Nitrateville Correction Dept: Grapevines New Releases

[Richard M Roberts]

Well, Waveyboy over at Nutrateville showed us some more of his usual cluelessness on his rating of Grapevine's Video Releases this month. He called the transfer of GODLESS MEN as"coming from a decent 16mm print", which is completely incorrect. GODLESS MEN was transferred from the only surviving 35mm tinted nitrate, which was in rather good condition when I delivered it to UCLA a few months ago. GALLOPIN ON he describes as "soft, with faint discernable horizontal lines that tell me it was mastered from some old video source", equally incorrect. The transer of GALLOPIN ON was a recent Digital transfer from a 16mm reduction from the only surviving 35mm nitrate on the film.

For someone who whines with frequency about various defects in this or that DVD release,this merely proves once again that he doesn't know what in the Hell he's talking about.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Richard,

Thank you for the corrections; I will post them (minus the insults) over at Nitrateville. Of course I had no way of knowing for sure what these titles were mastered from, as I wasn't directly involved in said mastering nor did I claim I was, but was merely stating what it LOOKED like they were mastered from. As I said, GODLESS MEN does indeed look fantastic, and howzabout if I post my complete bit on that, including the praise which you left out, perhaps because it didn't fit your agenda here:

"GODLESS MEN looks the best; nice, sharp, detailed and well-framed, mastered from what looks like a pretty decent quality 16mm print, with a good organ score by David Knudtson."

Glad to hear 35mm nitrate survives on this. I didn't assume we were that lucky, and I've seen some excellent quality 16mm prints, so I thought it might be such.

As for GALLOPING ON (GALLOPIN' ON?), I stand by my review. Recent digital transfer or no, it is indeed soft, with faint discernable horizontal lines, and looks like it was mastered from an old video source. And I neglected to mention before that it suffers from ghosting as well. But I did also say that it was quite watchable, which I noticed you left out of your quote below. I will admit I was remiss for not mentioning the intro by David Lewis showing the film locations then and now; it was indeed an awesome extra, and thank you for helping make that possible.

Your knowledge and insight are greatly missed at Nitrateville, and all the work you've done in preserving classic film and making it available for theatrical exhibition and home viewing is much, much appreciated, but your constant condescending attitude and personal insults toward those with less knowledge than you and/or differing opinions on films are not. And, for some reason it's perfectly fine for Richard M. Roberts to blast whatever silent film video releases he likes (usually because of slideshow projection speeds, and I usually agree with him there), but if anyone else has a problem with a silent film video release, or merely points out a flaw or two while praising the release overall, he or she had damn well better just shut up and feel lucky to have the films on video at all. For the record, I'm very glad I bought these four Grapevine titles, especially GODLESS MEN and GALLOPING ON.

[Richard M Roberts]

Richard,

Thank you for the corrections; I will post them (minus the insults) over at Nitrateville. Of course I had no way of knowing for sure what these titles were mastered from, as I wasn't directly involved in said mastering nor did I claim I was, but was merely stating what it LOOKED like they were mastered from. As I said, GODLESS MEN does indeed look fantastic, and howzabout if I post my complete bit on that, including the praise which you left out, perhaps because it didn't fit your agenda here:

"GODLESS MEN looks the best; nice, sharp, detailed and well-framed, mastered from what looks like a pretty decent quality 16mm print, with a good organ score by David Knudtson."

Glad to hear 35mm nitrate survives on this. I didn't assume we were that lucky, and I've seen some excellent quality 16mm prints, so I thought it might be such.

As for GALLOPING ON (GALLOPIN' ON?), I stand by my review. Recent digital transfer or no, it is indeed soft, with faint discernable horizontal lines, and looks like it was mastered from an old video source. And I neglected to mention before that it suffers from ghosting as well. But I did also say that it was quite watchable, which I noticed you left out of your quote below. I will admit I was remiss for not mentioning the intro by David Lewis showing the film locations then and now; it was indeed an awesome extra, and thank you for helping make that possible.

Your knowledge and insight are greatly missed at Nitrateville, and all the work you've done in preserving classic film and making it available for theatrical exhibition and home viewing is much, much appreciated, but your constant condescending attitude and personal insults toward those with less knowledge than you and/or differing opinions on films are not. And, for some reason it's perfectly fine for Richard M. Roberts to blast whatever silent film video releases he likes (usually because of slideshow projection speeds, and I usually agree with him there), but if anyone else has a problem with a silent film video release, or merely points out a flaw or two while praising the release overall, he or she had damn well better just shut up and feel lucky to have the films on video at all. For the record, I'm very glad I bought these four Grapevine titles, especially GODLESS MEN and GALLOPING ON.

To begin with, I rarely review any DVD releases of silent films, and when I do, I very specifically address any issues I have with them, and unless it is a continuing problem stemming from a personal decision made by the Producers like film speeds or modern scoring, I do not rip them personally for it, in fact, I even defend folk like David Shepard whose personal decisions in production I do not frequently agree with when they are being unfairly lambasted by know-nothings who whine in picayune fashion unfairly about print and video quality like.....oh wait, yeah, that was you who was whining about WHEN THE CLOUDS ROLL BY that time I stood up for him.

And I am only condescending to those pretending to be experts who make judgment calls like being able to spot the gauge and history of a print used in a video transfer like they actually know what they're talking about when it's pretty damn obvious that they don't sorta like.........hey, that was you who was pretending to be in-the-know and spouted nonsense about those Grapevine releases wasn't it, Waveyboy?

There is nothing wrong with having less knowledge than me or anyone else, unless one is pretending to have more than they actually have and their opinions on a newsgroup might unfairly affect the sales of a DVD someone else has worked hard to get out to an audience in a niche' market where very little of this stuff sells enough to turn a reasonable profit. You didn't know what in the hell you were talking about and you were called on it.

Stand by your opinion of GALLOPIN ON all you like, I say you need a new TV monitor because I don't see any of the stuff you're whining about, even if I'm not frankly in love with Jack Hardy's modern score that he put on it. And in any event, you are indeed damn lucky to be seeing any Wally Wales Action Picture from the 20's as damn few exist in any fashion, so whining is pointless, and your so-called expertise on spotting print materials used in video transfers needs a lot more education and experience. If the shoes of my words fit you like a glove, wear it. Over here, you get the pleasure of my opinions. Go back to Nutrateville where you belong if you can't stand a little honesty.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Pasquale Ventura]

All the poster had to do was email Grapevine Video and ask them what the original film prints used for the DVD transfer was before posting. Grapevine is very good at answering questions about their DVD offerings and always respond.