Sound Quality in Restored Films

[BigLAR]

The sound quality in "Sherlock Holmes and the Woman in Green" (8:00 PM July 24 EDT) was very poor. The film quality was excellant. Why wasn't the sound remastered?

[FredCDobbs]

I thought the film image quality was pretty bad too. It looked like a copy of a 16 mm print.

 

Back in the 1950s and ?60s, the Hollywood movie companies took their best old 35 mm prints of some old movies and they reduced them to 16 mm prints for distribution to TV stations. The usually made 16 mm inter-negatives, then made positive 16 mm prints from the inter-negatives.

 

Generally, the film image went through one machine, and the film was rewound and it was put through a different machine to copy the sound track. Over the years, sometimes this happened again and again, with 16 mm prints being made from 16 mm negatives and later new 16 mm negatives being made from old 16 mm prints, so during each copy generation, the sound and picture were degraded in quality.

 

Some times the image held up better, while other times the sound track quality remaind good. But, if during any stage of copying the print you saw, if there was a problem with the sound track or with the picture image, even if the problem occurred during copying 50 years ago, the problem would generaly remain on all subsequent copies.

 

An optical sound track recorder had an exposure setting, since a little light was used to record and copy the sound track. Sometimes the track would be over or under exposed, and this would degrade the quality and increase the hissing and noise level on all subsequent copies. Sometimes the image of the picture would be properly exposed, but the sound track would not be properly exposed.

 

It would be possible to enhance both the picture and audio of a bad old print when they are copied over to modern video tape, but they can?t be enhanced very much. Also, whoever does the copying to modern video tape is stuck with the quality of the sound and picture on whichever 16 mm print they have to work with.

 

On one network at one time, you might see a good copy of the same film with a good sound track. But on another network at another time, or on the same network at another time, you might see a print with a bad picture or a bad sound track or both.

 

Generally the best ?restored? prints of old films are made from a high quality 35 mm copy, which has a larger picture size and a large optical sound track than a 16 mm copy has. In some cases with films that are not too old, they can make restored copies from a print that is just one or two generations away from the original camera negative.

[Snarfie]

Fred - thanks for 16 & 35 101.

I know nothing about this stuff.

I should say knew nothing.

[filmlover]

I think "Sherlock Holmes and the Woman in Green" is possibly one of the films in public domain, and that is one of the prints that is out there. There definitely is a much better version. Take a look at the MPI DVD release in the Sherlock Holmes Collection that came out a few years ago. These were restored in 35mm by UCLA and they are terrific, far superior to any TV prints I have seen.

[yanceycravat]

I noticed that the Universal logo was not at the beginning of this print. I'm pretty sure the MPI versions restored it to all the films.

 

I thought the sound was pretty bad too.

 

That film was from the 1940's... How did Universal loose the negs or 35mm prints to that franchise? That's pretty sad.

 

Yancey

[filmlover]

I am not sure of all the facts but I did find this review of the first set released by MPI and if you go to this site and then scroll down to "The Evidence" you will see a description about the lapse of rights and the restoration:

 

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/holmescoll1.php

[RockyRoad]

Hey Fred I've learned more about how films were made and the techniques they had from you than when I went to college and took a course in film-making. Obviously you were in the business and probably could project your knowledge better than any Professor in college is able to! I sincerely thank you for your explanations and also for your humor in your responses to some really serious threads that get out of hand! Thank You!

[FredCDobbs]

Thanks!

 

Lol, I can't be a Professor because I don't have a college degree.

 

Fred

[JackBurley]

You don't have to have a degree to teach in college; those with exceptional experience will do...

[CineSage_jr]

A college professor, and a college instructor, are two different things, though the bottom line is that both teach.

 

The overall resposibilities -- and rewards -- are different, with the former needing a degree (usually at least a Master's) to be accorded the title (and salary) of professor.

 

Still, a teacher demonstrating exceptional gifts may be elevated to the position of adjunct or associate professor, without having all the academic bona fides in his/her r?sum?.

[JackBurley]

Silly CineSage, I grew up in the academic world and worded my post very carefully to reflect its truth...