FredCDobbs
-
Posts
25,502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Posts posted by FredCDobbs
-
-
Ok, try this code, except replace the first parenthesis with a left arrow
(img src=http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T577/Students/baby.jpg height =40 width =30>
You can also increase the numbers for a larger picture, but don't go much larger than 400 x 300 or 300 x 400.
The actual url of the photo in the code is:
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T577/Students/baby.jpg
-
> Why do you keep saying that many old films can?t be
> dubbed to tape because it is ?too expensive??>>
>
> Fred,
>
> I don't mean to imply that they can't be dubbed
> because it's too expensive.
>
> Studios such as Universal and Paramount don't put
> major dollars into transferring their titles. The
> problem is that they aren't exactly burning the
> midnight oil (or anything else) to transfer their
> classic libraries. They are using those dollars to
> transfer their older television shows because the
> demand for those is higher than their classic films.
>
> Warners (which owns the biggest studio library)
> believes in restoring their films. Not every film
> gets a full restoration but the RKO library suffered
> a great deal of damage back in the late 1950s and
> early 1960s when their films were aired on
> television.
>
> So, many of those films they have to go back to the
> fine grains or the original elements because the
> prints are badly damaged. And Warner tends to
> believe (or at least they act as if they do) if they
> are going to have go that far they may as well do a
> good job.
>
> It's a situation with a number of different problems
> and different solutions.
>
> The biggest hurdle is the fact that not every studio
> cares about the films in their classic library and as
> long as they don't care about them, they aren't
> getting transferred.
Ok, that makes more sense.
For everyone here, why don't you describe the difference between an release print and the "fine grains" and the "original elements".
I'll take a stab at it and you can correct me where I'm wrong.
A "release print" is a regular print of a film that was sent around to the different theaters for showing to the public. A lot of old release prints still exist, but the problem with old release prints today is that they are dirty and scratched, and the color has faded on color prints. Also a few might have broken spots in them and a few missing scenes.
The "fine grains" are the... original camera films? Or copies of them? Some films had an "internegative" made from which all release prints were made. This method tends to preserve the quality of the original camera film. Some "internegatives" are still in good shape, but others are worn out.
Not all films ever made and that are still in existance have been dubbed to any kind of tape or have been copied from film to film recently, so some films sit in the storage vaults of the studios. Hundreds of them, thousands of them. Most networks don't show "films" any more through a film projector, they show tapes of films. If a tape is damaged it can easily be replaced. If a film print is damaged, the damage usually stays with it unless the studio can find an early undamaged "earlier generation copy" of the film or the original camera negative.
So, Lz, I think you are trying to say that there are a lot of old films still in vaults that have not been copied and have not been dubbed to any kind of tape, and we want to see copies of ALL THE DANGED FILMS that Hollywood still has in its vaults, right? But, some of those film have some problems such as film damage, so it's not an easy matter of just going to the vault, taking out an old copy of an old film and dubbing it directly to a tape, since many of the old films need some kind of repair or restoration before they can be dubbed.
Is that correct?
For example, where are the old original camera negatives of the Bowrey Boys films? Why do we see old 16 mm prints of them on TCM, when they were originally shot and released in 35 mm prints? Of course I'd rather see a 16 mm fuzzy print than no print at all, but somewhere, hopefully, the original 35 mm copies or original negs exist in some vaults, and someday in the future we can see restored 35 mm prints of them.
-
I still don?t know what you mean. I dubbed a 3/4 tape to D-2 so we could enlarge the image, and then we dubbed it back down to 3/4 for on the air play. There was no more expense than dubbing from analog to analog. Filmchain projectors can dub a film to anything.
Film dubbing to tape is not that expensive. Not every film has to be ?fully restored? before it can be dubbed to tape, for example all the Bowery Boys films we see on TCM and other 16 mm prints that are common. There is no special equipment needed to dub a 16 mm or 35 mm print to tape or analog tape to digital tape.
Why do you keep saying that many old films can?t be dubbed to tape because it is ?too expensive??
-
> I was under the impression that the supply of the
> older movies was much lower than before due to not
> being digital.>>
>
>
> Yes, that is true.
I don?t understand what you mean about digital. When digital was first invented all we had to do was plug a cable from an analog recorder into a digital recorder and make the dub. What are you saying is different today?
I did some editing from analog to digital and back down to analog. All we had to do was run cables from and to the different machines.
We?ve seen many old 16 mm prints on TCM. All any video company has to do is thread a 16mm or 35 mm film up in a TV/film projector and record it, and dubs can be made to digital recorders.
I don?t know what you mean by films ?not being on digital tape? yet.
-
I'm glad that was it.
There is another interesting and similar film, about a group of POWs at the end of the War being moved from Holland toward Germany. If they get into Germany they all will die. So all the train people in Holland conspire to slow the train down. This is based on a true story. Lol, I can't remember the name of the movie.
-
>
> Oh, CC... I feel your pain with dial-up. It has
> taught me patience, though; which I have very little
> of.
>
>
If you are using Internet Explorer, go to the top of this screen and click on ?Tools?, then click on ?Internet Options,? then click on ?Advanced,? then scroll down and click the check mark on ?Show Pictures?. Then click ?Apply? and then ?OK?. This will turn off many of the photos on pages that download and have photos, and this will make the text download quicker.
If you want to see a photo, right click on it and click on ?Show Picture? then it will load.
You can always go back and click the check mark on ?Show Pictures? and ?Apply? and ?OK,? and that will return you to the full picture service.
-
-
> Many of the scenes are from Kubrick's "The Killing"
> with Sterling Hayden. The dance hall, the girl with
> the fur, the car next to the bridge, the guy taking
> tickets (for the dance hall.)
Hi Mitchy,
I think the scenes are from Kubrick's "A Killer's Kiss" from 1955. I used to think the scenes were shot just for the promo, but they turn up in this film. The movie wasn't very good, but a lot of the New York scenes were very good.
Fred
-
Thanks for the information.
-
> What a nation of jaded individuals we have become.
> This movie was made 9 years after WWII had ended,
> everything was great here in the U.S. We had a fine
> president that we all loved even though we were
> unsure of his policies, he was an American war hero
> and that was enough for us. Now this next part is
> going to sound hokey and I know it, but I'm speaking
> from a 1954 movie fans' view.
>
> All we do is talk about how dumb the people were,
> how dumb the airports were, and how foolishly the
> dialog was given, instead of looking at the
> perspective of two pilots trying to save their plane
> and passengers rather than taking a chance on them
> drowning or dying from exposure. That was the
> point of the movie. Seeing it in 1954, the
> ending would have been cheered and I believe it was,
> because the audience didn't want to see all those
> people harmed (like they seem to want to nowadays.)
> The airports were lax in security because there
> were no crazy people trying to hi-jack our passenger
> planes, they learned what America did to those
> people when the Lusitania was sunk 30 years earlier.
> As for smoking, everybody smoked at the time, you
> almost never heard, 'no thanks, I don't
> smoke' then, it was as common as wearing shoes.
> This movie was made in one of the rosiest periods
> in U.S. history, everything was great and we all
> loved one another. We didn't lock our doors and we
> could walk through the park at night, and we didn't
> worry about our kids being abducted. I know it
> happened, and we just were not informed as much, but
> that could very well be where a lot of our problems
> started - all the media info, giving ideas to nuts
> on how to do things. I digress.
>
> Try to watch vintage movies with the mindset of the
> audiences who watched them in their first runs, and
> you may come away with a different perspective of the
> story itself.
>
> Anne
YAAAY!
-
> Yes, I suppose so. The commentator mentioned this as
> well as not knowing reason why the woman fell for
> Hodiak's character.
Hey, the beautiful dame always falls for the hero of the movie.
The most unbelievable case of this was when Janet Leigh fell in love with Frank Sinatra on the train in The Manchurian Candidate. He was cracking up and acting crazy, but hey, he was Frank Sinatra.
-
> I drive a 1995 Saturn SCII with 150,000 miles on it
> (her Name is Betty) Why? I have no Idea.
>
> Fred, When I first learned to drive (back when Grant
> was a Cadet) I had a 1962 Studebaker Lark Convertable
> (loved it) But My parents always took it from me, so
> they could "Drive in Style" with the top down.
I love convertables. They were popular with the girls back in the '50s and '60s.
-
> Fred, you might like this site:
>
> http://www.nsra-usa.com/gallery/08_2006/index.html
Thanks for the link. We could make a gangster movie with all those old cars.
-
> What a great comedy! This movie was a laugh-a-minute
> ride for me.
American movie audiences have certainly become acustomed to a lot more violence and tension in recent years.
-
> Very disappointed when I finally saw it recently. Not
> at all the classic I remembered--in fact, it was so
> hokey I thought I was watching one of the "Airplane"
> spoofs. Just awful in every department--not to
> mention the most badly dated airline film ever--with
> no security precautions, handgun on board, smokers,
Ahh, the good old days!
I remember the time when I was able to take a machete on board on a flight from El Salvador to the US. All the flight attendant said was that she would have to store it in a safe compartment in the pilot's cabin. I guess so it wouldn't go flying around if we hit some turbulance.
-
I found this that says the same airport has been in use since 1927:
-
I just found something on Google that says the current airport was in use in the 1940s.
-
I think San Francisco has had as many as three different airports.
In a 1930s Warren William movie he drove to the airport which seemed to be near downtown, perhaps in the Marina District.
I think the last airport was opened in 1955, south of town.
-
> My dream car is a Studebaker, but I want a 53 to 55
> Champion or President - and it would be my daily
> driver. I feel the old cars were made much better
> than cars of today, plus you could fix them.
Those were the ultra modern designs.
Mine looked like this but without the sunvisor.
http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Studebaker/1937StudebakerDictator4DoorCruisingSedan-ja6a.jpg
-
You deserve the Google Search of the Month award for finding that German schedule.
-
I found a lot of sites in German that spoke of TCM, including message boards, but nothing mentioned the German schedule.
I used all sorts of search terms like:
klassische filme Deutscher Zeitplan
Hollywood Klassiker
Internationale Programme
Turner Broadcasting System Deutschland GmbH
TCM als digitale Sender in Europa einzuf?hren
.....but nothing turned up.
-
> Didn't anybody else watch either of these when they
> first aired on TCM in 9/05?
I haven't seen either before this week.
-
>Ground Hog Day
> was scheduled to run in a 2 Hour slot (8-10pm ET)
> Yet when I just checked the log of what's recorded,
> I see the DVR Recorded 1 Hour 57 minutes.
> ( I normally never see this unless there was a loss
> of signal
> from the SAT - like getting "Rained Out").
I watched the whole film on Direct TV and I didn't see any problem with it. I'm not sure exactly when it ended.
-
Films like that have an interesting history.
In the 19th Century, guys would go on adventures around the world and then return home and rent a theater and sell tickets, and they would show a still-photo slide show of their trip and give a lecture about it. Audiences flocked to these showings. In fact, Mark Twain made some money doing this in the late 1860s.
Then early in the 20th Century guys would go on these adventures to far-off places, where they would shoot silent films, and they would rent a theater and narrate the movies they shot on the trip.
There is an interesting 1929 drama movie about such a guy titled "Behind That Curtain". This is an early sound film that TCM sometimes shows.
Finally the big studios started releasing these kinds of films as a complete documentary and run it with a drama as a double-feature. I saw a couple of them in a theater in the early 1950s. They were like educational films and National Geographic documentaries.
who are we all
in Hot Topics
Posted
This is a left arrow:
<