[Videolib] Public performance rights question

Griest, Bryan (BGriest@ci.glendale.ca.us)
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:09:52 -0700

I'm sure it wasn't cheap, either. The fact that an archive made the effort
to restore the original elements, though, underscores my main point that
archives are as good as commerical entities in doing so. And I'm sure that
consumers with a discerning eye/ear would pay extra to have a video made
from those restored elements also, which is part of my argument as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu]On Behalf Of Eileen
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:46 AM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Public performance rights question

I have to agree with Jessica about the quality of the films that would
be available to the consumer. For example, take a look at a cheap
version of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films compared to the
UCLA/MPI versions. The quality of the picture and the sound are light
years away from each other. Plus, some of the cheaper versions are not
the complete movie. The first one I purchased was a cheap version,
no where on the packaging did it mention that the movie was incomplete.
I put the movie in my machine and the first thing that comes up is a
message telling me scenes could be missing from the movie. In the first
five minutes of the movie, two scenes were missing, the soundtrack had
crackling and there were white lines running through the film. The
UCLA/MPI versions practically look brand new. They had to scour the
country to find all the missing pieces to the movies. I am sure it was
not a cheap proposition to restore these 14 films.

Videolib mailing list