8mm Forum: In Praise of early Blackhawk ...

This is topic In Praise of early Blackhawk ... 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=010686

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 07, 2016, 12:59 PM:

I must give our own Shorty great credit for getting me back into collecting standard 8mm, as I decided to upgrade my Blackhawk collection of silent era Laurel and hardy shorts ...

... and, at least in the case of the ones that I have selected to find, the image quality is by far, much better on the early standard 8mm releases, than any of the super 8 prints that came out later. I think it was Shorty or another person that stated that these early releases were very close if not equaling 16MM quality, and it's no lie!

Many thanks Shorty.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 07, 2016, 02:40 PM:

Interesting - I wonder what caused the Super 8 ones to be worse?

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on May 08, 2016, 08:14 AM:

Not worse - Depending on the lab work, the majority of Super 8's were excellent, yet, like any gauge there is always the hazy print or one out of sync (slightly) - Nothing's always ideal - Std 8 began in 1932 and any pre-print material was from 16mm (and 35) - Naturally, you're bound to receive a top-notch print fro such negs - Thanks for the kudo, Osi, but I think many already know Blackhawk's reputation which precedes them - Shorty

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 09, 2016, 11:57 AM:

On the whole, I've found standard 8mm prints to be vastly superior to Super 8 prints of the same title. Once Super 8 really took off in the 1970s, I'm afraid it fell victim to lesser quality control in order to rush prints out to customers -- hence the "get'em out the door" lesser quality of many Super 8 prints of the same title.

Even the "esteemed" Blackhawk wasn't immune, as I have several Blackhawk Super 8 prints with washed out faces, beyond soft focus, etc., as compared to their standard 8mm brethren. Let's not allow the passage of time or pining for the past cloud the reality that many Super 8 prints of that era were just plain awful and a crap shoot.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 09, 2016, 12:06 PM:

In some regards, to be fair, some super 8 did improve over time ...

The early MGM super 8 opticals features were absolutely atrocious for image quality! They took what must have been 16MM copies that were bad to begin with, and made super 8 from that. I have a full feature print of "Westworld" from 1974 that goes from barely passable focus to literally "un-focus-able" (yeah, that's probably not a word) ... lacking focus, all in the same print ...

Yet, later on, they're print quality on super 8 optical sound features drastically improved by the late 70's and continued to be "drop jaw" outstanding for the rest of the super 8 optical sound feature run, (ending in 89).

What was so bizarre to me, is that, on the same print as "The Man who Loved Cat Dancing", (a feature I used to have), there would be a 10 minute comedy short from the 1950's (B/W in sepia tone), and the image quality would be incredible, all from the same studio.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 09, 2016, 12:34 PM:

That inconsistency in quality of prints of that era, coupled with large cash outlays, really tried my patience with film prints. However, the general consensus seems to be, "Well, 'dems da' breaks" or "just re-record the soundtrack" ??????😯

Call me crazy, but if I'm laying out a big chunk of dough, my expectation is that, outside of some understandable imperfections in a negative, the (new) film print should be damn-near perfect -- and why not? We would expect that of any other product, even if it represents less cost than a new film print. Who among us would put up with muffled sound on a $12 CD?

I know that some people will respond that Derann produced good prints in the later years, such as the Disney prints. That was because they negotiated and obtained legal rights to those negatives -- which is required when one is working with copyrighted works.

Posted by Joseph Randall (Member # 4906) on May 09, 2016, 08:59 PM:

Osi,

Which L&H titles have you upgraded? Curious to compare with my experience.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 11, 2016, 01:57 PM:

I'm just into upgrading my silents, thus far ...

Double Whoopee, (only the second printing of the title, standard 8mm), and "Big Business" (very first run of this title by Blackhawk) ...

In fact, I will do a review of Big Business in a week or two for the review section, which may be a very special, first time ever, review!

Posted by Joseph Randall (Member # 4906) on May 11, 2016, 05:06 PM:

I have both those titles in Super 8 and Standard 8mm.
I prefer the Super 8 in each case simply because I have better equipment to project it on, but otherwise I would say they are equally good. I have a 3rd copy of BIG BUSINESS in Super 8 which is from the European negative, with different camera angles, and has superior picture quality to the other 2.

BTW, how do you know if it's the second printing or run of a title? I know you can look at the date code to approximate when it was printed, but other than that how can you tell?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 13, 2016, 11:53 AM:

Are you referring to the "Big Business" with music track? I have that re-release as well, and maybe it's just because it was printed a little too bright, but the negative they used (or the original source material was already that way) was more worn overall compared to the U.S. version, as well as, in the case of my print, not quite as sharp ...

... but I must admit, I'll keep it as well as it is interesting to see the same film with different angles, and it is a fun one to project, side to side with the U.S. version!

Posted by Joseph Randall (Member # 4906) on May 13, 2016, 08:36 PM:

Yes, the BIG BUSINESS with the music track. Perhaps you got a later printing after the negative was worn out.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2