Betty Boop on Blu - Vol 3 April 29, 2014 Pre-order

[Eastmancolor]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

I heard that Paramount has theatrical elements on at least some of the Betty Boops, but these are part of a completely different holding than the Republic negatives at UCLA, which this Blu-Ray was most likely sourced from.

Paramount owns the Republic library and they keep the bulk of their nitrate film elements at UCLA. As such, Paramount has access to all of the Boop cartoons stored there and were responsible for the new Blu-rays.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Lyris

Steve, why would that be the case? Any good reason or just the operators not knowing?

They probably just set them all for the same aspect ratio and ran with it.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Aspect ratio is going to be an issue here. The first Betty Boop cartoons were made using an early sound aperture which was taller than normal. On every home video release, Snow White either has a big crop at the top or a big crop at the bottom. A fella took two laserdisc versions, one framed top and one framed bottom, and merged them into a full frame version. It was surprising how much action there was at the edges of the frame. Hopefully Olive will pillarbox them.

Originally Posted by bigshot

They probably just set them all for the same aspect ratio and ran with it.

Originally Posted by Lyris

Steve, why would that be the case? Any good reason or just the operators not knowing?

Originally Posted by bigshot

Chess Nuts should be in a different aspect ratio than the later cartoons, but it isn't here, so it appears that the older films will have a bit cropped from the top and bottom.

Just as with live action, full frame background negative area is not necessarily meant to be seen in prints. Having said that, there was a difference between the original 1927 sound aperture and the Academy Aperture established in 1932.

Full screen silent aperture (1.33:1) was .910 x .680". The original 1927 sound standard was .825 x .680 (1.21:1) with the center line of the picture shifted to the right. The 1932 Academy Aperture was .825 x .6" (1.37:1). So there was 13% more height if the 1927 standard was used, but I have to wonder if it truly was used after 1933. It is possible if the Fleisher studio at that early date was still using older equipment.

I've noticed in other BD transfers that silent films have been frequently mastered using sound apertures instead of the full silent aperture, although in some cases this is because original negs and prints don't survive and all that's survived are silent films on sound prints which were mastered incorrectly.

But in the cases where the original neg is available, I really have to wonder why the mastering equipment doesn't have the capability for variable apertures so it can be set to whatever the film requires. Even at Academy facilities, I've seen silent films and early sound films projected with material obviously missing (titles cut off, etc.) This generally makes my skin crawl.

[Retro00064]

Steve Stanchfield (owner of Thunderbean Animation) transferred an almost pristine sepia-tinted 35mm nitrate print of the 1931 Van Beuren Tom and Jerry cartoon A Swiss Trick for his DVD set of those cartoons, and the picture is taller than the Academy ratio, like a square. Cheap public domain versions of those cartoons often have the Radio Pictures name and/or copyright notice in the opening titles cropped off due to the taller original aspect ratio. I can believe it when Bigshot says that the Betty Boop cartoons from around the same time also have an original aspect ratio taller than the Academy ratio.

[bigshot]

The Betty Boop films were released twice on laserdisc. One release was framed to the top of the frame, and the other was framed to the bottom of the frame.

Here is a frame from the "Definitive" edition...



Here is a frame from the "Collectors" edition...



Here is both frames merged to show what the actual aspect ratio of the film is...



The Fleischers used every bit of the frame. In BB in Snow White, there is action happening on both the top and bottom of the frame. There will be cropping if it isn't pillar boxed.

[BrianS]

That's a lot of picture!

[David M]

A bit off topic, Steve, but my first exposure to these shorts was on the old Spumco web site where John K's article explained the problem with DVNR (along with the visual examples - I still have those mangled Chuck Jones Tom and Jerry images burned into my head).

I think I was 11 at the time. That article seriously fueled my interest in video. I honestly wonder if I'd be involved in this industry had I not read it. Just FYI!

Originally Posted by Retro00064

Steve Stanchfield (owner of Thunderbean Animation) transferred an almost pristine sepia-tinted 35mm nitrate print of the 1931 Van Beuren Tom and Jerry cartoon A Swiss Trick for his DVD set of those cartoons, and the picture is taller than the Academy ratio, like a square. Cheap public domain versions of those cartoons often have the Radio Pictures name and/or copyright notice in the opening titles cropped off due to the taller original aspect ratio.

The problem here is not completely with the public domain distributors, it’s with the source material. Steve Stanchfield was very lucky to come across an original nitrate print of a Van Beuren cartoon since the master materials to those films were scattered to the winds and probably exist in very low numbers. All of the 16mm materials we’re usually handling, though, have already been cropped slightly or horribly and this was done through many decades of optical duping for various uses (16mm film rental libraries, TV, etc.) This being the usual case, it’s impossible for most to present such a film fully “properly” now. Olive on the other hand has the opportunity to do so if these negatives retain all of the picture information, in which case the entire film frame should be scanned and presented pillarboxed.

I also agree that the author of the review should have done more research before suggesting that dupes were used since the reissue titles are present, or at least will change the review so it’s not misleading in this way. It would be nice to restore original titles, but first they would have to be found (if they are out there at all) and that would be a lot of added effort and cost. Appreciate the fact that these can now be seen in HD and without DVNR. Cut 80 year old films some slack.

[JMK]

Thanks to the members who contacted me alerting me to the fact the UM&M titles were actually spliced onto the original negatives. I've updated the review to reflect that, but I do want to reiterate the review never stated that dupes were used, only that I thought perhaps they might have been considering the titles. My actual comments about the image quality don't vary at all, which I also tried to make clear in the review were not dependent on whether or not dupes were used.


I actually spent quite a bit of time trying to track down information before I posted the review. I'd love for someone to point me to an authoritative online source with definitive information about this, as I sure failed to find one when I looked, aside from Wikipedia which I have learned the hard way not to trust, as well as a personal blog which had some tangential info.

[Leviathan]

Aside from age as Tom mentioned, the rights to the cartoons were tossed back and forth between numerous different owners over the years. Plus B/W cartoons like Betty Boop were considered virtually worthless and all but neglected in the decades between the rise of color TV and the dawn of film preservation and home video.

Cut some slack is right.

[David M]

Appreciate the fact that these can now be seen in HD and without DVNR. Cut 80 year old films some slack.

I agree with you on this - going from the outstanding quality seen in the screen grabs here and elsewhere, I'm surprised at the video rating in the review only being what it is. I've not seen the discs yet, but some dirt and debris is 1000 times better than the mangled mess of the last releases.

[Retro00064]

@Tom: You're right, thanks for the correction. I should've used "common" instead of "cheap" in my post.

And I couldn't agree more with the statement "Cut 80 year old films some slack" (and the same could be said for films 70 years old, 60 years old, etc.).

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Lyris

I think I was 11 at the time. That article seriously fueled my interest in video. I honestly wonder if I'd be involved in this industry had I not read it. Just FYI!

thanks! That article was a lot of work to put together, but I think it changed things for the better eventually. Now if we could just get Disney to stop putting out mangled versions of their features on bluray!

[bigshot]

I don't know why people get all in a bother over TV titles and give a pass to improper aspect ratios. I can live with TV titles, but every time I watch a cropped cartoon, I'm going to be a little irritated. UCLA has the elements. The transfer house should have known better.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by JMK

I'd love for someone to point me to an authoritative online source with definitive information about this, as I sure failed to find one when I looked, aside from Wikipedia which I have learned the hard way not to trust, as well as a personal blog which had some tangential info.

Get on the phone and call Jere Guldin at the UCLA Film and Television Archive. He will answer any question you have. (By the way, I think Rise to Fame is a dupe neg, not an original camera neg.)

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by JMK

Thanks to the members who contacted me alerting me to the fact the UM&M titles were actually spliced onto the original negatives. I've updated the review to reflect that, but I do want to reiterate the review never stated that dupes were used, only that I thought perhaps they might have been considering the titles. My actual comments about the image quality don't vary at all, which I also tried to make clear in the review were not dependent on whether or not dupes were used.


I actually spent quite a bit of time trying to track down information before I posted the review. I'd love for someone to point me to an authoritative online source with definitive information about this, as I sure failed to find one when I looked, aside from Wikipedia which I have learned the hard way not to trust, as well as a personal blog which had some tangential info.

This was a difficult assignment as always .

Originally Posted by JMK

Thanks to the members who contacted me alerting me to the fact the UM&M titles were actually spliced onto the original negatives. I've updated the review to reflect that, but I do want to reiterate the review never stated that dupes were used, only that I thought perhaps they might have been considering the titles. My actual comments about the image quality don't vary at all, which I also tried to make clear in the review were not dependent on whether or not dupes were used.


I actually spent quite a bit of time trying to track down information before I posted the review. I'd love for someone to point me to an authoritative online source with definitive information about this, as I sure failed to find one when I looked, aside from Wikipedia which I have learned the hard way not to trust, as well as a personal blog which had some tangential info.

Apologies if I jumped on the bandwagon a bit and stated that you did suggest dupes were used--you’re right, you only suspected or wondered about it.

I’m not sure if we can say there is any one definitive source for information like this. Instead, there are bunches of animation historians and archivists at particular archives who can be consulted. Usually Jerry Beck is a prime starting point for questions about golden age material, then other historians/collectors/archivists have special niches. Thad Komorowski for Warner Bros., David Gerstein for Disney, myself for silent-era animation, and the list goes on. We all overlap a bit as well.

There are the great historians who have written books about the studio stories, and then the historians/archivists who have a better idea of what elements and versions of things survive out there in private/archival collections--information that is generally not found in the books, but is learned by asking around.

But back to the general subject at hand. I think there’s a fine line to ride with home video release reviews between whether a review is simply honest and useful or if it is both honest and at the same time unknowingly but unfairly giving a negative suggestion, where a better product is either extremely difficult or impossible to release to audiences. What I mean is the following. I think it’s absolutely fine and fair to state the facts about TV titles being present, some emulsion bubbling, some scratches, and so forth, because it is factual. This brings up my “slack” comment, however. I have to wonder if casual readers, who might otherwise be apt to purchase a collection like this, might pass because of those items being mentioned...when in fact they might not really care about those issues if they were seeing the films without a premise discussing quality issues on 80 year old films. It’s hard to say because so many younger people nowadays did not grow up seeing things through fuzzy TV reception; they expect high quality on everything. I think the Betty sets inherently target an older generation, though, who would be ecstatic about HD quality, but were accustomed to watching old films with condition issues on TV as kids. For these people, a line and a splice or even a TV title sequence that is similar to the original is not a detractor, but seeing a tenth generation dupe instead of an HD scan off *any* 35mm element absolutely would be a detractor.

I’m talking mostly about people who might not understand that a better release than this is not economically feasible or even possible, and thus might pass up on the set figuring that something better will come out later when in fact that may never happen. Will there ever be a set including original titles (do they even exist? where? in what condition? We historians and archivists are constantly trying to figure this out ourselves...), with some picture quality issues ironed out (what effort/time/cost is involved in repairing bubbled emulsion digitally? Again, are there other 35mm elements without this problem to consult?). Will the distributor break even as it is, and could costs to do extra work that would please us historians/archivists fit into the budget at all? People in my circles are definitely unhappy about some of these issues, but they are forgetting that there has to be a green bottom line in these projects. That’s just how companies work.

I’m not saying reviews should be dishonest or gloss over these issues, but I have to wonder how many people, who don’t and never will understand all the issues of dealing with very old archival material, might be ironically mislead by the honesty in the review at hand. Again, I’m not exactly trying to criticize the review, but as a historian and archivist with a large library of early films that need to be out in public view again but have a garden variety of picture quality issues where in many cases better prints do not exist or are too costly/problematic to obtain, I have to wonder how these contemporary reviews might negatively affect certain portions of home video audiences who might otherwise forgive some quality problems inherent to early films as they exist today.

Maybe it’s not the reviews that are the issue, but the newer HD quality-obsessed viewers who demand to know these details up front. I absolutely love HD too, but lines and splices and other issues come with the terrority, and sometimes there will never be a financial return on all the time and effort spent to correct all of those problems for a release, especially if it’s not one of the humongous studios putting out a release. Some food for thought.

Either way, thank you JMK for bringing attention to these issues, doing the research and being open to our input here. I think it’s good to have a discussion like this going. I’m not connected to this release in any way but the ensuing discussion is of great interest and related to my work in the field.

[ramapith]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

[Olive is] mostly going to be doing Betty Boop cartoons that are still under copyright, not the ones in the public domain [...] I do hope that at some point they do a volume with some of the more memorable cartoons that are in the public domain, especially the surreal musical ones with Cab Calloway

I'll have to make this brief—but unless you count BETTY BOOP'S RISE TO FAME (with its OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN excerpt), the Cab Calloway cartoons are not in the public domain. I've done extensive, firsthand copyright renewal research on the Betty Boop shorts—see my resulting analysis here.

Many small DVD companies have put out "PD" Betty sets that accidentally include some copyrighted cartoons. Online fans often use these DVDs as a guide, creating inaccurate lists—but I can't help that.

Here is a list of the 49 cartoons Olive has licensed thus far; you'll notice the group does include the three Calloway shorts.
And here is my analysis of how the group appears to have been selected.

[bigshot]

Even better to ask a real film archivist like Jere Guldin at UCLA. He knows because he works with the stuff every day.

[David M]

But back to the general subject at hand. I think there’s a fine line to ride with home video release reviews between whether a review is simply honest and useful or if it is both honest and at the same time unknowingly but unfairly giving a negative suggestion, where a better product is either extremely difficult or impossible to release to audiences. What I mean is the following. I think it’s absolutely fine and fair to state the facts about TV titles being present, some emulsion bubbling, some scratches, and so forth, because it is factual. This brings up my “slack” comment, however. I have to wonder if casual readers, who might otherwise be apt to purchase a collection like this, might pass because of those items being mentioned...when in fact they might not really care about those issues if they were seeing the films without a premise discussing quality issues on 80 year old films. It’s hard to say because so many younger people nowadays did not grow up seeing things through fuzzy TV reception; they expect high quality on everything. I think the Betty sets inherently target an older generation, though, who would be ecstatic about HD quality, but were accustomed to watching old films with condition issues on TV as kids. For these people, a line and a splice or even a TV title sequence that is similar to the original is not a detractor, but seeing a tenth generation dupe instead of an HD scan off *any* 35mm element absolutely would be a detractor.

In these cases, my view is always this:

Age-related damage? Somewhat inevitable; it would be nice, but not essential for it to be addressed.

Modern day ignorance or mangling down to human error (badly done DVNR, etc): not as excusable.