|
Author
|
Topic: For Sale: The Jungle Book from Derann (Stereo) SOLD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted July 27, 2015 07:15 PM
I reckon given it's source of origin and given the condition of the actual original box let alone the print, I must have one of the best left of these.
This is not meant as a boast by any means as I paid an absolute fortune for it compared to any other 3 x 600ft Derann print that I own, and I doubt I would ever recoup my outlay. But for example the film was in its original box with it's original cellophane wrapped around the box plus the original price tag still stuck to the original cellophane still stuck to the original box...you get the picture.
Point is, Just like the box, the print is as good as it gets both for sound and picture.
Must certainly be AS good if not better than any 16mm print of this film, simply because it looks like a first run perfect print from a top original Disney studios owned negative which of course, is what it is.
Would this better my Blu Ray of this title...no
Unfair comparison every day of the week now due to the advancements of digital transfers, digital enhancements and of course digital projectors advancements also.
Just like in the earlier posts, there is no point in trying to intercompare the two as digital images are perfect!
No negative sparkle, no splices, no drop outs in the sound, nothing physical and nothing mechanical.
The Blu Ray is simply perfect in every way (perhaps over perfect for anything made in 1967 if I am to be slightly critical), but considering this film was produced by Derann in the early to mid 90's and the original Disney negatives must be far older of course given the film was actually made in 1967,... then nothing in that same era could have possibly surpassed it in terms of quality apart from the 35mm print.
The screenshots illustrated above are by no means exaggerated. This really is how the print looks when it hits the screen.
The best prints of this title are simply THAT good for both picture and Stereo Sound!
Not bad at all for what was out there in 92/95 latest!
--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted August 01, 2015 01:46 PM
When Derann signed the deal with Disney in the early 1990's, all negtives were made in Burbank and shipped to Derann for printing.
"The Little Mermaid" was an early mistake, as Disney mis-understood, or simply didn't care about the master material.
This was quickly put to rights.
"Cinderella" is the only Disney feature negative that I can recall which was produced from a print source, hence the certification board at the beginning of the print. It was a little warmer and had more grain than the other Disney features, but was still beautiful.
Other Disney feature film negatives were generally produced by Disney and then printed in the UK.
Most "modern" realeases ie. post 1990, were pan and scan versions, I guess from 16mm interpostive versions of 1.85 theatrical versions.
Although, "Beauty and the Beast" was preserved hard masked in the 1.85 format.
Releases, such as Bambi, suffered from 1.85 hard masking from the original 1.33 Academy ratio, as they were produced from new theatrical interpostives for re-release in "modern" cinemas that were pre-engineered for 1.85
And of course, the scope negative versions were made with the full 8mm width in order, hence some frame cropping top and bottom.
What happened whilst printing here in the UK resulted in varying results.
Rank did their best, but certainly a "first print run" was desirable.
Later, a certain lab in the north, despite "coming to the rescue", simply didn't seem to give a ****.
Hence prints covered in white dirt speckles, off-centre and off-colour in later years.
Sorry for being so blunt, but it always frustrates me when quality is available and yet laziness takes over.
And also, I want to say that despite enjoying "digital" (sorry) these days, I have a deep fondness for film, especially 8mm which will never leave me.
I suspect this is true for most of us here and I think we should continue to enjoy sharing our "real" film knowledge with each other, despite our other movie related interests! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
