|
Author
|
Topic: Aliens - Uncut Theatrical on eBay now.
|
|
|
David C. Lucidi
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 127
From: Glenolden, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted May 22, 2018 11:24 AM
It's been discussed in detail over many years, with many posts, and many collectors sharing that mylar does, indeed, scratch easier than acetate. Well, to be correct, 'polyester' film. Mylar was the 3M brand name (and Estar was Kodak's).
Pop over on the 16mm forum, and do various searches on the topic. Not sure if this also applies to 8mm, or 35mm, but in the 16mm world, it has been discussed and many collectors would stand by that statement. There are even cases of other theatre projectionists posting on that forum attesting to it scratching easier as well. One of the projectionists stated that the reason was "Polyester film does tend to scratch easier than acetate film, because the emulsion does not bind as well to the base".
Are that many collectors (and projectionists) wrong? These are guys who spend their lives buying and projecting prints for their personal collection, and share their combined experiences on a forum. That personal combined experience carries considerable weight, including those who also had 4-5 decades of projectionist experience.
And to comment on another point, to claim "Any print that is scratched whether emulsion or base side is a damaged copy" is a drastic stretch of the word 'damaged'. Few prints in 16mm exist without SOME form of an occasional emulsion scratch. Continuous scratch down the middle for 10 mins? Yes, that's damaged. One that appears for 5-10 seconds or less, esp. off to the side? No, that's called USED. Like Brian Stearns said, if you want perfect, go digital. Meanwhile, good luck trying to find a mint 16mm print that was a very hot title, without SOME sort of wear on it. Yes, scratch-free popular title prints in polyester do exist (my copy of Toy Story is one of them) but they certainly are the exception, not the norm in 16mm features. Something with only a few abstract emulsion lines that only last a few seconds would not be considered damaged by the vast majority of 16mm collectors.
And considering that the print was started at $49.99, I would think that the price reflected condition, even tho many watched it at Cinesea on a 9ft screen and didn't have any complaints. The crazy price it sold for was due to someone's desire, but is no reflection on the seller.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Hardy
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 955
From: Johnshaven Village , Montrose, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2015
|
posted May 22, 2018 06:48 PM
David that is most interesting what you state there but i still have to disagree with you.
A scratched print is classified as a damaged print here in the UK. No matter how much scratching there may be whether on the base or emulsions side of the copy.
It may be the case that here in the UK our projection standards are a bit more strict and rigorous and the criteria not so lax as it may be in the USA. I don't know that for sure though.
These are standards that have been enforced by The British Kinematograph , Sound and Television Society ( B.K.S.T.S.) and they trained all projectionists to that standard and cover all aspects of projection and film handling.
It took me 3 and a half years to train and obtain my Projectionist Certificate. You could not be employed at one time here in the UK as a projectionist or Chief projectionist in any projection box ( booth ) without one .
The Projectionist Certificate was jointly recognised by not only the Cinema operators such as Rank and the ABC circuit and the Independents but the official Trade Union for Cinema,TV and Theatre employees too. National Association for Television, Theatre and Kinema Employees. ( N.A.T.T.K.E )
However back to my point it cleary states in the B.KS.T.S. Motion Picture Presentation Manual which was our training manual and bible here in the UK that a scratched print is a damaged print.
The main cause of film scratching is caused by lack of keeping all parts of the projector scrupulously clean. Scratching is caused by some extraneous matter coming up against the film on its passage through the projector.
Of course scratching can also be caused in other ways such as careless lacing up, worn projector parts or bad manual film rewinding on the bench , etc .
We had to report any scratched film we received immediately to the Film Renter so that the previous user could be traced and to make sure that what has caused the scratching is found and removed before further damage to other films was done.
Of course if we scratched a print we had to report such damage and give the reasons how and why in a written report.
Film scratching was taken very seriously by the film renters and any projectionist who repeatedly caused such damage for whatever reasons to a print would be sacked and blacklisted from being employed in any projection box in the UK.
Here is a list of what is classified as scratched film damage and its causes :
SCRATCHING :
(A ) May be on either surface and can be broken down into various types.
Continuous straight scratches on either side of the print - typical projector scratches caused by a fault on the machine or dirt or the film coming into contact with something else while running.
Cinch scratches - Short lengthwise scratches usually caused by attempting to tighten the reel by pulling on the outside layer.
Cross Abrasions - The scratches resulting from contact of the entire film surface with the spool flange. Such scratches usually run diagonally across the film from one edge to the other
Random Short Horizontal Scratches - On either surface usually caused by contact of the film with a dirty floor or rewind bench.
So you can clearly see its all down to careful machine maintenance, lacing up and scrupulous cleanliness of the projector and the projection working area.
There is no real reasons other than these why your print may not remain as clean and pristine as digital presentations on screen.
I have in all my decades as a projectionist and collector known of any other causes of film scratching. So be it Nitrate , Acetates , or Polyesters or Mylars they are all just as vulnerable to scratching equally no matter how many runs they might have had.
If the print is scratched in anyway it is considered DAMAGED full stop.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
" My equipment's more important than your rats. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
David C. Lucidi
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 127
From: Glenolden, PA, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted May 22, 2018 07:34 PM
No one is debating what causes scratches. What is being debated is whether polyester scratches easier than acetate. There are many that joke that just breathing on polyester will scratch it -- an exaggeration of course. But the point being that given the same set of circumstances where acetate may only get a minuscule scratch that wouldn't even show up upon projection, polyester would leave a long emulsion scratch. Many 16mm collectors would agree with that statement.
You can continuously remind us all of your years experience as a theatre projectionist (35mm and possibly 70mm, I assume). However it doesn't coincide with the topic at hand (which I was clear to specify) -- 16mm polyester. As I already stated in my previous post, "Not sure if this also applies to 8mm, or 35mm, but in the 16mm world, it has been discussed and many collectors would stand by that statement."
Furthermore, this forum (and the other 16mm forums) consist of people buying and selling film for personal use. Few, if any collectors would consider a few seconds worth of hairline scratches (emulsion or base) 'damaged'. The length, location, duration and frequency would determine if the print is considered 'like new', 'some wear', 'worn', 'damaged', etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Hardy
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 955
From: Johnshaven Village , Montrose, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2015
|
posted May 23, 2018 03:31 AM
Whether its the DOMESTIC collectors market or not a scratched print on any gauge is a damaged print regardless of what private collectors criteria might be or think it should be.
If any amateurs private 16mm or any other gauge collectors want to go against the standards and criteria described as film damage by such highly professional bodies such as Technical Advisory Committee of the British Kinematograph , Sound and Television Society then they can do so.
However they are clearly deluded and wrong to do so.
This Polyester / Mylar stock scratching easier than acetates is just a MYTH in my experience.
Our Poly/Mylar prints left our site after weeks or months with no visible scratches evident.
They were ran 4 times a day, 7 days a week , you do the maths for the number of runs per week.
No scratching , no film protection used whatever.
Kevin is correct that most of the 16mm prints for are mostly ex rental stocks or even misused TV copies. The scratch damage on them is the result of poor film handling or worn projectors.
Also my own collection comprises of both types of film stocks on 8mm / 16mm / and 35mm and i have to report that non of my poly 8mm prints bought new show no evidence of scratching any more than my acetates purchased new.
Bottom line film scratching DAMAGE of all types is the end result of particles dirt , grit , dust , and/or negligence by the projectionist. Whether on the machine or the film bench or even during film cleaning and lubing of the print.
So my point is that if you buy a scratched print you are buying a DAMAGED PRINT. There can be no argument or ifs or buts about that FACT regardless of what some ( but not ME one of the FEW ) private film collectors regard as acceptable for them.
It is indeed most unfortunate that most prints i have purchased second hand ( used ) over the decades since 1966 ( pre poly stock era ) on any film gauge have clear evidence of this avoidable print damage. Sometimes i have been lucky though and i do mean sometimes. So it follows have a lot of damaged prints in my collection and so do many others.
However i would never have bought the above 16mm Aliens copy for that amount of cash. It makes me cringe at the thought of someone paying that kind of money for a damaged print unless of course it was an absolutely rare film ( which it is not ) on any movie format be it film disc or even video tape.
But hey -ho its their cash and if they want to blow it on a damaged film print or other stuff such as scratched vinyl LP records or tapes with oxide flaking that's their business.
So i will contribute no more to this topic as the reasons should be obvious.
I think these days in the film forums collecting scene its becoming a case of Inexperienced newcomers Vs Experienced oldies and Amateurs Vs Pros when it comes to advice and opinions. hahahahaha !
My how things have changed.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ May 23, 2018, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: David Hardy ]
--------------------
" My equipment's more important than your rats. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
