Griffith in stereo!
Dwight Frippery
have discovered a second set of
disks from DW Griffith's early sound
film, DREAM STREET.
This movie was made using the
"Kellum" process and Griffith himself
appears in a spoken prologue (which
Brownlow and Gill have preserved)
But according to reliable informants
who have access to the original disks,
there is a second set of disks which
carry a second channel of audio and
sound effects which, when synchronized
with the original disks, produces a primitive stereo effect.
DREAM STREET was never released using this second tier of sound, but
a DVD version is reportedly in the making
using the stereo version.
Neil Midkiff
Two days late, Dwight.
-Neil
Fair Pickings
Frippery at Fri...@webtv.net wrote on 4/3/01 12:17 PM:
Great! Will this make DREAM STREET a better film?
Robert Birchard
> Diligent movie audio specialists
> have discovered a second set of
> disks from DW Griffith's early sound
> film, DREAM STREET.
>
> This movie was made using the
> "Kellum" process and Griffith himself
> appears in a spoken prologue (which
> Brownlow and Gill have preserved)
In the first place, only a fragment of the D.W. Griffith prologue to "Dream
Street" is known to survive, and that is part of a Kellum Talking Pictures demo
reel that is held and was preserved by UCLA. While some of the subjects on the
demo reel also survive with their original recordings, all that is known to
survive on the Griffith piece is the acoustically dubbed track of the demo reel.
The sound quality of this acoustic dub is very poor, but it is all the UCLA had to
work with in their restoration. Brownlow and Gill used nearly every surviving
frame of the Griffith prologue in "Hollywood." Since the Kellum Talking Picture
recording of Griffith was done in a medium close up with an acoustic horn, there
would have been no need for sound effects, and any stereo separation in a second
recording (if there had been one) would have been negligible and of no real
consequence.
There apparently were a few talking sequences in the reissue of Dream
Street, which was only publicly seen at one location in New York and occurred
after the general release (and box-office failure) of the film, but these
sequences are not known to survive.
My suggestion, Dwight (or whatever your real name may be), is that you
expend some effort studying the history of motion picture technology and stop
muddying up this newsgroup with ignorant, ill-informed and idiotic posts based on
your "sources" which seem to exist only in your feeble imagination.
But then your name says it all. Among the dictionary definitions of
"frippery" are: "trifling, contemptible" and "showy display in . . . manners,
speech, etc.; affectation of elegance."
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
James Russell
<bbir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Since the Kellum Talking Picture
>recording of Griffith was done in a medium close up with an acoustic horn, there
>would have been no need for sound effects, and any stereo separation in a second
>recording (if there had been one) would have been negligible and of no real
>consequence.
Not that I know anything about the Kellum process, but I'm presuming
it was disc-based? If so, then I'd be highly dubious of any claim
(even if it weren't from our Dwight) that stereo discs were
successfully recorded in 1921. They had enough trouble just recording
sound acoustically without bothering with stereo splitting as well.
I'm not aware of any attempts to do two-channel disc recordings until
1931 or 1932, and since we never got stereo records for sale until
1958, we may assume those attempts did not succeed.
> My suggestion, Dwight (or whatever your real name may be), is that you
>expend some effort studying the history of motion picture technology and stop
>muddying up this newsgroup with ignorant, ill-informed and idiotic posts based on
>your "sources" which seem to exist only in your feeble imagination.
> But then your name says it all. Among the dictionary definitions of
>"frippery" are: "trifling, contemptible" and "showy display in . . . manners,
>speech, etc.; affectation of elegance."
I like the first one better myself :)
--
James R.
http://www.ans.com.au/~jgwr/
Celluloid Dreams http://www.2ser.com Monday 7-7.30pm AEST
Dwight Frippery
> My suggestion, Dwight (or
>whatever your real name may be), is that
>you expend some effort studying the
>history of motion picture technology and
>stop muddying up this newsgroup with
>ignorant, ill-informed and idiotic posts
>based on your "sources" which seem to
>exist only in your feeble imagination.
Ouch!
Robert, I bow to your superior knowledge.
I have several learned sources that I rely
upon. They report whatever rumors or
tips they receive, and I act like Matt
Drudge and print them in the hope that
I am providing a "scoop" to the well-informed posters on this newsgroup.
I know you by your reputation as a great
authority on silent films.
I promise to question my sources more
closely and will impart a sense of prudence to them regarding
unsubstantiated rumors.
Stephen Cooke
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dwight Frippery wrote:
> I have several learned sources that I rely
> upon. They report whatever rumors or
> tips they receive, and I act like Matt
> Drudge and print them in the hope that
> I am providing a "scoop" to the well-informed posters on this newsgroup.
It's a scoop alright, but what it's a scoopful of, I'd rather not say.
Stephen
Acting like Matt Drudge...when was the last time he was a reliable source
of anything?