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

This is topic Columbia 3 Stooges vs. Blackhawk L&H 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=006038

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on February 25, 2011, 05:54 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on February 25, 2011, 10:36 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 26, 2011, 03:42 AM:

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.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on February 26, 2011, 12:15 PM:

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.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on February 26, 2011, 04:25 PM:

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

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on February 27, 2011, 12:13 AM:

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.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on February 27, 2011, 05:43 PM:

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.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on February 28, 2011, 07:30 AM:

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.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on February 28, 2011, 05:59 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on February 28, 2011, 06:10 PM:

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.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on February 28, 2011, 08:15 PM:

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. . .

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 01, 2011, 06:11 PM:

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.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on March 03, 2011, 08:28 PM:

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

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 03, 2011, 09:12 PM:

Gosh,
I never had a problem with Castle Films.

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

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 04, 2011, 06:41 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 05, 2011, 01:30 PM:

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.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 05, 2011, 05:52 PM:

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.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on March 05, 2011, 11:11 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 05, 2011, 11:40 PM:

Tony,
I've upgraded too.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 06, 2011, 02:28 AM:

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.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 06, 2011, 05:14 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 06, 2011, 05:24 PM:

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

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 06, 2011, 05:46 PM:

Sure, no problem, Michael.
[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.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 06, 2011, 06:54 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 07, 2011, 02:32 AM:

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.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 07, 2011, 05:54 PM:

Michael D.,

Interesting -- how was image steadiness on the GS projected on the large screen? I have an ST1200, and if the print is good and well lubricated, the image is very steady, but not as steady as my Eiki 3585.

Michael O,

You are right -- all things being equal, the 16mm would have to be sharper, since the pic does not have to be magnified as much.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 07, 2011, 08:09 PM:

Tony,

The GS did not have any problem during projection. The image was steady and smooth.

I have not encountered issues with my two Eiki 3585 machines. I've had better results using film lubricants and it helped a great deal to steady the films in my film library.
The Bell & Howell 1500 series has a three pin claw which ensures stability.

I once had dream to restore a sound reflective vacuum tube cell on a 1930 model Kodascope 16mm projector.

Before the internet, it was unforeseen that online forums would exist to assist film hobbyists. Unfortunately after much searching and 25 years later, I chalked it up as a lost cause. If it was not for a major move between homes, it would have still been in the collection.
Sorry that I let the machine go.

It had the sharpest and most steady image, a variable speed control, and as a projector machines go, it purred as a finely tuned watch.

[Frown]

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 12, 2011, 07:32 PM:

I find it interesting to examine the list of Stooges shorts Columbia decided to release in 8mm/Super 8. They started out releasing edited silent versions (50 and 200 footers), then went to unedited shorts in Super 8 sound only. To my knowledge, STUDIO STOOPS and WE WANT OUR MUMMY were the only titles released edited in sound editions, in both 8mm and Super 8. I believe PARDON MY SCOTCH is the only title released in both edited (silent) and full-length versions.

For the most part, I think they made a good choice of titles -- they are some of the best Stooges shorts. Obvious omissions are YOU NAZTY SPY, A PLUMBING WE WILL GO, and I'LL NEVER HEIL AGAIN. (These are Stooge fan favorites and usually go for top dollar on eBay in 16mm.) They wisely never released any of the ones with Joe Besser. They did offer a fair amount of the Shemps, which was a good thing, since some of those shorts are very funny. I'm not sure why they released CREEPS instead of THE GHOST TALKS -- the former is a "remake" of the latter, but uses much of the same footage. Most of the edited silent ones should have been released full-length in sound.

Back to picture quality: I have never seen any of the edited versions -- are they as high quality as the full-length ones?

BTW, has anyone seen the "minisodes" that AMC has been showing? They are about 5 minute digests shown to fill out a half hour time slot following a full-length Stooges short. I like them, since it reminds me fondly of the digests most of us collectors enjoy in Super 8.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 12, 2011, 11:26 PM:

Tony,
I have not seen the minisodes. They sound very good.
Agreed, there are 200 footers that should have been released as
complete two reelers.

Whoops, I'm an Indian, is a fun abridgment and it would have been an excellent full length release.

To fill out some missing titles I picked up this title on 16mm, and it's hilarious.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on March 13, 2011, 09:56 PM:

"Cash & Carry" was also done very nicely. I have a number of the silent 200'ers and the picture quality is brilliant. Columbia didn't spare any expense on both their silent and sound titles as far as quality is concerned. I have other (non-stooges) titles in both silent and sound editions and they are just as nice as the Castle products I own. Ken was the only vendor I thought "skimped" on the quality from time to time.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 14, 2011, 06:14 PM:

I have BUZZIN' AROUND with Fatty Arbuckle, released by Ken Films.
It is silent, 200 feet (about half the original short.) It tells a complete story and if you've never seen the original you wouldn't know it was cut. (But one of the scenes cut is what gives the short its title.) And the picture quality is fantastic!

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on March 14, 2011, 10:26 PM:

Interestingly enough, I have the 50-foot BUZZIN' AROUND digest, and the print quality is totally washed out. Probably one of the worst prints I own.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 15, 2011, 06:09 PM:

John,

I didn't know that there was a 50 foot version. Curious if it has any scenes not in the 200 footer? But if the quality is that bad, probably not worth it. (Unless you just got a bad copy.)

I think I only have one 50 footer in my collection -- one of the Columbia Batman's -- BATMAN'S LAST CHANCE. You thread it up, turn on the lamp, turn off the room lights -- next thing you know -- it's over. I never "got" the 50 footers.

Do any of the Stooges 50 footers have scenes not in the 200 foot version?

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on March 16, 2011, 08:10 AM:

When I was starting out collecting...it was Standard 8 then...I was probably 11 or 12 years old ..around 1960 or so...I bought the 200 ft version..silent , of course, of the Stooges Dizzy Doctors.....outstanding quality...and I loved the subtitles...white letters on a black background..which made them so much easier to read. Well, when the short was shown on TV I taped the audio on reel to reel tape...and edited the tape ...trying to match the footage ....AND had to add little blank places in the tape because my projector would only go about 20 fps....so I had to have some way to keep things in sync. It was easy doing this on Stooges shorts since they usually had no music score. When i was finished , I was very proud of the results...and ran that film so many times....it had all kinds of lines on it. Columbia's later super 8 sound versions of the stooges films kept up the good quality work.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 16, 2011, 05:18 PM:

Gary,
You're not alone, I had done the same on an audio cassette.
with Laurel and Hardy, and Abbott and Costello.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on March 16, 2011, 06:06 PM:

And of course there was Americom...

I only recently discovered that Blackhawk released a 50 foot version of BIG BUSINESS with Laurel and Hardy.

Now what about the Blackhawk silent releases of sound L&Hs -- did they have superimposed titles?

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on March 16, 2011, 09:26 PM:

The Blackhawk silent releases of the sound editions
did not have superimposed titles. It had caption
cards as a silent film.
Way Out West and Saps at Sea, had minimal caption cards.

It was easy to follow the story and dialog, and when I used
an edited audio soundtrack from their films, all it took was to
press the pause key on the cassette recorder, in order to keep the sound in sync.

The Regular 8mm silent versions of Way Out West (400 feet) and
Saps at Sea (600 feet,) had sharper quality than the Super 8mm full length features.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2