Topic: Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Collection

[Tony Bensley]

Sorry for the repeat post. I didn't see this topic until now. The other day my review/web article of the L & H: The Essential Restorations Blu-ray set was published online. I'm impressed by the set, and hopefully The Stooges will get a similar release in the near future. I had never seen The Battle of the Century before, and the pie fight scene is really something, even after viewing the Stooges pie fights in films. I'm not a technical expert on video regarding digital scrubbing, black levels, etc. But to me, the films look the best out of the L & H sets I own.

My review of Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Restorations is below.

Marshall

https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Laurel-Hardy-The-Definite-Restorations-Blu-ray-Review

I’ve been holding off on this due to spending my money on other releases (cancelled my initial order because so many other things were coming out), but just ordered a copy.  I was going to do it eventually, but you convinced me to do it now.  Really nice review and I truly hope the other films, especially the silents, get similar treatment.

For me, the set is worth it for the two features and the near complete version of THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1927) alone, though of course, there is so much more!

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

I borrowed THE DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS DVD set from the library a couple of years ago. I just borrowed it again, along with THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION. I'm going to do some spot comparisons, and try to watch a bunch of complete shorts and/or features. I've already watched SONS OF THE DESERT on DEFINITIVE and thought it looked pretty good. (BTW, a lot of these versions had already appeared on TCM before the DVD release -- TCM had those restoration credits.)

I saw your comparisons, Tony, on Facebook, and I believe you chose DEFINITIVE over ESSENTIAL for every film on DEFINITIVE.
I don't recall if you had the Blu-ray or DVD of DEFINITIVE.

A couple of years ago, I thought that DEFINITIVE was a fine representation on DVD, but I felt that the ones I had in 16mm were better.
Not a knock on the DEFINITIVE set, though -- to me, the magic of an original or better 16mm print wins all the time. (By better I mean a print-down -- made directly from a 35mm negative -- the same number of generations from the original camera negative (OCN) as a 35mm release print made during the films' initial release.)

On DEFINITIVE, I remember SCRAM lacking that unmistakable theatrical density that had shown through even on those old Nostalgia Merchant VHS tapes from the 80s. I thought COME CLEAN had some out-of-focus scenes, though it was a scanned OCN. My 16mm original print with Film Classics titles looked better.

The thing with digital and with TV sets, is that it can look very different based on your screen settings, e.g. brightness, black levels, contrast, etc. I come from the generation where TV sets just had brightness, contrast, and color settings. Now my TV, which is about 8 years old, has about 50+ settings. And you have to configure the settings for each input -- they don't carry over. So if I watch a movie on TCM and then on DVD, it may look different unless I write down on paper all the settings and make sure they match!

In any case, since the density (which to me is a combo of brightness, contrast, black, and white levels for B&W films) looked good on most of the titles on DEFINITIVE, SCRAM stood out as being "off".  Density is "spot on" for me when the film takes on an almost 3D-like quality. It really is stunning when you see it, and gives films a "shot yesterday" feel. I don't care about scratches, dirt, etc. If it can't be removed via cleaning of the actual film, then leave it alone! No digital scrubbing. I understand there was quite a debate about this on the home theater forum -- Skredtvedt vs. the public. Supposedly no digital scrubbing was done according to the former.

It will be interesting to compare, especially since it will be DVD to DVD. Again, I don't remember if Tony's comparison was with the DEFINITIVE Blu-ray.

I understand that there was also controversy on the BERTH MARKS 1936 re-issue, with the out-of-sync sound for several minutes. I had watched only the 1929 version since I had never seen it before. If I understood the heated debate, they took the lazy way out and played the 1936 track over the 1929 film. Stupid decision. ("I can't imagine anyone being that dumb...oh, yes I can!") My Blackhawk Super 8 print with the 1936 track -- with replaced Blackhawk titles, looks and sounds great. Nothing is out-of-sync, and it is one of the best looking L&H prints I have. I understand that ESSENTIAL had no such issues, but only included the 1936 re-issue. I will check it out.

Not sure why they zoomed in on the WAY OUT WEST camping scene. A little "flaring" on the side is not a good reason. My 16mm print has that flaring. I heard that there used to be a slight jump in "Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia" that has been fixed, but my 16mm Blackhawk print from the 70s does not have an issue, and was made from an original M-G-M negative. I can't imagine it looking any better than that. I recall it looking pretty good on DVD a few years ago when I first borrowed DEFINITIVE.

[Tony Bensley]

I borrowed THE DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS DVD set from the library a couple of years ago. I just borrowed it again, along with THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION. I'm going to do some spot comparisons, and try to watch a bunch of complete shorts and/or features. I've already watched SONS OF THE DESERT on DEFINITIVE and thought it looked pretty good. (BTW, a lot of these versions had already appeared on TCM before the DVD release -- TCM had those restoration credits.)

I saw your comparisons, Tony, on Facebook, and I believe you chose DEFINITIVE over ESSENTIAL for every film on DEFINITIVE.
I don't recall if you had the Blu-ray or DVD of DEFINITIVE.

A couple of years ago, I thought that DEFINITIVE was a fine representation on DVD, but I felt that the ones I had in 16mm were better.
Not a knock on the DEFINITIVE set, though -- to me, the magic of an original or better 16mm print wins all the time. (By better I mean a print-down -- made directly from a 35mm negative -- the same number of generations from the original camera negative (OCN) as a 35mm release print made during the films' initial release.)

On DEFINITIVE, I remember SCRAM lacking that unmistakable theatrical density that had shown through even on those old Nostalgia Merchant VHS tapes from the 80s. I thought COME CLEAN had some out-of-focus scenes, though it was a scanned OCN. My 16mm original print with Film Classics titles looked better.

The thing with digital and with TV sets, is that it can look very different based on your screen settings, e.g. brightness, black levels, contrast, etc. I come from the generation where TV sets just had brightness, contrast, and color settings. Now my TV, which is about 8 years old, has about 50+ settings. And you have to configure the settings for each input -- they don't carry over. So if I watch a movie on TCM and then on DVD, it may look different unless I write down on paper all the settings and make sure they match!

In any case, since the density (which to me is a combo of brightness, contrast, black, and white levels for B&W films) looked good on most of the titles on DEFINITIVE, SCRAM stood out as being "off".  Density is "spot on" for me when the film takes on an almost 3D-like quality. It really is stunning when you see it, and gives films a "shot yesterday" feel. I don't care about scratches, dirt, etc. If it can't be removed via cleaning of the actual film, then leave it alone! No digital scrubbing. I understand there was quite a debate about this on the home theater forum -- Skredtvedt vs. the public. Supposedly no digital scrubbing was done according to the former.

It will be interesting to compare, especially since it will be DVD to DVD. Again, I don't remember if Tony's comparison was with the DEFINITIVE Blu-ray.

I understand that there was also controversy on the BERTH MARKS 1936 re-issue, with the out-of-sync sound for several minutes. I had watched only the 1929 version since I had never seen it before. If I understood the heated debate, they took the lazy way out and played the 1936 track over the 1929 film. Stupid decision. ("I can't imagine anyone being that dumb...oh, yes I can!") My Blackhawk Super 8 print with the 1936 track -- with replaced Blackhawk titles, looks and sounds great. Nothing is out-of-sync, and it is one of the best looking L&H prints I have. I understand that ESSENTIAL had no such issues, but only included the 1936 re-issue. I will check it out.

Not sure why they zoomed in on the WAY OUT WEST camping scene. A little "flaring" on the side is not a good reason. My 16mm print has that flaring. I heard that there used to be a slight jump in "Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia" that has been fixed, but my 16mm Blackhawk print from the 70s does not have an issue, and was made from an original M-G-M negative. I can't imagine it looking any better than that. I recall it looking pretty good on DVD a few years ago when I first borrowed DEFINITIVE.

My Definitive Restorations set is Blu-ray format. For my comparisons between that set and the Essential Collection titles, I upscaled the latter to 1080p so that they matched up size wise.

For WAY OUT WEST (1937), I suspect whoever zoomed in during the camping scene thought that flare was some defect that wasn't always present. I actually failed to notice the difference during my first DR viewing in 2020, and didn't realize that bit was zoomed in until Randy Skretvedt pointed it out on his FB page!

I just recently viewed SCRAM! (1932) on The Definitive Restorations set again, and I agree the density is a bit off on that title. Some of the mistier raindrops also appear to be filtered out, or at least rather filtered down. COME CLEAN (1931) looks fine to me, though. In fact, very recently, after viewing just under 2 minutes of the Essential Collection version, I switched over to the Blu-ray, as it is a much cleaner print!  HELPMATES (1932) is actually where I noticed a few out of focus shots on The Definitive Restorations set, although they are thankfully, brief.

As for BERTH MARKS (1929), now that we have the original 1929 soundtrack available, I'll likely be mostly sticking with that version anyway, as is my tendency with L&H titles that have both the original and 1936-37 MGM reissue soundtracks available. That said, the decision to leave the out of sync issue with the 1936 soundtrack as is was certainly a controversial one.

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

It is all rather interesting, though. I need to read your reviews on my laptop, since I was on my iPhone and it was hard to navigate.
Reading all those Richard Harris debates with Skredtvedt on the home theater forum was difficult, too. I was never sure if I was reading the original thread or not, since he also reviewed the set and people were commenting. Then someone on another forum mentioned that a lot of the thread was deleted. Even on my laptop, the home theater forum is annoying with ads taking up too much screen real estate. At the end of the day, the pic quality of a DVD or Blu-ray is not worth fighting about.

The version of COME CLEAN I mentioned was on the DEFINITIVE set -- I haven't watched the ESSENTIAL yet. Maybe it was HELPMATES and not COME CLEAN that had out-of-focus shots. I'm going by memory from almost 2 years ago.

I never pay much attention to grain on digital movies. I watch tons of stuff on TCM and never look for  it. When I screen one of my Super 8 or 16mm films (L&H as well as others), the grain does not stand out and overwhelm you. Whatever grain is there I use to get the focus right.

Regarding re-issues of BERTH MARKS and BRATS, it could be argued that these versions have no place on a set called DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS, which should be the original-released versions. But that's neither here nor there. But by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack is creating a Franken-movie.  I assume they didn't lose the film elements from the 1936 version from 2011 to 2020.  If it were just DVD, and wanted to take the lazy way out, I would have just included the version from ESSENTIAL. But since there was a Blu-Ray version on DEFINITIVE, upscaling from DVD would have caused an uproar as well.

On the DVD version of ESSENTIAL, did they just compress the video from the 2k and 4k scans, or did they re-scan at lower resolution? The reason I ask is that I saw a clip of the beginning of THE MUSIC BOX - the main titles -- which had a hair in the gate that does not show up on the DVD -- yet this was definitely 1080p, but not a European PAL version from Universal.

It should be noted that in scanning an OCN, a fine grain made from the OCN, or a scanned dupe neg made from the fine grain, you are actually seeing a better "print" of the movie than audiences saw in the 30s - who saw prints made from the dupe neg. This assumes of course that the scan captures all the detail and is not mucked around with via digital scrubbing.

And unless you were present at a very early screening of a new print in the 30s, there were likely scratches and splices present. I saw prints in theaters of newly released movies in this condition right up until the switch to all-digital projection less than 10 years ago!

[Tony Bensley]

It is all rather interesting, though. I need to read your reviews on my laptop, since I was on my iPhone and it was hard to navigate.
Reading all those Richard Harris debates with Skredtvedt on the home theater forum was difficult, too. I was never sure if I was reading the original thread or not, since he also reviewed the set and people were commenting. Then someone on another forum mentioned that a lot of the thread was deleted. Even on my laptop, the home theater forum is annoying with ads taking up too much screen real estate. At the end of the day, the pic quality of a DVD or Blu-ray is not worth fighting about.

The version of COME CLEAN I mentioned was on the DEFINITIVE set -- I haven't watched the ESSENTIAL yet. Maybe it was HELPMATES and not COME CLEAN that had out-of-focus shots. I'm going by memory from almost 2 years ago.

I never pay much attention to grain on digital movies. I watch tons of stuff on TCM and never look for  it. When I screen one of my Super 8 or 16mm films (L&H as well as others), the grain does not stand out and overwhelm you. Whatever grain is there I use to get the focus right.

Regarding re-issues of BERTH MARKS and BRATS, it could be argued that these versions have no place on a set called DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS, which should be the original-released versions. But that's neither here nor there. But by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack is creating a Franken-movie.  I assume they didn't lose the film elements from the 1936 version from 2011 to 2020.  If it were just DVD, and wanted to take the lazy way out, I would have just included the version from ESSENTIAL. But since there was a Blu-Ray version on DEFINITIVE, upscaling from DVD would have caused an uproar as well.

On the DVD version of ESSENTIAL, did they just compress the video from the 2k and 4k scans, or did they re-scan at lower resolution? The reason I ask is that I saw a clip of the beginning of THE MUSIC BOX - the main titles -- which had a hair in the gate that does not show up on the DVD -- yet this was definitely 1080p, but not a European PAL version from Universal.

It should be noted that in scanning an OCN, a fine grain made from the OCN, or a scanned dupe neg made from the fine grain, you are actually seeing a better "print" of the movie than audiences saw in the 30s - who saw prints made from the dupe neg. This assumes of course that the scan captures all the detail and is not mucked around with via digital scrubbing.

And unless you were present at a very early screening of a new print in the 30s, there were likely scratches and splices present. I saw prints in theaters of newly released movies in this condition right up until the switch to all-digital projection less than 10 years ago!

Going solely by memory can be a slippery slope, and I've been guilty of that at times. In my most recent viewing of HELPMATES (1932), I totally missed the briefly blurred bits, which as I recall, occurred when the boys were both in the Hardy kitchen. I believe they occurred towards the 10 minute mark, which may have prompted me to assume it could have been a reel change thing.

Speaking of reel changes, one thing that struck me a bit with The Definitive Restoration Blu-ray transfers was the total elimination of the reel change cue marks that are present on The Essential Collection DVD set titles. I do recall Randy Skretvedt posting on his Facebook years ago that his preference was for those cue marks to be left in, as they were part of the original theatrical viewing experience. C'est La Vie.

Speaking of scratches and splice marks, back in the '80s I certainly do recall viewing first run Movies after they had been out for just a few weeks that indeed looked a bit the worse for wear! Such was the cinematic experience in the pre digital era. On the other hand, digital scrubbing and pixelation was never an issue! Trade offs.

The Essential Collection titles are all derived from 2K scans, which was done at the time with the potential of a later Blu-ray release in mind, which sadly, never happened, though they were made available digitally in 1080p HD around 2015, as I recall. However, you have to be within a U.S. territory in order to access them!

Speaking of the perils of relying solely on memory, awhile back I did a write up on the out of sync BERTH MARKS (1929), attributing it to the possibility of the elimination of black frames post 2011 being the cause of the out of sync issues for the 1936 soundtrack. Recently, while listening to the commentary for ANOTHER FINE MESS (1930), much to my horror, the removal of black frames as part of the restoration for that title was noted, which is where I now believe I mistakenly extrapolated the black frames removal reference! 

[NoahYoung]

Yes, I will be viewing both ESSENTIAL and DEFINITIVE as much as I can, renewing until I have to return them. What's great is that where I am located in New Jersey, I can order on-line from many libraries and pick up at my local library. I'll see how COME CLEAN looks on both. I always felt that this was an somewhat under-rated short going by the books I bought back in the 70s.

I have seen a bunch of L&Hs listed on my Amazon fire-stick, some I can view, some I can't, depending on what services my wife and kids subscribe to. In the past I have only spot checked them for giggles. I rarely watch the boys on anything but my film prints, as I have about 85 of them, including all the starring talkies produced by Roach.

Regarding my memory, I can say 3 things:
1. It is not what it used to be.
Sorry, I can't remember the other 2 things.
 

Regarding cue marks, if they are on the film element being scanned, leave them there. Don't digitally remove anything.
I'm not sure when the cues are put in -- I would guess on the dupe neg used to make release prints.

All this HD, 2k, 4k, 1080, 720, i or p, stuff confuses me. I'm a stickler for using units when a number is given, coming from an engineering college. I've looked it up many times, and 5 minutes later I forget the nuances. 1080 and 720 is either horizontal or vertical pixels, I never remember which.  I think 2k and 4k is total pixels. The ESSENTIAL set says HD -- I wasn't aware that DVDs were considered HD.
One thing I know -- the total bit rate seems to matter more than anything. What good is 1080p with a low bit rate?
I still don't know or care about progressive or interlaced. Supposedly the latter is frowned upon. I know it has something to do with how each frame is displayed, or whether or not 2 frames are displayed concurrently -- or something like that. Sometimes ignorance IS bliss.
As long as it looks good. I've heard complaints that advertising the DEFINITIVE set as 4k was misleading, because even Blu-Ray is not 4k. In any case, they shouldn't have mixed and matched -- either all 2k or all 4k scans.

A few of my Blackhawk prints, like BUSY BODIES, have black frames.

I know Skredtvedt is an expert on the L&H films and the behind the scenes stuff, but I'm not sure how much he knows about handling film and doing scans. I know a bit about film elements, but there is still a lot I don't know. I know next to nothing on the intricacies of scanning a film and authoring DVDs, Blu-Rays, and other digital formats. In the past, I have simply used software to transfer videos I shot on digital tape to my PC. I also don't know what happens when I insert my key into my car to start it up. I just do it and drive. We can't be experts on everything.
 

Did Skredtvedt do any of the technical stuff on the DEFINITIVE set? I don't recall seeing his name on the technical credits.


Anyway, this is my limited understanding regarding film elements:

35mm: OCN->fine grain print (aka lavender)->dupe neg->release print

In theory, the OCN needs to be preserved as the highest priority, obviously, though since they were nitrate, many don't survive. I'm surprised that ANY OCNs of L&H films still exist!

Fine grains should be used to make more than one dupe neg, but should be used as little as possible.
Each dupe neg should be used to yield many prints until the dupe neg wears out, at which time a new dupe neg should be made.
Only go back to the OCN when there are no usable fine grains available.

The above pertains to film prints only -- since as we know the earliest generation film element is usually scanned for digital release.
It is my understanding that you can scan a negative and digitally turn it into a positive. I assume that's what they did for COME CLEAN.



 

[Tony Bensley]

Yes, I will be viewing both ESSENTIAL and DEFINITIVE as much as I can, renewing until I have to return them. What's great is that where I am located in New Jersey, I can order on-line from many libraries and pick up at my local library. I'll see how COME CLEAN looks on both. I always felt that this was an somewhat under-rated short going by the books I bought back in the 70s.

I have seen a bunch of L&Hs listed on my Amazon fire-stick, some I can view, some I can't, depending on what services my wife and kids subscribe to. In the past I have only spot checked them for giggles. I rarely watch the boys on anything but my film prints, as I have about 85 of them, including all the starring talkies produced by Roach.

Regarding my memory, I can say 3 things:
1. It is not what it used to be.
Sorry, I can't remember the other 2 things.
 

Regarding cue marks, if they are on the film element being scanned, leave them there. Don't digitally remove anything.
I'm not sure when the cues are put in -- I would guess on the dupe neg used to make release prints.

All this HD, 2k, 4k, 1080, 720, i or p, stuff confuses me. I'm a stickler for using units when a number is given, coming from an engineering college. I've looked it up many times, and 5 minutes later I forget the nuances. 1080 and 720 is either horizontal or vertical pixels, I never remember which.  I think 2k and 4k is total pixels. The ESSENTIAL set says HD -- I wasn't aware that DVDs were considered HD.
One thing I know -- the total bit rate seems to matter more than anything. What good is 1080p with a low bit rate?
I still don't know or care about progressive or interlaced. Supposedly the latter is frowned upon. I know it has something to do with how each frame is displayed, or whether or not 2 frames are displayed concurrently -- or something like that. Sometimes ignorance IS bliss.
As long as it looks good. I've heard complaints that advertising the DEFINITIVE set as 4k was misleading, because even Blu-Ray is not 4k. In any case, they shouldn't have mixed and matched -- either all 2k or all 4k scans.

A few of my Blackhawk prints, like BUSY BODIES, have black frames.

I know Skredtvedt is an expert on the L&H films and the behind the scenes stuff, but I'm not sure how much he knows about handling film and doing scans. I know a bit about film elements, but there is still a lot I don't know. I know next to nothing on the intricacies of scanning a film and authoring DVDs, Blu-Rays, and other digital formats. In the past, I have simply used software to transfer videos I shot on digital tape to my PC. I also don't know what happens when I insert my key into my car to start it up. I just do it and drive. We can't be experts on everything.
 

Did Skredtvedt do any of the technical stuff on the DEFINITIVE set? I don't recall seeing his name on the technical credits.


Anyway, this is my limited understanding regarding film elements:

35mm: OCN->fine grain print (aka lavender)->dupe neg->release print

In theory, the OCN needs to be preserved as the highest priority, obviously, though since they were nitrate, many don't survive. I'm surprised that ANY OCNs of L&H films still exist!

Fine grains should be used to make more than one dupe neg, but should be used as little as possible.
Each dupe neg should be used to yield many prints until the dupe neg wears out, at which time a new dupe neg should be made.
Only go back to the OCN when there are no usable fine grains available.

The above pertains to film prints only -- since as we know the earliest generation film element is usually scanned for digital release.
It is my understanding that you can scan a negative and digitally turn it into a positive. I assume that's what they did for COME CLEAN.

No doubt a different "cleaner" print for COME CLEAN (1931) was used for "The Definitive Restorations" release. Compared to "The Essential Collection," the opening titles are also noticeably right of center, though not cut off, by any means. This one received some criticism for being a bit too cleaned up. I for one, disagree! I've sussed out that the sometimes odd appearance of the one door in the Hardy's apartment is due to the decorative reflective glass (I think?) panel, which changes appearance according to the lighting and camera angles.

No, Randy Skretvedt had nothing to do with the technical aspects. He and others were sent DVD copies several months in advance, so they could offer up any input if anything seemed off. That said, Randy's contributions to this set were enormous, including providing commentary for all but two titles (Which were done by Richard W. Bann, instead.), plus many of the tons of great extras included on this set are from his extensive collection, which includes precious film and audio interviews, and much more!

As with "The Essential Collection" DVD set, "The Definitive Restorations" Blu-ray and DVD releases aren't entirely without flaws. Both sets are in my opinion, essential for any fan of Laurel & Hardy's work.

CHEERS!

[NoahYoung]

Yes, the Anita Garvin interview is fascinating. Randy was lucky to meet her. I've only met the "kids" from that era: Dorothy DeBorba, Tommy Bond, Jerry Tucker, Spanky McFarland, and Shirley Jean Rickert. I didn't ask them any "stupid" questions -- I even mentioned to Jerry Tucker that I don't remember many details of what happened on a particular day in say, 4th grade, so I don't expect them to remember details of an Our Gang short they made in the 1930s. I did ask them if they had any favorites. Shirley Jean said "I like all of them!", Jerry Tucker: HI' NEIGHBOR,  Dorothy: PUPS IS PUPS, Butch: CAME THE BRAWN. I didn't get a chance to ask Spanky since there was a line for him to sign VHS copies issued by Republic (at a video store in Manhattan in 1989). The others I met at movie memorabilia show in New Jersey, and Jerry Tucker at a Sons of the Desert meeting in Manhattan.

I'm looking forward to watching DEFINITIVE again, as well as ESSENTIAL for the first time -- have only spot checked a few so far. It's a lot of stuff. Plus I'll probably screen some prints as well since the last time I swear some of my film prints looked better. Maybe I'll take a crude video with my phone as I screen some of them and post it here. My copy of COME CLEAN is from the 1949 -- so the pre-print was much younger then, and the print I have is in fabulous shape.

[Tony Bensley]

Yes, the Anita Garvin interview is fascinating. Randy was lucky to meet her. I've only met the "kids" from that era: Dorothy DeBorba, Tommy Bond, Jerry Tucker, Spanky McFarland, and Shirley Jean Rickert. I didn't ask them any "stupid" questions -- I even mentioned to Jerry Tucker that I don't remember many details of what happened on a particular day in say, 4th grade, so I don't expect them to remember details of an Our Gang short they made in the 1930s. I did ask them if they had any favorites. Shirley Jean said "I like all of them!", Jerry Tucker: HI' NEIGHBOR,  Dorothy: PUPS IS PUPS, Butch: CAME THE BRAWN. I didn't get a chance to ask Spanky since there was a line for him to sign VHS copies issued by Republic (at a video store in Manhattan in 1989). The others I met at movie memorabilia shows in New Jersey, and Jerry Tucker at a Sons of the Desert meeting in Manhattan.

I'm looking forward to watching DEFINITIVE again, as well as ESSENTIAL for the first time -- have only spot checked a few so far. It's a lot of stuff. Plus I'll probably screen some prints as well since the last time I swear some of my film prints looked better. Maybe I'll take a crude video with my phone as I screen some of them and post it here. My copy of COME CLEAN is from the 1949 -- so the pre-print was much younger then, and the print I have is in fabulous shape.

How amazing that you got to meet several of the 'Our Gang' kids! Asking each of them if they had any favorite shorts was also a nice and fresh approach, and the answers themselves are revealing in their own way! George "Spanky" McFarland was in so many shorts over such a long period, that I suspect he may have been hard pressed to single out any favorites even without the lineup!

For your Essential Collection viewings, I also highly recommend checking out the included phonetic Foreign Language versions if time allows, as they are often longer than their English Language counterparts and contain gags not included in their more familiar English Language versions. For a smaller sampling of these, POLITIQUERIAS (1931) (Spanish CHICKENS COME HOME) is the one I most highly recommend! These do also have English subtitle options.

CHEERS!

[NoahYoung]

Yes, I've seen pretty much all the available foreign language versions "way back when" they were on American Movie Classics and more recently on TCM. Watching someone eat, drink, and regurgitate is quite interesting to say the least! I like how Babe breaks character and laughs while saying "meow" in the foreign version of NIGHT OWLS.

It certainly was a hoot meeting the Rascals. Spanky was the least memorable only because it was quick -- you got your tape autographed and moved on. You also got a signed photo of him, too, which he personalized. His main reason to be there was to promote the sale of the then-new releases by Republic Pictures Home Video, which had bought out Blackhawk, and the videos were from 16mm Blackhawk prints. Some were edited, however, when they decide to put two 2-reelers on a tape instead of a 1-reeler and a 2-reeler. At first, they were all in SP mode -- then later I got some that turned out to be EP mode when I played them. Same thing happened to me when I bought a sealed set of all 21 Cabin Fever tapes on eBay. I wound up selling the ones I didn't already have in SP mode.

The other Rascals I met in a more relaxed setting, and surprisingly no one was crowding around them to talk. It was a big hall, and I picked up some Super 8 film prints -- no Rascals but some L&H silents, some Stooges, and Abbott and Costello. I met Chuck McCann there, too, and he told me his favorite L&H was TIT FOR TAT.  He asked me if I was a member of the Sons and when I said "no", he said "why not? That's there so we can all hold hands!" So within a year I did. Arnold Horshack (Ron Pallillo) was there too, as well as Tommy Kirk, but I didn't bother talking with them. Butch, Dorothy, and Shirley Jean were all sitting next to each other, and I got autographed photos of all of them. All I bought was Butch's book, which he signed as well. He was also selling some Cabin Fever tapes. What was most amazing is that they all schlepped to New Joisy! (I was living in Manhattan at the time and took the bus.) I didn't meet Jerry Tucker until he attended a Sons meeting, and I spoke with him at the bar over a drink. We all got a personalized signed photo of him in a scene from HI' NEIGHBOR. Sadly, none of them are still with us, but I cherish these memories from way back in the mid to late 90s. (Spanky was in 1989, however.)

[Tony Bensley]

Yes, I've seen pretty much all the available foreign language versions "way back when" they were on American Movie Classics and more recently on TCM. Watching someone eat, drink, and regurgitate is quite interesting to say the least! I like how Babe breaks character and laughs while saying "meow" in the foreign version of NIGHT OWLS.

It certainly was a hoot meeting the Rascals. Spanky was the least memorable only because it was quick -- you got your tape autographed and moved on. You also got a signed photo of him, too, which he personalized. His main reason to be there was to promote the sale of the then-new releases by Republic Pictures Home Video, which had bought out Blackhawk, and the videos were from 16mm Blackhawk prints. Some were edited, however, when they decide to put two 2-reelers on a tape instead of a 1-reeler and a 2-reeler. At first, they were all in SP mode -- then later I got some that turned out to be EP mode when I played them. Same thing happened to me when I bought a sealed set of all 21 Cabin Fever tapes on eBay. I wound up selling the ones I didn't already have in SP mode.

The other Rascals I met in a more relaxed setting, and surprisingly no one was crowding around them to talk. It was a big hall, and I picked up some Super 8 film prints -- no Rascals but some L&H silents, some Stooges, and Abbott and Costello. I met Chuck McCann there, too, and he told me his favorite L&H was TIT FOR TAT.  He asked me if I was a member of the Sons and when I said "no", he said "why not? That's there so we can all hold hands!" So within a year I did. Arnold Horshack (Ron Pallillo) was there too, as well as Tommy Kirk, but I didn't bother talking with them. Butch, Dorothy, and Shirley Jean were all sitting next to each other, and I got autographed photos of all of them. All I bought was Butch's book, which he signed as well. He was also selling some Cabin Fever tapes. What was most amazing is that they all schlepped to New Joisy! (I was living in Manhattan at the time and took the bus.) I didn't meet Jerry Tucker until he attended a Sons meeting, and I spoke with him at the bar over a drink. We all got a personalized signed photo of him in a scene from HI' NEIGHBOR. Sadly, none of them are still with us, but I cherish these memories from way back in the mid to late 90s. (Spanky was in 1989, however.)

Yes, there are so few of the Rascals left, now. Even Shirley "Muggsy" Coates passed away just a little while back! Two that I can think of who are still with us is Mildred Kornman (Mary Kornman's sister!), and Sidney Kibrick, who played Butch's sidekick, "Woim." Of course, both are well into their 90s, now!

CHEERS!

[NoahYoung]

That's nice -- I didn't know anyone was left.

BTW, here's PARDON US in Spanish --- not on ESSENTIAL:
https://archive.org/details/deBoteEnBote1930LaurelHardy

[NoahYoung]

COME CLEAN at first glance on DEFINITIVE looks great -- it should, since they scanned the original camera negative (OCN).
My memory was correct -- things looks out of focus. That pattern on the door looks wonky (reflection or something), but I think it is magnified because of the first gen neg.
--
Tony said: "I've sussed out that the sometimes odd appearance of the one door in the Hardy's apartment is due to the decorative reflective glass (I think?) panel, which changes appearance according to the lighting and camera angles."
--

The reason I singled this one out in my mind was because it is the only film on the set from the OCN. Sources for the other films on the set are not identified on-screen. The box says original 35mm, but technically only the OCN is "original". Are the others fine grains, dupe negs, or release prints? They don't say.

I watched COME CLEAN first on ESSENTIAL, and was very satisfied with it. Then I immediately put on DEFINITIVE, and was blown away until I started to do side by side comparisons. ESSENTIAL obviously did not have the OCN. I would say release print at best, but that is pure speculation on my part. But it seems to me like ESSENTIAL has a great scan and "digital restoration" of a poorer source, and DEFINITIVE has a poor scan and "digital restoration" of the the better source (OCN), if that makes sense. Maybe the raw scan looks great, and they messed it up by scrubbing it? It says: "Digital restoration: Thad Komorowski/Cineaste. A.R.T (whatever that is) by Point360. Final Conformingf&Clean Up by The Finishing Touch." I'm not sure why Skretvedt supposedly made a fuss on other forums and insisted no digital trickery was used. "Clean Up" and "Digital Restoration", IMHO, is trickery/scrubbing.

Most of the films have similar credits. Digital trickery done twice makes me nervous. Whatever they did, the image isn't as sharp as on ESSENTIAL, even though you can see some more details on DEFINITIVE -- if that makes any sense. For example, you can clearly see the phony skyline when Mae Busch is about to jump in the river. On ESSENTIAL, it is a bit dark and looks real. I've never noticed the phony-ness before -- I need to screen my 16mm now to check.

I'm no expert, but common sense, to me, says that one should use the digital medium to "restore" (for lack of a better word) for viewing by the public as follows:
- Scan the earliest generation film elements
- Use software to sew together the best elements for different scenes. etc. For example, you may have the OCN for reel 1 one of HOG WILD,  but a fine grain for reel 2. Sew them together digitally, then.
- Image stabilization, particularly if the film has shrunk, or has sprocket damage.
- Adjust brightness, contrast, etc. only as it would be done if making a release print on film -- I've heard the term "timing" used to get the exposure right so things look correct.
- Do not -- I repeat -- not -- remove any dirt, scratches, cue marks, or anything else digitally.
- Crop only if boom mikes, etc, were inadvertently filmed. This happened on occasion, since the cameraman knew that it would be masked out when projected.

My comparisons were wax-apples to wax-apples. Same DVD player, same TV. Also, VLC media player on laptop. I didn't add any video effects/filters on VLC. Screenshots generated by VLC.

ESSENTIAL:


DEFINITIVE:


Faces look clearer on ESSENTIAL. On DEFINITIVE, something wonky going on with Babe's suit -- reflection on a shiny suit?

ESSENTIAL:


DEFINITIVE:


Again, faces look clearer on ESSENTIAL.

To me, DEFINITIVE looks like someone used an iPhone in 2022, but didn't focus it well enough. ESSENTIAL looks like someone used a camera in, well, 1931, and focused it well.
 

[Dr. Mabuse]

By all means, hold on to your "Essential Collection" set. The same goes with The Little Rascals DVDs released by Vivendi.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=325673&page=18

[Tony Bensley]

By all means, hold on to your "Essential Collection" set. The same goes with The Little Rascals DVDs released by Vivendi.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=325673&page=18

For The Little Rascals DVDs by Vivendi, I'd say more because the cost of collecting all of the ClassicFlix Blu-ray volumes may be a bit out of range for some, and not all 80 Hal Roach sound shorts have been released to Blu-ray yet (Though they should be before long). From what I've read, they are superior without question!

CHEERS!

[Tony Bensley]

COME CLEAN at first glance on DEFINITIVE looks great -- it should, since they scanned the original camera negative (OCN).
My memory was correct -- things looks out of focus. That pattern on the door looks wonky (reflection or something), but I think it is magnified because of the first gen neg.
--
Tony said: "I've sussed out that the sometimes odd appearance of the one door in the Hardy's apartment is due to the decorative reflective glass (I think?) panel, which changes appearance according to the lighting and camera angles."
--

The reason I singled this one out in my mind was because it is the only film on the set from the OCN. Sources for the other films on the set are not identified on-screen. The box says original 35mm, but technically only the OCN is "original". Are the others fine grains, dupe negs, or release prints? They don't say.

I watched COME CLEAN first on ESSENTIAL, and was very satisfied with it. Then I immediately put on DEFINITIVE, and was blown away until I started to do side by side comparisons. ESSENTIAL obviously did not have the OCN. I would say release print at best, but that is pure speculation on my part. But it seems to me like ESSENTIAL has a great scan and "digital restoration" of a poorer source, and DEFINITIVE has a poor scan and "digital restoration" of the the better source (OCN), if that makes sense. Maybe the raw scan looks great, and they messed it up by scrubbing it? It says: "Digital restoration: Thad Komorowski/Cineaste. A.R.T (whatever that is) by Point360. Final Conformingf&Clean Up by The Finishing Touch." I'm not sure why Skretvedt supposedly made a fuss on other forums and insisted no digital trickery was used. "Clean Up" and "Digital Restoration", IMHO, is trickery/scrubbing.

Most of the films have similar credits. Digital trickery done twice makes me nervous. Whatever they did, the image isn't as sharp as on ESSENTIAL, even though you can see some more details on DEFINITIVE -- if that makes any sense. For example, you can clearly see the phony skyline when Mae Busch is about to jump in the river. On ESSENTIAL, it is a bit dark and looks real. I've never noticed the phony-ness before -- I need to screen my 16mm now to check.

I'm no expert, but common sense, to me, says that one should use the digital medium to "restore" (for lack of a better word) for viewing by the public as follows:
- Scan the earliest generation film elements
- Use software to sew together the best elements for different scenes. etc. For example, you may have the OCN for reel 1 one of HOG WILD,  but a fine grain for reel 2. Sew them together digitally, then.
- Image stabilization, particularly if the film has shrunk, or has sprocket damage.
- Adjust brightness, contrast, etc. only as it would be done if making a release print on film -- I've heard the term "timing" used to get the exposure right so things look correct.
- Do not -- I repeat -- not -- remove any dirt, scratches, cue marks, or anything else digitally.
- Crop only if boom mikes, etc, were inadvertently filmed. This happened on occasion, since the cameraman knew that it would be masked out when projected.

My comparisons were wax-apples to wax-apples. Same DVD player, same TV. Also, VLC media player on laptop. I didn't add any video effects/filters on VLC. Screenshots generated by VLC.

ESSENTIAL:


DEFINITIVE:


Faces look clearer on ESSENTIAL. On DEFINITIVE, something wonky going on with Babe's suit -- reflection on a shiny suit?

ESSENTIAL:


DEFINITIVE:


Again, faces look clearer on ESSENTIAL.

To me, DEFINITIVE looks like someone used an iPhone in 2022, but didn't focus it well enough. ESSENTIAL looks like someone used a camera in, well, 1931, and focused it well.
 

I still say the pros regarding COME CLEAN (1931) on "The Definitive Collection" far outweigh any minuses.

"The Essential Collection" version looks a bit too dark to my eyes, while it does admittedly lean bright on "Definitive," probably owing to the lack of timing on the OCN, which I presume exists on the OCN, with or without additional digital filtering. Cue marks of course, won't be available on an OCN, either.

Insofar as the other titles not derived from OCN on "The Definitive Collection," I would have preferred the cue marks had been left in, but it is something I can live without.

Regarding the shots appearing out of focus on the "Definitive" version, the differences in lighting render that debatable to my eyes. The out of focus issue I pointed out was for a few seconds during HELPMATES (1932), which I recall attributing possibly to a reel change, when brief out of focus frames sometimes occur, if that makes any sense.

The bottom line is how great that we have the luxury of choice between two Laurel & Hardy sets!

CHEERS!

[metaldams]

Is there any word on further restorations, especially pertaining to the silents?

[NoahYoung]

I still say the pros regarding COME CLEAN (1931) on "The Definitive Collection" far outweigh any minuses.

I agree.

"The Essential Collection" version looks a bit too dark to my eyes, while it does admittedly lean bright on "Definitive," probably owing to the lack of timing on the OCN, which I presume exists on the OCN, with or without additional digital filtering. Cue marks of course, won't be available on an OCN, either.

Insofar as the other titles not derived from OCN on "The Definitive Collection," I would have preferred the cue marks had been left in, but it is something I can live without.

What did they replace the cue marks with? Surrounding part of the image that was removed, I would guess.

Regarding the shots appearing out of focus on the "Definitive" version, the differences in lighting render that debatable to my eyes. The out of focus issue I pointed out was for a few seconds during HELPMATES (1932), which I recall attributing possibly to a reel change, when brief out of focus frames sometimes occur, if that makes any sense.

The bottom line is how great that we have the luxury of choice between two Laurel & Hardy sets!

CHEERS!

Indeed! When viewed on a TV set at a normal distance of about 6 feet or so, I did not notice lack of sharpness in COME CLEAN.
That reflection on the kitchen door just stands put so much more since the print they used was so darn good, but it is there on ESSENTIAL, too.

By all means, hold on to your "Essential Collection" set. The same goes with The Little Rascals DVDs released by Vivendi.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=325673&page=18

Well, I've already returned it to the library, since it couldn't be renewed -- I think because someone else requested it. (Weird, since there were 8 or 9 copies available in the system.) I was able to renew DEFINITIVE.

Also, hold onto your copies of from Cabin Fever -- WASHEE IRONEE is edited on Vivendi, but not on Cabin Fever.

For The Little Rascals DVDs by Vivendi, I'd say more because the cost of collecting all of the ClassicFlix Blu-ray volumes may be a bit out of range for some, and not all 80 Hal Roach sound shorts have been released to Blu-ray yet (Though they should be before long). From what I've read, they are superior without question!

CHEERS!

I've only seen youtube clips, but it doesn't seem to be leaps and bounds better than Vivendi, except for the fact that it will be Blu-Ray. I couldn't find a DVD release of it on their site.

I hope they fix the issue with the end title for MAIL AND FEMALE on the June release. On Vivendi, it is replaced by a generic "The End" and the music cuts out. Not sure about Cabin Fever, but my, ahem, Super 8 Sound Blackhawk print does not have that problem. My Blackhawk WASHEE IRONEE is complete, too.

[Tony Bensley]

The Little Rascals ClassicFlix volumes are only being released in the Blu-ray format. Therefore, those without a Blu-ray player do need to hang on to the previous Vivendi and Cabin Fever DVD releases, of which I thankfully have both. It too, is my hope that the End Title replacement card issue for MAIL AND FEMALE (1937) is fixed. If so, I just may splurge for that particular volume, despite my loathing for only buying into one of several Little Rascals volumes, but sadly, our lack of disposable funds simply won't allow me to do otherwise.

That is weird about being unable to renew "The Essential Collection" DVD set, despite there being multiple copies in the Library system. Could this be some sort of glitch in the Library's online setup, perhaps?

CHEERS!

[Tony Bensley]

Speaking of the previous Little Rascals DVD releases, I have sometimes noticed something a bit odd with the visuals on our Toshiba 720p 32" Flatscreen TV. Some shorts have within screen image motion that clearly has nothing to do with the original onscreen action, if that makes any sense. IIRC, this wasn't an issue with playback of these same shorts on our old 20" CRT model Toshiba TV, which we no longer have. I've also noticed other playback anomalies on the Little Rascals Vivendi DVDs, from which I'll need to replay some shorts in order to describe them properly.

Thankfully, I haven't experienced such issues with the L&H "Essential Collection" or "Definitive Restorations" titles!

CHEERS!

[NoahYoung]

The Little Rascals ClassicFlix volumes are only being released in the Blu-ray format. Therefore, those without a Blu-ray player do need to hang on to the previous Vivendi and Cabin Fever DVD releases, of which I thankfully have both. It too, is my hope that the End Title replacement card issue for MAIL AND FEMALE (1937) is fixed. If so, I just may splurge for that particular volume, despite my loathing for only buying into one of several Little Rascals volumes, but sadly, our lack of disposable funds simply won't allow me to do otherwise.

That is weird about being unable to renew "The Essential Collection" DVD set, despite there being multiple copies in the Library system. Could this be some sort of glitch in the Library's online setup, perhaps?

CHEERS!

Is says "8 of 9 available" right now in the library system. It covers all the libraries in my county here in NJ. Perhaps someone in the town whose library my set came from requested it, and it takes priority. When I first borrowed DEFINITIVE almost 2 years ago I could only keep it for 2 weeks since it was new. They have 3 copies of DEFINITIVE -- they auto-renewed it for me -- due 5/10, with one renewal (for another 2 weeks) left.

I know what you mean by disposable funds. I need to prioritize, too, and DVDs don't make the cut for me anymore. Especially when I already have these shorts on DVD -- and don't even have a Blu-Ray player. I save money to buy Our Gang shorts on real film.
I have 58 out of the 80 Roach talkies. Yes, they are more expensive, but the purchase of those 58 started in 1974, and I'm still not finished! 

Same for Laurel and Hardy -- I have about 85 of their films on real film -- started in 1974. I got everyone I wanted in Standard 8mm or Super 8 by around 2000, but started upgrading to 16mm in 1999. I have 20 of the 40 talkie shorts now in 16mm, plus 3 features, and one silent short, but that cost has been spread out over 23 years. It's a lifelong, never-ending pursuit.

[Tony Bensley]

Regarding re-issues of BERTH MARKS and BRATS, it could be argued that these versions have no place on a set called DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS, which should be the original-released versions. But that's neither here nor there. But by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack is creating a Franken-movie.  I assume they didn't lose the film elements from the 1936 version from 2011 to 2020.  If it were just DVD, and wanted to take the lazy way out, I would have just included the version from ESSENTIAL. But since there was a Blu-Ray version on DEFINITIVE, upscaling from DVD would have caused an uproar as well.

IIRC, and sadly, both of my EC and DR sets are currently packed away where I can't get at them, at the moment, BERTH MARKS' openings and closings are the same on both sets, so I don't quite get your meaning regarding creating a Franken-movie by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack for the Definitive Restorations release.

CHEERS!

[NoahYoung]

IIRC, and sadly, both of my EC and DR sets are currently packed away where I can't get at them, at the moment, BERTH MARKS' openings and closings are the same on both sets, so I don't quite get your meaning regarding creating a Franken-movie by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack for the Definitive Restorations release.

CHEERS!

As I recall, on DEFINITIVE they used the 1929 silent verion for the picture, but used the 1936 re-issue soundtrack.  I believe that's why parts are out-of-sync. In 1929, they were still releasing L&Hs with inter-titles for theaters not yet equipped for sound. I think (not positive) some scenes had a different take in the silent and talkie versions. Also, I believe (not positive) that the 1936 reissue may have had edits, making it different from the 1929 talkie version.  I do know that BLOTTO, BRATS, and BEAU HUNKS were slightly edited by Roach for the late 30's reissues. BEAU HUNKS had the first song that Babe sings cut out. All 3 had their introductory titles cut out.

[Tony Bensley]

As I recall, on DEFINITIVE they used the 1929 silent verion for the picture, but used the 1936 re-issue soundtrack.  I believe that's why parts are out-of-sync. In 1929, they were still releasing L&Hs with inter-titles for theaters not yet equipped for sound. I think (not positive) some scenes had a different take in the silent and talkie versions. Also, I believe (not positive) that the 1936 reissue may have had edits, making it different from the 1929 talkie version.  I do know that BLOTTO, BRATS, and BEAU HUNKS were slightly edited by Roach for the late 30's reissues. BEAU HUNKS had the first song that Babe sings cut out. All 3 had their introductory titles cut out.

It seems the DEFINITIVE and ESSENTIAL transfers foe BERTH MARKS would have to be played side by side in order to spot any differences!

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

It seems the DEFINITIVE and ESSENTIAL transfers foe BERTH MARKS would have to be played side by side in order to spot any differences!

CHEERS! 

I thought it was on nitrateville where they discussed all the gory detail, but I can't find it. That restoration set on blu-ray caused quite some debates on various forums.