Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

This forum is nearly identical to the previous forum. The difference? Discussions about comedy from the SOUND era.
Rob Farr
Godfather
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Our Nation's Capitol

Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby Rob Farr » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:49 am

Watching Speedy and Welcome Danger back to back on TCM was a perfect illustration of this. Speedy looked like it was shot yesterday. Crystal sharp, with rock steady registration and perfect exposure. Then Welcome Danger came on: soft, grainy and flickering exposure. Both were presumably shot on panchromatic film stock and both were restored prints, so why should the addition of sound make such a difference in the look of the film? And this isn't unique to these two prints. It applies to almost any studio.
Rob Farr
"If it's not comedy, I fall asleep" - Harpo Marx

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby Richard M Roberts » Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:37 pm

Rob Farr wrote:Watching Speedy and Welcome Danger back to back on TCM was a perfect illustration of this. Speedy looked like it was shot yesterday. Crystal sharp, with rock steady registration and perfect exposure. Then Welcome Danger came on: soft, grainy and flickering exposure. Both were presumably shot on panchromatic film stock and both were restored prints, so why should the addition of sound make such a difference in the look of the film? And this isn't unique to these two prints. It applies to almost any studio.


Contrasts went to hell when Western Electric's variable density soundtrack came in. If the print was too dark, the sound would stink, and you know sound was the most important thing in 1929. So a lot of early sound films shot on Western Electric's sound on film system look pretty lousy, especially if they only survive today in positive print form. That is one thing Warner Brothers Sound on Disc system had over some sound on film processes, they could still have great picture quality and wider range of sound, even if there were occasional synchronization issues.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Bob Birchard

Re: Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby Bob Birchard » Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:07 pm

Sound track density really had nothing to do with picture quality. Sound tracks were printed from a separate sound negative roll, and were timed cut to cut just like the picture negative would be in printing. The only time density would be a factor would be if the composite print were improperly developed. The major factors that contribute to lesser picture quality would more likely include--incandescent rather than arc lighting (arc lamps sputtered and hissed and could not be used for sound). Shooting through a layer of glass (either from a sound proof booth or a more portable blimp--this added an extra layer of glass between the lens and the action). Smaller picture area (Silent films were shot full aperture 1.33:1--sound films (at least after October 1930) were composed for Academy aperture 1:37:1 with the picture area reduced to accommodate the sound track and wider frame lines top and bottom to return to am approximation of the 1.33 aperture after a brief flirtation with the 1:18:1 Movietone aperture. but in the particular case you bring up, what survived on "Welcome Danger" was Lloyd's 1929 print (which was actually about a reel longer than the version that was actually released). Lloyd did not have the original negative in his vault in the 1960s. I believe on "Speedy" he either had the original negative or a lavender/finegrain to work with, at least to provide the source material from which the current restoration was made. Duping from prints tends to make for more grain and contrast.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby Richard M Roberts » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:10 am

Bob Birchard wrote:Sound track density really had nothing to do with picture quality. Sound tracks were printed from a separate sound negative roll, and were timed cut to cut just like the picture negative would be in printing. The only time density would be a factor would be if the composite print were improperly developed.






Bob, this was exactly my point. In making the composite prints for those early talkies with a variable density track, the density for the soundtrack was more important than the picture, heavier contrasts caused distortion and in many cases the picture quality was sacrificed to get a clearer soundtrack. WELCOME DANGER is a good demonstration. The picture quality of the silent version is far sharper and had much better contrast in the majority of it than the sound version (which again, was indeed taken from a positive print, not neg material) and the sound version looks like a lot of the early grey lower contrast talkie prints.






The major factors that contribute to lesser picture quality would more likely include--incandescent rather than arc lighting (arc lamps sputtered and hissed and could not be used for sound). Shooting through a layer of glass (either from a sound proof booth or a more portable blimp--this added an extra layer of glass between the lens and the action). Smaller picture area (Silent films were shot full aperture 1.33:1--sound films (at least after October 1930) were composed for Academy aperture 1:37:1 with the picture area reduced to accommodate the sound track and wider frame lines top and bottom to return to am approximation of the 1.33 aperture after a brief flirtation with the 1:18:1 Movietone aperture. but in the particular case you bring up, what survived on "Welcome Danger" was Lloyd's 1929 print (which was actually about a reel longer than the version that was actually released). Lloyd did not have the original negative in his vault in the 1960s. I believe on "Speedy" he either had the original negative or a lavender/finegrain to work with, at least to provide the source material from which the current restoration was made. Duping from prints tends to make for more grain and contrast.
[/quote]



Sorry Bob, shooting through glass may make for a fuzzier shot, but it's not going to change the contrasts in the shot that radically, nor will incandescent lighting make an entire print, with outdoor scenes as well, far more grey than contrasty throughout an entire print.That's labwork and duping, and you can find many examples of complaints about print quality in the 1929-30 Harrison's Reports, and the reason I gave above being given as one of the main reasons for this problem.


In any event, we can argue this further face to face on Friday night.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Bob Birchard

Re: Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby Bob Birchard » Mon May 10, 2010 1:52 pm

Richard M Roberts wrote: Bob, this was exactly my point. In making the composite prints for those early talkies with a variable density track, the density for the soundtrack was more important than the picture, heavier contrasts caused distortion and in many cases the picture quality was sacrificed to get a clearer soundtrack. WELCOME DANGER is a good demonstration. The picture quality of the silent version is far sharper and had much better contrast in the majority of it than the sound version (which again, was indeed taken from a positive print, not neg material) and the sound version looks like a lot of the early grey lower contrast talkie prints.


Sorry we didn't get to duke it out while you were in town, but your example on "Welcome Danger" doesn't hold water. The original negative (or most of it) survived on the silent version of "Welcome Danger." so it was possible to make a new finegrain from that source, which was augmented by footage from the talkie where footage was missing or decomposed in the silent version. The picture sharpness difference has got to be in your imagination vis a vis the manner in which the film was shot--since the silent version is largely made up of alternate takes from the same camera and lighting set ups used in the talkie. The main difference is that the talkie is duped from a 1929 print, and the silent is (largely) duped from a modern day fine grain master positive. The one studio for which a substantial number of original nitrate release prints survives from this era is Paramount, and I've seen any number of them projected in nitrate with both arc lamps and Xenon, and I've also seen many original nitrate prints of silent films--a number of these viewings in back-to-back settings years ago, and I can tell you theat there was not a nickel's worth of difference in the contrast and density of original 1927 Paramount nitrate silents and 1929 Paramount nitrate talkies. There is no comparable record for other studios. Most of the Fox stuff that survives comes from work prints in the silent era, and single system work prints in the early talkie era. There just aren't a lot of release prints to compare. The Warner and First National stuff available today all comes from later dupes, since Vitaphone did not have an optical track, and no one to speak of can play Vitaphone in a theater setting today.

Early nitrate print stocks are rather poor sources for making dupe negatives--and this was especially true when many films were copied in the 1960s and 1970s when duping stocks were not nearly as good as they are today. The reasons, primarily are that early prints tended to be contrasty and grainy, and those factors are exacerbated in the duping process. Contrast adjustments are made in printing the dupes to minimize this effect--and again is was common in the 1970s to overcompensate for contrast to make flatter prints for TV, which was deemed to be the ultimate venue for these films.

Because the sound track neg and the picture neg were printed separately it was not much of a challenge to print these elements so that they would both be fine when developed to the established density standards for each studio. Proper development is desirable in printing variable density tracks, and contrast build-up can lead to distortion--but primarily, when working with original density track negatives printed at a proper light this is not much of an issue. Generally speaking, the darker the positive track the lower the sound output level and the lighter the positive track the higher the sound level.


Sorry Bob, shooting through glass may make for a fuzzier shot, but it's not going to change the contrasts in the shot that radically, nor will incandescent lighting make an entire print, with outdoor scenes as well, far more grey than contrasty throughout an entire print.That's labwork and duping, and you can find many examples of complaints about print quality in the 1929-30 Harrison's Reports, and the reason I gave above being given as one of the main reasons for this problem.



I don't doubt that exhibitors were complaining about picture quality in 1929-'30--but the primary factor that contributed to poor picture quaility in theaters at that time was the mesh screen that became necessary with the introduction of sound and placing speakers behind the screen. Light loss was tremendous, and higher gain screen materials were not available.

In any event, none of these factors should be much of an issue today, because they can all be comnpensated for in the lab, and modern prints (which are most of what we see) should not be affected. The film can de developed for the best picture contrast, and the variable area sound tracks used today (for the most part) can tolerate a wider range of development. What can't be compensated for is the manner in which the pictures were shot. Inky lighting did cut down on contrast on the stage; shooting through glass did diffuse the light reaching the lens to some extent. From a lab point of view the main issue with sound was that it necessitated automated development. In the rack and tank days, footage was processed by hand, and one finds very little timing difference from shot to shot in a silent cut camera negative because the development could be controlled in the lab--with sound processing film was developed at a constant rate and temperature, resulting in more shot to shot variation. True, one can force develop film, but it is impractical to do it on a shot for shot basis like you could in the rack and tank era.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon May 10, 2010 3:17 pm

Bob Birchard wrote:
Richard M Roberts wrote: Bob, this was exactly my point. In making the composite prints for those early talkies with a variable density track, the density for the soundtrack was more important than the picture, heavier contrasts caused distortion and in many cases the picture quality was sacrificed to get a clearer soundtrack. WELCOME DANGER is a good demonstration. The picture quality of the silent version is far sharper and had much better contrast in the majority of it than the sound version (which again, was indeed taken from a positive print, not neg material) and the sound version looks like a lot of the early grey lower contrast talkie prints.


Sorry we didn't get to duke it out while you were in town, but your example on "Welcome Danger" doesn't hold water. The original negative (or most of it) survived on the silent version of "Welcome Danger." so it was possible to make a new finegrain from that source, which was augmented by footage from the talkie where footage was missing or decomposed in the silent version. The picture sharpness difference has got to be in your imagination vis a vis the manner in which the film was shot--since the silent version is largely made up of alternate takes from the same camera and lighting set ups used in the talkie. The main difference is that the talkie is duped from a 1929 print, and the silent is (largely) duped from a modern day fine grain master positive. The one studio for which a substantial number of original nitrate release prints survives from this era is Paramount, and I've seen any number of them projected in nitrate with both arc lamps and Xenon, and I've also seen many original nitrate prints of silent films--a number of these viewings in back-to-back settings years ago, and I can tell you theat there was not a nickel's worth of difference in the contrast and density of original 1927 Paramount nitrate silents and 1929 Paramount nitrate talkies. There is no comparable record for other studios. Most of the Fox stuff that survives comes from work prints in the silent era, and single system work prints in the early talkie era. There just aren't a lot of release prints to compare. The Warner and First National stuff available today all comes from later dupes, since Vitaphone did not have an optical track, and no one to speak of can play Vitaphone in a theater setting today.

Early nitrate print stocks are rather poor sources for making dupe negatives--and this was especially true when many films were copied in the 1960s and 1970s when duping stocks were not nearly as good as they are today. The reasons, primarily are that early prints tended to be contrasty and grainy, and those factors are exacerbated in the duping process. Contrast adjustments are made in printing the dupes to minimize this effect--and again is was common in the 1970s to overcompensate for contrast to make flatter prints for TV, which was deemed to be the ultimate venue for these films.

Because the sound track neg and the picture neg were printed separately it was not much of a challenge to print these elements so that they would both be fine when developed to the established density standards for each studio. Proper development is desirable in printing variable density tracks, and contrast build-up can lead to distortion--but primarily, when working with original density track negatives printed at a proper light this is not much of an issue. Generally speaking, the darker the positive track the lower the sound output level and the lighter the positive track the higher the sound level.


Sorry Bob, shooting through glass may make for a fuzzier shot, but it's not going to change the contrasts in the shot that radically, nor will incandescent lighting make an entire print, with outdoor scenes as well, far more grey than contrasty throughout an entire print.That's labwork and duping, and you can find many examples of complaints about print quality in the 1929-30 Harrison's Reports, and the reason I gave above being given as one of the main reasons for this problem.



I don't doubt that exhibitors were complaining about picture quality in 1929-'30--but the primary factor that contributed to poor picture quaility in theaters at that time was the mesh screen that became necessary with the introduction of sound and placing speakers behind the screen. Light loss was tremendous, and higher gain screen materials were not available.

In any event, none of these factors should be much of an issue today, because they can all be comnpensated for in the lab, and modern prints (which are most of what we see) should not be affected. The film can de developed for the best picture contrast, and the variable area sound tracks used today (for the most part) can tolerate a wider range of development. What can't be compensated for is the manner in which the pictures were shot. Inky lighting did cut down on contrast on the stage; shooting through glass did diffuse the light reaching the lens to some extent. From a lab point of view the main issue with sound was that it necessitated automated development. In the rack and tank days, footage was processed by hand, and one finds very little timing difference from shot to shot in a silent cut camera negative because the development could be controlled in the lab--with sound processing film was developed at a constant rate and temperature, resulting in more shot to shot variation. True, one can force develop film, but it is impractical to do it on a shot for shot basis like you could in the rack and tank era.



Bob, You can prattle on in big paragraphs as long as you want and you still have not disproved my point, and, in fact, have once again said nearly exactly what I have said, quote

"The main difference is that the talkie is duped from a 1929 print, and the silent is (largely) duped from a modern day fine grain master positive. "

Yep, thats why WELCOME DANGER in sound form indeed looks crappier than the silent,version, because the grainy, low contrast original material on the sound version is all they have to work with, and that is indeed what it looked like when it went out to the theaters, and that is indeed because they had not yet mastered the processing of soundtracks and picture in composite release prints, resulting in exactly what you have said here:


"Because the sound track neg and the picture neg were printed separately it was not much of a challenge to print these elements so that they would both be fine when developed to the established density standards for each studio. Proper development is desirable in printing variable density tracks, and contrast build-up can lead to distortion--but primarily, when working with original density track negatives printed at a proper light this is not much of an issue. Generally speaking, the darker the positive track the lower the sound output level and the lighter the positive track the higher the sound level. "


And you are assuming lab techniques used from thr 60's onward were being used in 1929, which is poppycock. If that is so, why are there early talkies in which the soundtrack pops on each shot cut?

I stand by what I say, and you really do seem to corroborate it. Another great example of an early talkie that looks crappy for the same reasons that I state is THE TRESSPASSER, which was restored from several early release prints, all of which have the same bad contrasts and grain issues. You can drag this nonsense out as long as you want, but I have too damned much to do right now to argue with you. I'm in the middle of damn festival season, writing notes and prepping prints for Cinevent and Slapsticon, as well as coordinating the latter, so, if it will end the arguement, I'll humor the looney and say, gee, you're right Bob(though you ain''t)


RICHARD M ROBERTS

David B Pearson
Capo
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: Why the Decrease in Film Quality When Sound Came In?

Postby David B Pearson » Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:27 pm

Silly me... I assumed sound film was naturally inferior to silent.

Isn't it?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests