8mm Forum: L&H Dirty Work: which Super 8mm print is best?

This is topic L&H Dirty Work: which Super 8mm print is best? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010733

Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on May 28, 2016, 08:21 AM:

I've just ran my Blackhawk of Dirty Work for the first time and was quite disappointed. Obviously the lack of original titles is a given, but the print itself looks a touch overexposed, and there are two brief black slugs lasting around half a second, one near the start and another halfway through. What are my chances of getting a print from a better negative, or should I look at another distributor?

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on May 28, 2016, 08:33 AM:

Are you sure it's a Blackhawk and not a dupe? I have a 16mm print of Dirty Work and it is excellent. None of the bad things you mention.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 28, 2016, 08:36 AM:

Hi Stuart some Blackhwaks are quite dissapointing, same with Waltons or any distributor.

But there are nice Blackhawks of this title around.

Thing is, sadly that when people sell films they will often exclude mentioning if its a duff print, or the sound drops out etc.

There are nice Waltons of this but quite a few washed out ones as well. Its not just down to the neg but who sets it all up on the day.

Derann prints took a nose dive on and off for instance when the labs let the regular super 8 chap go.

So hope you can pick a good one up, they are about but its getting the upfront and fair info from sellers.

Best Mark.

Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on May 28, 2016, 08:42 AM:

Hi Terry, it's in a Blackhawk box, and has Blackhawk titles!

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 28, 2016, 09:05 AM:

My Blackhawk "Dirty Work" is kind of soft in focus, but doesn't have the blackouts.

-on the other hand my Blackhawk "Busy Bodies" has them. ("Crap! There goes the lamp!...No!...what?")

Different negatives in different condition at different times made for variable results even in the same title.

Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on May 28, 2016, 09:24 AM:

Hah hah! And to think my Blackhawk Busy Bodies is just fine [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 28, 2016, 10:17 AM:

Mine is really nice except right at the point where we are watching the carpenters using the machines there are three of these black sequences within maybe 10 seconds.

-it's one of my favorite L&Hs too. I call it the worst industrial safety film ever made!

I'd have preferred they insert this still instead of the black frames:

-but I guess it's a little late for suggestions!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 28, 2016, 11:50 AM:

I uswed to have a silent version of this and upgraded to a sound copy a little while back. The sound copy is much better, just a tad bit dark but otherwise, a nice print.

It can be rather hit or miss with these Laurel and hardy's, whether Blackhawks or otherwise. I was looking at "Beau Hunks" yesterday and it's in the "miss" category.

However, Blackhawks sound print of "The Music Box" is stellar in every department, sound, sharpness, grain ect. I have heard on this title that in some cases, the first reel is great, and the second reel can really suffer. [Frown]

Posted by John Hermes (Member # 1367) on May 28, 2016, 12:25 PM:

My super 8 print of "One Good Turn" has many black slugs. I remember when I bought a new print of "The Music Box" back in the 1970s that it was one of the ones with a very soft second half. Blackhawk prints did vary a lot.

Posted by Jack Silverstein (Member # 5407) on May 29, 2016, 04:04 PM:

"I have nothing to say".

My Blackhawk 16mm print of Dirty Work is in
very good condition. On my 16mm One Good Turn
there are some momentary blackouts. I wonder
what causes them.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 29, 2016, 04:12 PM:

I think it's a case of damaged negatives.

Maybe Blackhawk decided the partial second of black with a continuous soundtrack was less jarring than a jump in both.

Posted by Gordon G. Ellis (Member # 4663) on May 29, 2016, 04:34 PM:

Steve K said:
"I think it's a case of damaged negatives. Maybe Blackhawk decided the partial second of black with a continuous soundtrack was less jarring than a jump in both."

This has been my understanding. Back in my earliest days as a teenage collector, I had a Super 8 silent print of Busy Bodies with those black frames. My sound print of Busy Bodies is okay — although I'm not sure exactly when it was printed.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 29, 2016, 04:55 PM:

The Dirty Work prints I had two Walton prints both weren't perfect but were sharper than the Blackhawk print which was grainy and slightly soft. The down side of the Walton prints were that they were slightly edited including the classic electric chair line from the butler.

Posted by Joseph Randall (Member # 4906) on May 29, 2016, 09:45 PM:

I went thru 6 prints of DIRTY WORK over a 30 year period before I got one that satisfied me. 3 were in Super 8, 3 in 16mm, 4 were Blackhawks, 2 were Films Classics. I settled on a 16mm Film Classics -- and even that one has an issue -- a very short main title. But the picture quality is off-the-charts great. This probably doesn't help much since you asked about Super 8.

For BEAU HUNKS, the one to get is the Blackhawk with the combination of re-issue titles and Blackhawk titles -- not the Blackhawk with Film Classics titles.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 31, 2016, 12:58 PM:

Wow! This must be a beloved short of the Lads for you to go out of you're way to get "Dirty Work".

Beau Hunks ... when you say original titles, is that the one with 'Blackhawk" for a short bit and then what appears to be "original" title cards with a stone background with the titles in front?

I love the lads but I'm not that much of an expert.

With the re-issues of the lot of these Laurel and hardy films, Blackhawk did incorporate more of the original titles when they were available. I've been quite curious about "BRATS". Every Blackhawk copy, on super 8, has been of marginal focus, not all that hot, though i have a quite old super 8 silent version of it by Blackhawk which, while the focus is about the same, the "contrast" of the print is much better with a very wide range of grey tones.

I wonder if the standard 8mm prints of this with sound, might be a little better from Blackhawk. Either that, or the original negative material just wasn't up to the par with they're other releases. Too bad, as "Brats" is definitely among my favorites.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on May 31, 2016, 01:53 PM:

Could some of these examples of black frames have come from dupes made from old vitaphone prints?
A print originaly released with vitaphone discs had blank frames joined in at damaged points so as to keep sync with the disc.
If this is the case, a dupe from a print would also account for a contrasty grainy image.
Just a suggestion.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 31, 2016, 02:17 PM:

The best Beau Hunks print was the Cinema Entertainment Company full length print. It was printed on polyester black & white stock and print and sound were superb for Laurel & Hardy. There was also an edited Derann print issued at same time on an 600' spool at Blackpool convention at the time as a spoiler. I had the full length print so never purchased Derann release.

Brats print is problematic I had Blackhawk and Derann prints both were not great but Derann was slightly better.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 31, 2016, 02:30 PM:

Allan, I like your theory.

I would expect the black sections to show wear like the rest of the film if this was the case. I think they look pretty pristine, but then again why would I pay that much attention normally?

I'll have to run my "Busy Bodies" and check it out.

EDIT: "Busy Bodies" came out in 1933 with the Western Electric Sound System.

-sound on film.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on May 31, 2016, 02:49 PM:

Thanks, Steve. I suppose wear on the original black frames would perhaps only print through if emulsion had been removed.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 31, 2016, 02:53 PM:

-good point.

Just for science, I'd like to check it out!

(-as I said: one of my favorites!)

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on May 31, 2016, 03:10 PM:

You may have hit on the vital flaw in my idea, but from what I've read, vitaphone discs were issued with prints several years through the thirties for backwood cinemas that couldn't afford to make the change to optical sound due to costs involved.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 31, 2016, 03:16 PM:

I'm seeing that too.

That's the chance you take being an early adopter of a technology.

The early bird gets the worm, but the better prepared bird that shows up second gets ALL the worms!

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 31, 2016, 03:42 PM:

We have the Walton dirty work and have to say its excellent in every way. [Wink]

Posted by Joseph Randall (Member # 4906) on May 31, 2016, 04:44 PM:

Osi,

That sounds right -- "L&H in" is re-issue title (not Film Classics), followed by "Beau Hunks" Blackhawk white-on-black title, followed by the rest of the re-issue titles. I say "re-issue" rather than "original" since they are from the 1937 re-issue, not the original 1931 issue.

The better BRATS print has a Blackhawk "L&H in" title, followed by 1937 re-issue titles.

Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on May 31, 2016, 05:10 PM:

Tom, is the walton print of Dirty Work edited down?

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 31, 2016, 05:20 PM:

I think generally its held that the std 8 Waltons were very nice. Maybe better graded etc when printed etc.

I`ve had some std 8 silent chaplins that were fantastic and you could blow up like 16mm from that tiny little frame !!!

I think that often if you get a really good Walton or Blackhawk super 8 one they can easily eaqual or even beat a lot of 16mm prints.

Probably a bit to do with the lenses as well, small house wise as super 8 ones are better that way.

Best Mark.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 31, 2016, 05:45 PM:

im not a 100 percent sure there Stuart,one thing interesting though, we recently bought the super 8 400ft edition of live ghost to replace our standard 8 400ft sound version, both are walton prints, but the standard 8 one is,as Mark says, a much better picture in both contrast and sharpness, also,dispite both being walton the standard 8 edition has a few more feet of content, this is disappointing because now we've kept both, the only reason we did not re sell the super 8 film is because the std 8 one has no titles. other than this it is the full uncut version. it is odd that the later super 8 print is slightly abridged,but this was one of the annoying things about walton.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 31, 2016, 09:38 PM:

I ran my "Busy Bodies" and the slugs didn't show any indications of wear, then again the film around them didn't particularly either.

-not a great day for science!

I lead off with my print of "What's Opera Doc?"

Before I started, I told my wife "I'm gonna kill the Wabbit!"

-she asked "Can you do it quietly?"

-What's the point?

You really can't kill the Wabbit correctly and be quiet about it!

Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on June 01, 2016, 03:44 AM:

What's Opera Doc on 8mm? Lovely! I had a 16mm print of it years back. Yes I regret selling it.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on June 01, 2016, 05:53 AM:

A fun experiment, though, Steve.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on June 01, 2016, 06:45 AM:

I bought a new Blackhawk super 8 print of Dirty Work back in the late 60's. It was disappointing. Contrasty...the sound a little dull...not quite sharp and yes, a few little black frames. Still, hilarious. The Blackhawk Laurel and Hardy's , as has been said before, are highly variable, from gorgeous (Going Bye Bye and Scram) to less than good, like Dirty Work...or at least my print of it. As Blackhawk got new negatives, it upgraded prints. So there are likely some better Blackhawks of Dirty Work out there...although the print my local TV station played back in the early 60's looked pretty bad as well.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2