Harrison's Reports (1929)

IN TWO SECTIONS— PART ONE Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921. at the post office at New York. New York, under the act of March S, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15,00 U. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.50 35c a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service by a Former Exhibitor Devoted Exclusively to the Interests of Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for It.s Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established Jjly 1, 1919 Tel. : Pennsylvania 7649 Cable Address : Harrenorts (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XI SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 1929 No.^4 Copyright, 1929, by P. S. Harrison Sound ‘‘Duping'’ — What It Is and How It Affects You! Several exhibitors have complained to this office that the tone quality of some of the disc-sound talking pictures they have played w as so poor that their patrons walked out of the theatre, forcing them to refund their money, and to pull off the pictures. The complaints concern almost exclusively Paramount Famous Lasky, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Fox Pictures, mostly Paramount and Fox. Since all these companies record the sound of their talking pictures on film, they make their sound-on-disc by rerecording of the original sound, or “duping,” as it is commonly called. For the purpose of clarity, it is necessary for us to define an “original sound print” of a sound record. .A. film positive print is made directly from the original film sound negative taken in the studio. A disc positive print is pressed from a matrix made originally in the studio. These are the only true “original positive prints.” There is no re-recording of any sort involved. Often the producers find it necessary to introduce into an original sound record (film or disc), sound effects, music, sound fade-ins or fade-outs, or lap dissolves or other special effects. In such a case, re-recording is resorted to. If the re-recording is to be done from a film sound negative, the negative is run through a regular or a modified projector and the sound is re-recorded on a disc by a recording apparatus. (Sometimes it is re-recorded on a film. But this is done more rarely.) If the re-recording is done on a disc, a disc matrix is made, from which positives are pressed. There are times when a producer desires to add music and .sound effects to the original sound. The sound effects may be taken from an original or duped film, or from an original or duped disc, and the music may be either from an orchestra, or from an original or duped film, or disc. Some producers add original sound effects during the rc-recording. This entire process is called “mixing.” In the first days of talking pictures, when they were in great demand and the producers were unable to supply it. <liaIogiie was superimposed on the scenes. But in every instance the superimposing was done poorly, because it is impossible to photograph the action first and insert the talk afterwards. It is impossible to superimpose even singing, even though in many instances the synchronization is perfect: there is something that tells the spectator that the singing was not done by the character, not at least at the time the picture was taken. It is necessary to emphasize that duping is not, for certain purposes and under certain conditions, improper, nor does it necessarily lower the quality of the postive prints or discs that are made from a duped film negative or a disc matrix. Duping has a legitimate place in the sound film industry. But such a place must be clearly under stood and frankly stated. A duped positive film or a duped disc may be practically as good as the original, provided it is made on an extremely high grade recording apparatus, from a high qualitv negative, and the equipment is handled in a technically correct way by highly skilled persons. Any sound effects or music introduced in the “mixing” must be done with the greatest care and caution. Otherwise the clearness of the original recording is spoiled. Even if all these conditions were to be complied with, the duped negative or the disc matrix may turn out to be poor, unless it is carefully developed or processed. It is also necessary that, in the case of sound-on-film, the sound track be free from “spots,” these being the result of either inferior raw stock or of poor developing. .And a variable density sound track is seldom free of such spots. It is apparent that, before a duped positive can be as good, or nearly as good, as the original, many conditions must be observed. Unfortunately, these conditions are by no means always observed, with the result that the duped positive has been so bad that it has driven picture-goers out of the theatres, giving the talking pictures a bad name. Consequently, the duped positive has fallen into disrepute. In many instances, duping is resorted to in order to save production cost. The resultant saving, however, has not been reflected in the price of the duped positive. Warner Bros., for example, are now duping ; in many instances they first record on film and then re-record the sound on a disc. It seems as if “Madonna of Avenue A” has been so recorded. But we have not heard of its customers getting any rebate because of such saving. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the exhibitor is in no position to tell when a “duped” disc or film positive is as good, or nearly as good, as the original, and he shows the picture with the kind of sound that is furnished him by the distributor. This results ii. a great detriment, not only of his own business, but also of the entire film business. Sound positives or discs furnished to the exhibitor should 1)0 definitely labeled as “Original,” “Re-recorded Without ■Additions,” “Re-recorded With Sound Effects Added,” or “Re-recorded With Music .Added.” Such a mode of labelng would enable the exhibitor to know what he is getting. Or, better yet, the kind of sound the exhibitor expects to get should he stated in the contract in the form of an added provision. If re-recording or “duping” is to be resorted to for reason of economy, the exhibitor should be the beneficiary of part of the savings. It is extremely doubtful, however, if the majority of the producers will ever be depended upon so to mark thrir disc records. When they are scraping the old labels off the discs and pasting on new ones in an effort to lead the exhibitors to believe that such records are new, although they know that the future of talking pictures depends on clear sound and good tone quality, one can have no faith in their sincerity. Under such circumstances, yon have onlv one wav out — scrap the disc. When 'HARRISON’S REPORTS advocated the making of sound-on-disc versions so as to help such of the smaller exhibitors as could not afford to install a soundon-film instrument, hut could a sound-on-disc, it never believed that the producers would resort to such practices. But it was wrong. .And that is why it is necessary for yon to sign the death warrant of the disc at once. Besides, the reasons that induced this paper to advocate the retension of the disc for at least two years no longer exist, since Mr. Alvers has now succeeded in inducing the executives of the RC.A Photophone. Inc., to put out a low-price instrument that will take both soimd-on-film and soundon-disc. I believe that it will, in fact, be better for yon, in negotiating with this concern for an instrument, to hnv only the sound-on-film device so that you may never he tempted to run sound-on-disc pictures. The tone quality of the sound given out by the wax will never approach the tone quality of the sound given out by the film, as explained in these columns before; and as the future of the talking picture depends on good tone quality, it is necessary to scrap the disc now. Fears have been expressed that a film sound print would not last half as long as a silent print and therefore a great expense would be put on the smaller exhibitor, who would be compelled to carry the heavy burden that would come from the frequent replacement of prints. But this (Continued on last page)