Talk:Producers Releasing Corporation

Poor Film Quality?

Any information on what is behind the poor film quality of some these B studio black and white movies from this era? Were they shot with poor quality cameras and film or is this the result of them being recorded on Kinescope for TV in the early 50s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.226.163 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Poverty row pictures were typically made with cameras and film stock capable of producing comparable results to those of major studios, given that the lack of time might entail compromises on lighting etc. That doesn't account for the usual difference in quality we now often see. Older major studio pictures are now typically remastered from the best possible sources, preferably original negatives, and digitally restored to pristine condition. Many of the films of defunct smaller studios and independents however have fallen into the public domain which means that anyone can release a film from whatever copy they might have, however poor. Those copies might be copies of copies of copies - degenerating with each dupe - or old telecines or 16mm reduction prints or VHS copies someone recorded off a TV screening from 40 years ago etc, etc. Because no distributor can exclusively release these films it often makes no commercial sense for them to spend the time and money to restore them so all we see are the very poor copies. On those rare occasions that such restorations are made the results are often similar in quality to the cheaper productions of the major studios. PRC's The Devil Bat is one such example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.89.178 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)