say I’m actually often spot on, despite my meager 29 years old)