8mm Forum: Columbia 3 Stooges vs. Blackhawk L&H

8mm Forum

my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home

next oldest topic

next newest topic

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Columbia 3 Stooges vs. Blackhawk L&H (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Columbia 3 Stooges vs. Blackhawk L&H

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted February 25, 2011 05:54 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I've always been astounded by the high quality of my Super 8 Columbia 3 Stooges shorts -- I have about 10 of them. They all project like 16mm originals -- with the lone exception (at least in my collection) of MEN IN BLACK (but it's still pretty darn good.) Now my Blackhawk Laurel and Hardys are a different story. I've upgraded many of them to 16mm to get better image quality. In many cases the 16mm print I have is also a Blackhawk -- and the quality is outstanding -- so Blackhawk's pre-print was generally excellent.

One explanation could be that since Columbia was releasing it's own product that they had access to the best negatives. But again, so did Blackhawk, judging by their 16mm prints. So why are the 3 Stooges Super 8 prints so superior to Blackhawk L&Hs? Did Columbia use a better lab (many say "print by Triangle" on the leader.) I also have from Columbia the 4 Charley Chase shorts, 2 Andy Clydes, a Buster Keaton, and a few others (digests from features) -- and they all are generally excellent as well.

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted February 25, 2011 10:36 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Tony,

I agree. The Stooge prints are better than most of the 8mm L&H Blackhawks (especially the features.) The source material and the Triangle lab, produced good products for Columbia.

The Men in Black print, and those of the same batch of re-worked negs,
had the same grayish / grain-image as the 16mm equivalents.

Around 1979, Blackhawk's product was sent to a very good lab and with good negatives. There are very good L&H prints, but it takes some extensive digging to find the ones with the best quality.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted February 26, 2011 03:42 AM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I think that, generally speaking, people need to be careful with Blackhawk. Many collectors think that because it's a Blackhawk print it will be excellent quality - as it most often is - but, the truth is some of their prints can be pretty poor as with the L&Hs you mention here.

This is not to knock Blackhawk - just that the name does not guarantee the best print of a particular title.

| IP: Logged

John Hourigan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003

posted February 26, 2011 12:15 PM

Email John Hourigan

Edit/Delete Post

I agree with Michael -- I've found that more often than not, Blackhawk's L&Hs are not up to snuff, particularly on the print side. (Sound quality has always been first rate.) While I fully appreciate what Blackhawk meant to the film collecting hobby, I think the canonization of Blackhawk over the years tends to gloss over the fact that their prints were not always as pristine as people tend to remember.

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted February 26, 2011 04:25 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Well, the L&H BH prints look great in 16mm -- they are definitely originals. What's interesting is that the 8mm and Super 8 L&H BH silents look great -- I'm talking about the titles originally released as silents circa 1927 - 1929, and not the talkies released by BH as silents. So I always assumed that BH just didn't have good negs on the talkies -- until I started seeing them in 16mm. Most of the Our Gang talkies from BH generally look great in Super 8 as well. But the Columbia 3 Stooges still blow them all away, I think.

Michael,

What are the other 3 Stooges Super 8s that are below par? I have most of the Curlys that were released full-length in sound -- but none of the Shemps. How are DISORDER IN THE COURT and 3 LITTLE BEERS?

thanks

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted February 27, 2011 12:13 AM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Tony,

I have a Super 8 print of 3 Little Beers, and it's great quality.

Although I'm not familiar with the S-8mm prints of Disorder in the Court, it's one of two Stooge titles that have been in the public domain. Thus, the majority of 16mm prints are only passable dupes. Same for Malice in the Palace.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted February 27, 2011 05:43 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Thanks Michael.

Actually, SING A SONG OF SIX PANTS and BRIDELESS GROOM, both Shemps, are also PD. Not sure if they were issued in Super 8 by Niles or a company like that. I believe DISORDER was released by Niles.

| IP: Logged

Gary Crawford
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 979
From: Manassas, VA. USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted February 28, 2011 07:30 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Yes...Columbia went right to the source material for its Stooges and the result was superb.... I have some 16's of the same films, and in some cases, the super 8's look better and definitly sound better than the 16's. I had been disappointed many many times with Blackhawk's quality on 8mm sound prints...standard and super 8. The main problem just prints being very soft focus....I have a super 8 of Way out West....nice gray scale, but so soft that the faces are almost devoid of detail.... The Blackhawk 16 is very very sharp. Blockheads...same thing. Be Big....one of the three reel shorts is so bad , I never show it to anyone. Dark one moment..light the next....fuzzy focus... And I have seen 16 prints that were fine. Scram, however, top notch super 8.

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted February 28, 2011 05:59 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Gary,

Yes, SCRAM was a gem from BH in Super 8 -- but I still upgraded -- to a Film Classics print-down. BH's BE BIG is pretty bad image-wise. Off the top of my head -- great BH talkie L&H's in Super 8: COUNTY HOSPITAL, TOWED IN A HOLE, MUSIC BOX, PERFECT DAY, OUR RELATIONS.

So it can't be the lab -- but I've heard that they used different labs over the years (and different negs.)Maybe they took short cuts with some titles in Super 8 to meet demand. For example, if they had an original 16mm neg -- they made the 16mm print from that -- which would be an original (obviously). Perhaps they made the Super 8 negs from 16mm prints, which would make them dupes. Or maybe just making a Super 8 neg from a 16mm neg caused the degradation. If they printed Super 8 right from the 16mm neg you would get better results. The mystery continues.

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted February 28, 2011 06:10 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Here are some excellent standard 8 sound prints that are in my collection:

These two have deep theatrical quality:
Thicker Than Water (includes MGM title cards.)
Charley Chase; On the Wrong Trek (with L&H cameos.)

Also
Charley Chase: Nature in the wrong.
Them Thar Hills,
Tit for Tat,
The Live Ghost.

Laurel and Hardy Super 8 Sound shorts:
One Good Turn,
Chickens Come Home.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

John Hourigan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003

posted February 28, 2011 08:15 PM

Email John Hourigan

Edit/Delete Post

Agree with Gary -- most (if not all) of my Blackhawk Super 8 sound L&Hs' focus is so soft that the faces are devoid of any detail.

But most of my Blackhawk Super 8 sound Our Gangs are much better (?). This is one of the things that I find maddening about Super 8 films -- the quality is all over the place. It's almost as if quality wasn't a big concern in the 1970s -- just crank 'em out. It's hard to convince people that film is better than digital when Super 8 prints are so scattershot in terms of quality. While I prefer film to digital, it makes it hard to argue that film beats digital in resolution, etc., when most of the prints are below par. But I'll keep chuggin' along with film. . .

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted March 01, 2011 06:11 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote:
It's hard to convince people that film is better than digital when Super 8 prints are so scattershot in terms of quality. While I prefer film to digital, it makes it hard to argue that film beats digital in resolution, etc., when most of the prints are below par. But I'll keep chuggin' along with film. . .

All it takes is one really excellent print to show people what Super 8 is capable of. The fact that people made bad dupes in Super 8 should not be a reflection of the medium in general.
If the source for a DVD or Blue Ray is a bad dupe, it can make them look bad as well.

In addition to the Columbia 3 Stooges (and others), most Castle (not U8)B&W prints can be jaw-dropping in Super 8 -- particularly the Abbott and Costellos. I agree that most BH Our Gangs are excellent -- a notable exception being OUR GANG FOLLIES OF 1938.

| IP: Logged

John Hourigan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003

posted March 03, 2011 08:28 PM

Email John Hourigan

Edit/Delete Post

Agree with you, Tony -- unfortunately there seems to be more bad prints out there than prints with jaw-dropping quality!

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted March 03, 2011 09:12 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Gosh,
I never had a problem with Castle Films.

The Columbia "Triangle" films were out in the 60's.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted March 04, 2011 06:41 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Frankly, some of my best prints are from Niles. These are mainly Sherlock Holmes -- I've heard that they had excellent source material for those -- but obviously the lab must have done excellent work as well. I have Hitchock's THE 39 STEPS and I believe it is from Niles, but I'm not 100%. So my beef is with our beloved Blackhawk, who obviously had superior negs for L&H talkies (as evident from their 16mm prints), but unfortunately did not always deliver acceptable Super 8 copies.

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted March 05, 2011 01:30 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Tony,

I spoke with a friend that once had a super 8 sound print of Men in Black, and the picture quality was excellent.
Apparently the edition that we were speaking was from those negs during the early 80's. My friend confirmed this detail, because he is a huge fan too.

As noted there are those Blackhawk L&H super 8 sound editions that had horrible quality and with later printings of the same title, exhibited sharp detail and theatrical density.

Happy hunting to all.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted March 05, 2011 05:52 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Thanks Michael. My MEN IN BLACK is not horrendous, just not quite as good as my others. That one is not one of my favorites, anyway. As far as L&H goes -- as you know, Michael, my strategy has been to upgrade to 16mm -- I believe you have done the same.

| IP: Logged

Brad Kimball
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1171
From: Highland Mills, NY USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted March 05, 2011 11:11 PM

Email Brad Kimball

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I've been doing the same. Upgrading to 16mm in the L&H titles. It's a slow and costly process, but I'm not in any hurry. The quality on the BH 16mm prints versus the Super 8 Sound prints is night and day. My copy of "Them Thar Hills" in Super 8 Sound has contrast issues throughout and the picture is very jumpy. The same is true with my S8S copy of "Live Ghost". I have a BH 16mm copy of "Laughing Gravy" that is simply beautiful in every way. I also have "Hide & Shriek" with Our Gang from BH and it's exceptional in both 8mm and 16. Go figure. My Columbia "Curly" titles all have very 'bassy' sound that requires me to pump up the volume a stretch and yet my "Shemp" titles are so loud and crisp that I often have to lower the sound. Can't account for why the difference. Picture quality on all of them, however, is quite sweet.

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted March 05, 2011 11:40 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Tony,
I've upgraded too.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted March 06, 2011 02:28 AM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I think that 16mm prints of most titles are superior to 8mm - it's no great epiphany. Remember, 16 was more for professional use.
8mm was for home use and therefore didn't really need to be of professional quality.

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted March 06, 2011 05:14 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote:
I think that 16mm prints of most titles are superior to 8mm - it's no great epiphany. Remember, 16 was more for professional use.
8mm was for home use and therefore didn't really need to be of professional quality.

But my original point was that Columbia did a fantastic job with their Super 8 releases, most notably on the Stooges. There has been no need for me to upgrade given my modest basement viewing area. Not so with L&H, where 16mm vs. Super 8 is mostly night and day, as Brad pointed out.

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted March 06, 2011 05:24 PM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Yeah, I took your original point but, I was just adding comment to the way the thread developed.
[Smile]

[Smile]

| IP: Logged

Tony Stucchio
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 625
From: New Jersey
Registered: Dec 2005

posted March 06, 2011 05:46 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Sure, no problem, Michael.
[Smile]

[Smile]

For a showing in any venue even approaching an auditorium, 16mm would be the way to go. Of course, an Elmo GS1200 may give 16mm a run for its money given the brightness of the lamp, but of course the bigger the picture, no matter how bright, image unsteadiness would be much more noticeable.

| IP: Logged

Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted March 06, 2011 06:54 PM

Email Michael De Angelis

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Tony,

A while back, I was involved with the Sons of the Desert at the Long Island 2nd 100 years Tent Chapter. The meeting is held in a very nice (about a 100' long -20 ft. screen) auditorium at the Bethpage Restoration Village.

With a 16mm Eiki 3585 and using a GS1200 side by side, the 8mm image only suffered some amount of brightness. Compared to the 16mm, and using a three bladed shutter the light appeared slightly dull. In short, it was not very bad at all and very decent.

We were featuring films of 1937. Way Out West (16mm) and two Super 8mm trailers.
One was Pick a Star - The Boys with Rosina Lawrence, and the other was the Derann trailer of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

I could imagine if the GS had a two blade shutter, let alone a xenon lamp.

--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted March 07, 2011 02:32 AM

Email Michael O'Regan

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Yes, I'd have to say that, having seen the GS1200 HT at the BFCC it is just as good as 16 as regards projection but I feel that, as regards the prints themselves, 16s seem to be much sharper in the larger picture.
It's just my experience.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Move Topic

Delete Topic

next oldest topic

next newest topic

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2