This is topic Faded Viewing. Not a Criticism in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011967

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 20, 2017, 02:54 PM:
 
This has been bought up before but as time goes by i am still very curious as to why anyone would want to sit through a film of one colour.
Recently on ebay the Texas Chainsaw went for £310.00 and is was advertised as red [Frown]
I fully understand when a film has early fade that filters help etc, we ourselves have a couple on the turn but i see screenshots of two hour films that are pink or red and i am sorry folks but i just dont get that at all.
Am i missing something here?
If i bought an audience in to watch a movie and it had no colour left or even only had a few colours left i am not sure i would be doing cine any justice as they would probably question why i would want that in a collection, or even question why i would want to continue this way and not go 100% digital [Wink]

As i said, each to there own, i am not criticising anyone who may not be bothered by it, i am simply asking why? as i just dont get it. I would rather have a darn good b/w copy.
 
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on December 20, 2017, 03:29 PM:
 
Sometimes I wonder if there are people out there who want to own a print, but don't particularly want to watch the print. To them it's a collectable, an oddity since it's on an "obsolete" format.

Why would they care if it's faded? As long as the box is in nice shape it'll look great in a display.

In a lot of cases this theory shouldn't hold water, but when you are talking about films like Star Wars?

I can't do badly faded or scratched prints myself, it takes all the joy out of watching the movie.
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 20, 2017, 03:38 PM:
 
good points Steve and also agree with you on the fade and scratches, i dont expect 100% perfection every time but heavy scratches throughout are a no no, red is a throw away or at the very least, avoid. [Wink]
 
Posted by Martin Dew (Member # 5748) on December 20, 2017, 04:00 PM:
 
I actually don't mind a few scratches on used prints, I think it can add to the charm. (I just make damn sure I never add any.)

I don't mind a bit of fade either, but red or monotone prints are my red line. I sold some red 16mm features earlier in the year because it bothered me more and more each time I watched them.
 
Posted by Clinton Hunt (Member # 2072) on December 20, 2017, 04:58 PM:
 
I don't mind watching films that have faded to red,to me it is all part of my film hobby.
And as I was brought up in the era of B/W TV I have no problems watching B/W films so I agree that if I had a choice of B/W or red film then I'm happy with B/W [Smile]
P.S. and since most of my colour films on Super 8mm or 16mm have faded to red then it's that or nothing.
 
Posted by Will Trenfield (Member # 5321) on December 20, 2017, 05:07 PM:
 
I agree with Steve in that collectors will pay out good money for items that they'll never use. In the case of cine films, they may well not own a projector. My son is a massive Queen fan and has bought rare records that he'll never play just so that he can add them to his collection.
 
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on December 20, 2017, 05:19 PM:
 
I show the good stuff if I have an audience. I have faded and red prints but I am the only one watching those. Mostly obtained very cheap or free. I can tolerate them. To me not everything has to be perfect, that's unrealistic.
 
Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 20, 2017, 06:56 PM:
 
Doesn't seem to be a shortage of interest in faded titles in the 8mm films for sale section.
 
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 20, 2017, 08:21 PM:
 
I'm grateful as I'll be sorting out some faded prints to sell before long! I appreciate the collecting but not viewing factor for some, but for me this makes more sense in relation to a S8 digest with a nice box. The attraction in relation to a faded 16mm print in routine boxes or cans is harder to understand.

I think in some cases it's someone buying one of their all-time favourite films, thinking they may never get a better print. I paid quite a bit (but not a fortune) for a warm 16mm print of 'The Wicker Man'. I was very disappointed that it didn't have the distributor's logo and the degree of fade has meant I still haven't run it. I may well sell it sometime but when it was offered, I eventually couldn't resist it, even though I'd have been quite happy if someone else had snapped it up first!
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 21, 2017, 12:33 AM:
 
I dont mind prints that have a wee bit of fade, but once they turn completely red like my 16mm Scope print of "Star Wars" then they go in the bin. I simply cant watch a red print and wouldn't show anybody else it either, so there is little point keeping it.

As far as a $$$$ value to a faded print...there ain't any in my book, the film is scrap. [Frown] and like you Tom I really cant figure out why anybody would pay money for one...very strange [Roll Eyes]

Steve makes a good point though why some people collect things. I was told lately, that some folk even collect different types of Barb Wire...figure that out [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Burton Sundquist (Member # 5813) on December 21, 2017, 12:49 AM:
 
Tom, I agree with your comments regarding screening a faded feature to an audience, however close they might be. I Cringe when viewing a faded or red print on my editor. There are some abridged features that I have purchased, yet I have never seen projected.
I haven't thrown them away at this stage, being a fairly new collector. I have tried gels too..Seems the only answer is to ask yourself do I want to keep this print?

[ December 21, 2017, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Burton Sundquist ]
 
Posted by Panayotis A. Carayannis (Member # 1220) on 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.
 
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on December 21, 2017, 03:07 AM:
 
I cant watch faded prints or soft focus prints. My mind starts to wander...I start checking email..I don't get it but to each their own! If you can stand a faded print the hobby is much cheaper for you. A faded print of African Queen sells for around $100. But a non faded print can be anywhere from $299 and up depending on the day. I don't have any faded prints. I move them on to a good home! [Smile]
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 21, 2017, 06:27 AM:
 
Thanks for the replies here, i do appreciate we are all different, (be boring if we were all the same), but yes we do also have few that are on the turn, like others, i will eventually begin to sell them on in favour of purchasing something better & as we are all aware turning prints is of course something that will become more and more common.
It's just a bit sad that there are stupid sellers that state a print is red and then start the prices at what you would pay for a decent print. I guess for as long as there are buyers who will pay 300+ for a red feature then these guy's will continue with silly listings thinking that this is the norm.

Graham, as i understand it there is a small barbed wire museum in Kansas,
https://www.rushcounty.org/BarbedWireMuseum/
Billy Connolly popped in there on one of his "world tour" program's. I guess us cine collectors are not the only nutters [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin] (only joking before someone gets uptight).
 
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 21, 2017, 08:17 AM:
 
Graham - even if your scope 'Star Wars' print was 'beet red', I'm convinced that offering it would quickly have caused you to find a grateful buyer who would happily have given you $100, at the very least, for it. Would you genuinely insist on binning a print in such circumstances?
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 21, 2017, 12:57 PM:
 
amazing Tom about the museum [Big Grin] I am lost for words [Big Grin]

Adrian a few years back I had a friend who spent $500 getting a 16mm print from the states. He was assured it was in good condition, when it arrived it was faded, soon after he gave up totally with film and went video...that experence was the last straw.

The reason to destroy such faded prints, is to make sure, that by selling or giving "Star Wars" away, that the person getting it, does not use it to..re-sell..in such a way to make "money" out of something that really should be scrapped, after all why would anyone want to watch a badly faded print?..it does not make sense.
 
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on December 21, 2017, 01:57 PM:
 
Tom / Graham ... Red prints are a no go for me too as you already know.

They are crap and all the more reason to destroy them.
All the messing about with filters will never. I repeat NEVER restore them to their former glory ! [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on December 21, 2017, 02:44 PM:
 
For years I believed that all the HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN prints are faded to red; I had 2 prints and one was more faded than the other.
But because of the animation, the storyline and the music I preferred to watch it like that and also screened it to an audience of swing dancers at a special event.
But - then I got a non faded print with outstanding colours and couldn’t believe my eyes: somehow it felt like a new experience to me!
It was the same feature and although I know „every little frame“ the whole adventure seemed new to me. The sequences in the garden... Wow!
So in the end a faded print makes sense if You want (or in some cases NEED) a certain print, but nothing can beat colour.
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 21, 2017, 05:00 PM:
 
Tom

I was just thinking that I better be carefull, not to make fun of those that collect "barb wire" [Big Grin] as those that do, might think collecting film and projectors must be "nuts" as well. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 22, 2017, 07:18 AM:
 
I think your right there Graham.
 
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on 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.
 
Posted by David Roberts (Member # 197) on December 22, 2017, 07:52 AM:
 
I don't mind a few scratches that come and go,but if they are constant,like tramlines,then I would only put up with this if at the edges of the picture,
as to fade,depends how much. a little is ok,but red prints get thrown away.
 
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on December 22, 2017, 08:44 AM:
 
Adrian, I agree with your points on this matter but it appears most collectors feel they have the responsibility to rid the world of faded and red prints. If they don't like them then no one else should either. Perhaps this will weed out the low budget collectors.
 
Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on 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]

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.
 
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on December 22, 2017, 10:48 AM:
 
Clause ... I will second that ! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jake Mayes (Member # 3292) on December 22, 2017, 11:55 AM:
 
For me, faded prints are a no no myself. I have a copy of the devil rides out which has faded a bit, but not very much, that i could tolerate as i got the print for £20 at a boot sale and it has no lines etc.

I would never destroy a red print though, one man's trash is another person's treasure after all, who knows some might like the aged 'red' look [Smile]
 
Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on December 22, 2017, 12:07 PM:
 
Most of my shows are public and generally, I wouldn't consider showing a faded film simply because few members of the public have ever seen anything less than perfect. I've never seen pink/red films either on t.v. or the Cinema. I certainly wouldn't buy one, but I do have one or two in my library. Either, they are rare or of particular interest in subject matter, or, when I bought them, the colour was perfect and I still enjoy running them for myself. I don't enjoy faded film and would rather buy a blu-ray than waste money on a print that can be improved on albeit in another form.
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 22, 2017, 03:53 PM:
 
Claus and David, (both David's [Big Grin] ), i agree 100%,
to be able to show off the cine films to an audience today they cannot be red, slight fade,as said, is something i can live with and only view on my own or with my fellow collector Brother.
As Clause said, why give the doubters who insist that digital is best any ammunition to say "why do you bother".
[Wink]
 
Posted by Burton Sundquist (Member # 5813) on December 23, 2017, 12:53 AM:
 
With so many replies, this thread illustrates the passion that grows, as one's collection does. I wanted to clarify a particular point I made previously in the discussion. I mentioned that I had some abridged features that are red or faded, and that I had not yet projected. I preview newly acquired prints on my editor. I have received 2 prints at a gamble from eBay that have turned, and two from established sellers who were not aware of the print quality at the time of the sale. I have been offered credits and so forth. I haven't bothered any further with these prints other than to point out the difference between a good print and a lost one. I also stated that I have not "binned" them. That is not because I wish to say" I have It".
Rather, I think these prints still have a use, for test reels etc.
To sum up: A very good topic with many well placed views.
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 23, 2017, 01:54 AM:
 
Thank you Burton, i did put in the title not a critisism for this reason, i am of course aware that a 200 or 400 short can make a good test reel for anyone who is reparing a projector etc.
I can also see how collectirs are also happy to say that they just own a title although that wouldnt be for me.
As time goes by though it may be that i either go to the discs a bit more or buy a lot less now and take care of what we have as best we can. [Wink]
 
Posted by David Roberts (Member # 197) on December 23, 2017, 03:07 AM:
 
it was a good topic Tom,and I stand by what I said,re chucking red prints away,at least you can re-use the reels.
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 23, 2017, 03:11 AM:
 
Very ture david. [Wink]
 


Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2