|
Author
|
Topic: Faded Viewing. Not a Criticism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panayotis A. Carayannis
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 969
From: Athens,Greece
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted December 21, 2017 01:48 AM
I won't buy something,be it film,record,book or whatever and not see,read,listen to,just to "have" it! But will buy it reddish or scratched,if I want it very much and the chances are few to find a better copy. I don't mind if others will not watch them,as long as I will.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted December 22, 2017 07:40 AM
Graham / David,
While respecting your point of view, I'd say that a reason why I'd generally argue for not destroying prints is because doing so makes film collecting less inclusive for those with limited funds. Posts sometimes appear here saying rising prices are a serious issue, and the fact is that if your income is modest, then a faded print of a premium title like 'Star Wars' will be your only chance of owning one. I recall a post I once saw on the 16mm Forum that said: "I buy faded prints because that's what I can afford." Also, fade is extremely subjective; I'm sometimes surprised to hear collectors saying that a print that I'd consider mostly red isn't at all bad.
I'd of course agree that people should not profit from misrepresenting films, but that can happen even if a film isn't faded. The same argument could be made for destroying all films with significant scratches (to prevent them being offered as being in good condition), or (e.g.) films with sprocket damage, even though this might be repaired. In an era when very little in the way of new prints will come onto the market, any decision to add to vast numbers of destroyed prints is a heavy responsibility.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted December 22, 2017 10:39 AM
Personally, red prints are an absolute no-no for me, for the same reason I wouldn't listen to or keep worn-out LPs. If it looks or sounds bad, what's the point? No pleasure in it.
The idea for me is to enjoy the BEAUTY of film, why else bother to set it all up?
If I want totally pristine images, I have Blu-Ray and UHD discs that give me wonderful copies of films never available on super-8 or 16mm, but if I want to showcase real film projection, surely it is to showcase actual film looking good?
I know prints will have some scratches and such, but as long as they are minor, I can live with that.
To sit through a film where the color is just red, however, is like torture. Every second of it reminds me of what it should have been, and how the Blu-ray will look so much better, which are surely not the thoughts you want to have when running actual film. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Not only is it ugly, but anyone else who sees it will surely question why I bother.
Red/ruined prints give a lot of ignorant people all the ammo they need to condemn film even further as being primitive and not worthy of existence in this day and age. We don't need more of that; witness what it did to movie theatres with the digital invasion.
The bane of this hobby is lousy or faded prints (Eastman, as we know, is a major culprit), so picking carefully becomes ever more important as more and more films become unwatchable.
I love film; I love how it looks; I love to project it, and work with it in stills and Super-8 shooting. But I am not going to "suffer for the art" by spending money on, and sitting through, a horrid-looking print just because it's "film." Quality matters.
C.
--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
