8mm Forum: Easy Street Blackhawk Sound Print

This is topic Easy Street Blackhawk Sound Print in forum 8mm Print Reviews at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000465

Posted by Joseph Banfield (Member # 2082) on July 06, 2012, 05:38 PM:

Usually I love the quality of Blackhawk prints but "Easy Street" in its sound version is not one of those. Perhaps I have a defective print but mine is just terrible. There is no problem with the sound on the film. The problem is with the picture, which is lovely shades of gray and white with no true blacks to be found. The contrast is quite weak but the picture is sharp. The first 5 minutes of the film shows a hair that was printed right into the film. The bottom one eigth of the picture shows some sort of faint image that was printed in the film and shows throughout the entire film. This was a big dissapointment from Blackhawk as I own the same film by them in the silent version which shows true blacks, no hairs, nor any supperimposed image at the bottom of the screen. I would not reccomend the sound version of this film to anyone, if my copy is anything to go by. I would reccomend that anyone thinking of picking up this title stick with the silent version, which is remarkably better in all regards!

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 07, 2012, 09:48 AM:

This seems to be an on-going issue with Blackhawk titles that were issued in both sound and subtitled silent versions. I have several L&H titles that, for some mysterious reason or another, the picture quality of the silent versions are a night and day comparison. I can't imagine they were printed at different labs with different negs. I've seen other B/H titles that were from other collections over the years and noticed the same thing.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 07, 2012, 09:56 AM:

My sound print of Easy Street is pretty good, but certainly not the best quality.
Not all Blackhawk prints live up to their stellar reputation. My Laurel and Hardy print of Dirty Work is awful, with totally washed out highlights so you can hardly see their faces!
On the other hand my 400ft print pf the Little Rascals Hook And Ladder is stunning quality.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 09, 2012, 12:33 PM:

I forget when, (someone who's in the know can verify when this happened), but Blackhawk did switch to a different film lab, sometime in the 70's.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on July 09, 2012, 01:01 PM:

Out of curiosity I screened my super 8 sound copy of "Easy Street" and while portions of it did seem a little washed out it was pretty good and I did not see a printed in hair or the super imposed image along the bottom. My print is in the yellow Chaplin box. I also have the standard 8mm silent copy but I did not screen that one to compare. So maybe not all of them are alike.

Bill [Smile]

Posted by Zechariah Sporre (Member # 2358) on July 10, 2012, 07:25 PM:

My Easy Street Sound film sounds like it is quite a bit better then what you are describing. I've been very content with the picture sharpness and quality. Although, I must admit I did have a Reg 8mm silent before and I believe it was a tad better quality.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on July 19, 2012, 06:51 PM:

Don't have Easy Street, but just for comparison consider the Super 8 silent print of "Two Tars" where the negative was dated right on the leader (1969) and the print was made around 1972. The sharpness wasn't bad, however, it had no blacks either and ranged from slightly washed out to gray.

Given the possibility of a bad day at the lab, or the odd source material problem, this happening once in awhile isn't surprising. But that big of a variance on different versions of the same title is.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on July 19, 2012, 07:24 PM:

Regarding EASY STREET (and all the other Chaplin Mutuals, for that matter): There were at least 2 different negatives used by Blackhawk -- pre and post December 1975. Starting with the latter date, they were made from restored Van Beuren negatives (or lavendars or fine grains). In some cases, the picture quality was better pre-Dec 1975. (THE RINK, for one.) The Van Beurens were usually more complete, though the pre Dec 1975 ones sometimes had scenes not in the Van Beurens. I only have the Van Beuren EASY STREET, and it isn't bad at all. The pre Dec 1975 THE RINK was made from a Kodascope source and is absolutely superb, if a bit choppy in some scenes. I much prefer it to the Van Beuren. If you got a bad Van Beuren EASY STREET (which it must be since it has sound), you probably just got a bad printing.I have all 12 Van Beuren Mutuals, and they are all very sharp with good contrast. I have most, but not all, in pre Van Beurens, and only THE RINK I prefer in terms of picture quality. The earlier ONE A.M. is worth getting for the extra scenes.

Now for TWO TARS -- that was also restored by Blackhawk in 1975. I have seen many copies of the restored version (in 8mm, Super 8, and 16mm) and they were all great. I have never seen a pre-1975 print, but I have heard that they are not as good. They have all re-made titles and one title card is actually missing.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on July 20, 2012, 10:03 AM:

I think sometimes the mists of time gloss over some things -- that is, Blackhawk prints weren't always as pristine as our fond memories sometimes generalize. There's no question that Blackhawk was at the top of the collecting peak in terms of prints offered and reputation. However, I have several Laurel & Hardy (sound) Blackhawks in which the faces are simply a glob of white. However, my Our Gang Blackhawks are generally excellent.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 21, 2012, 02:29 PM:

I will never forget the first time I received the Blackhawk catalogue in the mail , back in 1974. I just could not believe the variety and number of films available. That catalogue was really thick and must have had thousands of titles for sale. This prompted me to purchase my first ever super 8mm sound film -a Little Rascals title, and I was blown over by the print quality when I received it.
There was no greater joy than getting that catalogue every month and browsing throught it for hours on end, to finally select a film to buy.

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on July 21, 2012, 08:20 PM:

It's odd. I have both a Super 8 Sound and 16mm copy of "Hide & Shriek" that are just beautiful in every way. Then I have L&H titles and other Rascals titles in S8S and 16mm (often the same titles) that are so sub-par in quality one can't believe they're from the same company. I have CASTLE titles in both formats that are always identical in quality.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on July 22, 2012, 07:25 PM:

I have about 50 Little Rascals (Hal Roach Our Gang talkies) in Super 8 sound from Blackhawk. Many are stunning quality. Most are way above average. The only really poor one is OUR GANG FOLLIES OF 1938.

I have seen just about every Laurel and Hardy that Blackhawk released in either Super 8 or Standard 8mm. They are a mixed bag. Some are stunning; some are poor. The 16mm Blackhawk of the same title is usually leaps and bounds better than its Super 8 equivalent for L&H talkies. The L&H silents (originally released as such) are usually superb in both Standard 8mm and Super 8.

I think that the L&H talkies were Blackhawk's biggest sellers, and they might have cut corners to keep up with the demand for prints in Super 8. At least that's my theory -- quality based on the sampling of prints I have seen, and the fact that I've seen so many L&H titles listed on eBay over the years -- much more than any other Blackhawk.

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on July 25, 2012, 05:54 PM:

Paul has the dreaded softness in Dirty Work, and this was also a problem
with the standard 8mm silent version of the sound edition.

Paul is correct. The super 8mm Hook and Ladder, as well as the
Moan and Groan Inc. are of exceptional quality of the Rascals releases.

Tony's extensive knowledge is correct.

Blackhawk mostly used the Film Classics negs.

Roach sold the films to the Film Classics company for all of the later
re-releases.

Details about the 16mm releases can be explained in another posting.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on July 26, 2012, 03:41 PM:

Thanks Michael.

Continued here:

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000785

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2