Does anyone know why the picture quality here is so bad? This was the late 40's and I've seen better quality silents. The sound was pretty bad, too.
shareThe DVD Transfer was done rather cheaply by non-studio technicians. That may explain the poor quality. Wouldn't it be nice if all of the studios used the best tecnicians to transfer films for the digital age?
shareFor some reason, Universal failed to renew the copyright on Smash-Up so it fell into public domain, meaning anyone who can find a copy is free to duplicate it and sell it on VHS/DVD. (These are generally the really cheap older titles you see in DVD discount bins.) Public domain releases are frequently struck from beat-up old prints previously shown on TV or third-rate theatres until they practically fell apart, then discarded or sold because print/sound quality is so poor.
sharethanks for the tips, webster. your answer arouses many of the questions and private speculations i've had and public acknowledgements others have made.
poor quality seems to come from under or no use and sometimes from enormous popularity and use.
it seems (to me) that the studios regarded completed films which had finished their first run in theaters as kaput as moneymakers, until about 1955 when some RKO features were sold to tv because RKO was essentially broke. at this point old films had a new financial life, and the other studios followed suit in the late 50's, and packaged old films for leasing to stations to be broadcasted. until then, little was done to maintain quality and durability of the original elements. (even since then, film production companies have a poor/spotty record in this regard.) the attitude was "well, we'll milk this movie for all its worth one more time."
some films were in demand, some weren't. Smashup was in the "weren't" category. it was neglected, the copyright wasn't renewed, and thus sat on the shelf, an orphan so to speak. then came VCRs, and movies had a new (financial) life again. from 1947 till the early 80's Smashup prints dwindled down, and consisted of old 16mm tv syndication copies, and it's from these that VCR and now DVD copies are made. (even TCM used an inferior quality print the other day 11.14.11 to broadcast the movie.) does the original negative or master positive even exist? is there ANY copy of good quality still in existence? this kind of history affects many old features (and shorts), and the older the movie, the more the story applies.
in some cases overuse and popularity conspired to ruin the original elements. a case in this instance is the movie The Lost Horizon. no copy of the original negative or master positive exists; no complete copy of the original movie even exists in 16mm. this was because too many prints were made and the originals wore out, copies were edited for time on reissue prints, and further edits made to make the running time fit into the tv stations cramped time schedule. a full audio copy was found, and is played on the DVD with studio stills used for the visuals during the missing scenes/snippets.
of course, if a movie has an enormous financial horizon, like Gone With The Wind, the studio will take care of their "property" to ensure its viable use in any future format.
even TCM used an inferior quality print the other day 11.14.11 to broadcast the movie.) does the original negative or master positive even exist? is there ANY copy of good quality still in existence?This is what I want to know. I just watch a recording from TCM that came on a few days ago, and the print quality was awful! Plus, there was no intro from Robert Osborne or Ben about it.