Films from the 1930's: Better in the theater or on Blu-ray

[Jar Jar Stinks]

I'm sure that I'm wading into a world of generalizations, but are we seeing a better presentation of these films than the original theater-going audience did?

[stvn1974]

Weren't colored filters used on the old monster movies? Like blue for Dracula and green for Frankenstein. I can't imagine how scary Karloff was for the audiences of that time. I am watching Dracula right now at my parents and my brother and I were discussing how fun it would be to go back in 1933 and show them Saw.

[Lt. Brannigan]

There's a lot of variables to take into account I would think. But the audio is undoubtedly better.

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I'm sure that I'm wading into a world of generalizations, but are we seeing a better presentation of these films than the original theater-going audience did?

Not better than a new print. Film is better than 1080p.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Weren't colored filters used on the old monster movies? Like blue for Dracula and green for Frankenstein. I can't imagine how scary Karloff was for the audiences of that time. I am watching Dracula right now at my parents and my brother and I were discussing how fun it would be to go back in 1933 and show them Saw.

It depends. Some film prints were tinted by hand, so black-and-white is actually inaccurate if that's how they were transferred to DVD or Blu-ray.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Weren't colored filters used on the old monster movies? Like blue for Dracula and green for Frankenstein. I can't imagine how scary Karloff was for the audiences of that time. I am watching Dracula right now at my parents and my brother and I were discussing how fun it would be to go back in 1933 and show them Saw.

While film tinting was common through the silent era, it fell out of use pretty quickly by the advent of sound in the late 20s, mainly because it was expensive: each color had to be chemically processed separately then physically cut together to make a release print, which also interfered with synchronization for early sound-on-disc techniques. The introduction for more sensitive "day-for-night" films stocks also made scene tinting less necessary.

So the Universal Monster movies like Dracula and Frankenstein were shown in untinted black and white.

[zbinks]

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

Not better than a new print. Film is better than 1080p.

There are many other factors other than available resolution to consider. Don't forget to consider the talent of the average projectionist or the quality of the projection equipment, speakers and theater layout that would generally be available to a 30's era movie palace.

[Musicguy]

weren't many from silver nitrate which is supposed to be beautiful

[Jar Jar Stinks]

Originally Posted by Musicguy

weren't many from silver nitrate which is supposed to be beautiful

Do those prints not survive do to the volatility of the materials?

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by zbinks

There are many other factors other than available resolution to consider. Don't forget to consider the talent of the average projectionist or the quality of the projection equipment, speakers and theater layout that would generally be available to a 30's era movie palace.

But then you'd also have to consider the quality of home theaters today.

If you put up the best exhibition of a film then versus the best home theater exhibition of the same film today, I think the original theatrical exhibition would win.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

Film is better than 1080p.

This is such a simplified comment that doesn't tell one third of the story. Film is better in general, but you can't tell me that some of those old movies from the 1930s and 40s look better than some of the 2K digitally shot movies over the past 10 years. Especially if they were watched as raw files in completely uncompressed form. On some of those older movies, it is obvious that the clarity of detail isn't crisp, and a 4K upgrade wouldn't help.

[Pecker]

Whilst film is capable of much higher resolution the 1080 lines, detail is lost at each generation.

The average 35mm cinema print had a resolution Equivalent of around 800 lines. But Blu-days offend an original elements, so in this respect theBlu-Ray should've better.

Robert Harris said that the restored Godfather had to have squib wires digitally removed or they'd havedhown up I the Blu-day when they didn't show up on cinema prints.

SteveW

[Blu-Velvet]

It really depends on a variety of things, including the film stock, the processing labs, the studios or production companies making the movies, the theatres that showed them (including both their equipment and operators), and how long the film print had been in circulation before you got around to seeing it. And a Blu-ray of a film from the 30s must rely on whatever surviving material happens to have survived -- sometimes just copies of copies of beat-up copies, sometimes an original release print or archival print, and in the best cases, the original camera negatives. More often than not, today's restorations must combine a variety of sources of different quality to come up with a complete version of the film.

And watching original films back in the 1910s, 20s, 30s, 40s, etc., quality could vary just as with Blu-rays today even of brand-new films, where the potential quality they actually could display does not always come through, depending on scanning, mastering, authoring, compressing, etc.

The George Eastman House archive in Rochester NY is planning a festival of several nitrate print exhibitions next year. I saw an original nitrate print of Hitchcock's REBECCA there this past summer, and some years ago saw a Cecil B. DeMille silent film from the 1910s, and both had very little wear (scratches or dirt) and looked mostly like brand-new films shot yesterday, except for some occasional minor jumping in the film gate or weave due to spots of shrinkage or film damage.

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

This is such a simplified comment that doesn't tell one third of the story. Film is better in general, but you can't tell me that some of those old movies from the 1930s and 40s look better than some of the 2K digitally shot movies over the past 10 years. Especially if they were watched as raw files in completely uncompressed form. On some of those older movies, it is obvious that the clarity of detail isn't crisp, and a 4K upgrade wouldn't help.

He didn't ask about films shot then versus films shot today. He asked about the presentation of the films then versus the home presentation of the same films today.

But 4k digital films shot within the past 10 years still aren't as good looking as 35mm films shot in the past 10 years.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Musicguy

weren't many from silver nitrate which is supposed to be beautiful

When cellulose acetate "safety film" was introduced in the 1950s it was lamented that blacks were never again the same.

Of course, the biggest issue with nitrocellulose stock was that it was dangerously unstable: it's extremely combustible and literally decomposes over time.

[toddly6666]

What percentage of the old movie theaters had excellent maintained projectors? And could even the best projector then handle a perfectly brand new film reel? When I watch Modern Times on Blu-ray, the clarity and crispness looks like it was filmed yesterday but when a brand new projector projected a brand new film reel of Modern Times, did it have that same look? I mean were the top quality movie projectors back in the early days even good enough to show the highest potential of a brand new clean film reel?

I also wonder if there were movie fans back then that chose to go to excellent quality movie theaters over good ones (aka us choosing a Dolby Atmos or Imax theater over a regular very good theater with no fancy sound or image gimmicks).

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Weren't colored filters used on the old monster movies? Like blue for Dracula and green for Frankenstein. I can't imagine how scary Karloff was for the audiences of that time. I am watching Dracula right now at my parents and my brother and I were discussing how fun it would be to go back in 1933 and show them Saw.

You'd probably have people dying from heart attacks !

As to the original question, I don't know what films looked like when first projected and for me it's besides the point. I assume that prints would not have looked pristine for long. What matters to me is that I grew up in pre-home video times and the only way to see old films was on TV or at repertory theatres, where prints were scratched, speckled and had frames and sometimes whole parts of scenes missing. At the time we were used to seeing films that way, but I sure don't miss it. I still re-discover old films on Blu which now look like brand new and it's like seeing them for the first time...again.

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

What percentage of the old movie theaters had excellent maintained projectors? And could even the best projector then handle a perfectly brand new film reel? When I watch Modern Times on Blu-ray, the clarity and crispness looks like it was filmed yesterday but when a brand new projector projected a brand new film reel of Modern Times, did it have that same look? I mean were the top quality movie projectors back in the early days even good enough to show the highest potential of a brand new clean film reel?

I also wonder if there were movie fans back then that chose to go to excellent quality movie theaters over good ones (aka us choosing a Dolby Atmos or Imax theater over a regular very good theater with no fancy sound or image gimmicks).

I'm guessing in best case scenarios it did look just as good (if not better) all those years ago. That would be a top of the line theater, with a brand new print. For the most part, blu-ray is approximating that.

But I can imagine the theater experience varied greatly back then, compared to the "cookie cutter" and corporate owned theaters of today.