8mm Forum: How quickly can fade set in on a print/negative

This is topic How quickly can fade set in on a print/negative in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004949

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 04, 2009, 10:48 AM:

I know that we have touched on this subject more times that can probably be counted, but perhaps not from this angle.

How soon can fade set in on a print or negative? I know that the truly horrendous Eastman can fade rather quickly, but can fade set in even within a year?

The reason why I ask is linked to the "Empire Strikes Back" review. The last two minutes of part 1 of this digest shows color fade, even on my nearest to mint color you could ask for, print. This digest came out within a year of it's original theatrical release, so you would think that there would be no fade in that much time, but there most certianly is fade to that last two minutes of the digest.

Could this be brought down to literally poor film processing?
How quickly have any of you noted fade to a print?

John Whittle, your expertise would be much appreciated!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 05, 2009, 02:59 AM:

Osi,
Are you saying the print was faded when it was viewed within a year of its release, or it has faded since it's release in 1981?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 05, 2009, 08:17 AM:

ThanX Micheal ...

To further clarify, the particular print I was speaking of is the original "Empire Strikes Back" part 1. The digest has mint or as mint as you'll find. It's just the last two minutes, the asteroid chase thathas muted or faded colors.

Now, for the rest of the digest to has beautiful colors and those last two minutes be faded, there must have been a problem with the preprint material.

My question was asking; is it possible for film, whether preprint material or the finished project to fade in less than a years time?

Either this or the folks who sent the Ken Films editors the preprint didn't bother to color check that short two minute section, or Ken Film's editors didn't bother to closely check that two minute sequence themselves, as it is clearly either muted color or already faded.

So, back to the question. Is it possible for film to fade in just a years time? Perhaps even less time?

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on November 05, 2009, 04:16 PM:

Are you sure it's not the color timing of a heavily processed shot? Before digital FX, a lot of these sequences were all done in the lab adding generations on to the material & causing color and texture discrepancies from the appearance of the rest of the film. They also might have not followed the color-timing prescription for the theatrical prints.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 05, 2009, 06:59 PM:

Thats a good point Timothy, I hadn't thought of that. It's possible. However, other shots in the Mellenium Falcon, (looking outside at space), are not browned out. It is curious.

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on November 05, 2009, 09:42 PM:

What's the film stock and date code. My suspicion is that if it is not LPP, that your print (which is far older than a year or two) is fading, but you haven't noticed it as much on the other scenes.

If it is low-fade, then it's a printing problem -- there's no way that the printing negative faded after a few years.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 05, 2009, 10:42 PM:

I must not be too clear. The "Empire" digest part 1 is the vintage 1980/81 digest, by Ken Films. The film stock is Kodak SP, but that is not the problem.

The color is truly mint. Other space shots show very true blacks. It's just in that last two minutes of the digest that the colors go off, to what you would normally think is Kodak SP browning, but it's the only part of the digest that doesn't look good. I should note that in all part 1 copies of this digest, I have noted that drastic change to brownish/muted color, which does not appear anywhere else in the digest, just in that last two minutes of Part 1.

I'm fairly sure that this was released in just Kodak SP or the standard eastman, (non L.P.P.) film stock, unless prints of this were placed on low fade stock over in the UK, which is possible.

If anyone on here has a print bought in the UK, with perfect color, could you please inform us as to whether there is a different stock than that of Kodak SP or Eastman.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 06, 2009, 08:26 AM:

First of all, it's unlikely to be fading in just those last couple minutes. If it's faded, it's just not (as Steve Sigel says) as noticeable elsewhere yet.

Secondly, where you have not been clear is in asking would the print have faded after just one year. What makes you think it was faded within a year of printing? Did you own the print within a year of printing and notice this colour change within that year? Or have you noticed the fade just recently, ie.29yrs after the print was struck?

Osi said:
"This digest came out within a year of it's original theatrical release, so you would think that there would be no fade in that much time,...."

This has no meaning. When the digest was released relative to the original theatrical release is of no relevance at all where colour fade is concerned.
[Confused]

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on November 06, 2009, 10:03 AM:

I thought you were asking if it was possible that the pre-prent material your digest was struck from could have had a faded section given that your print was was produced so close to the the original release of the film. That's why it was my guess that the color-loss was in the original itself, and possibly matter of color-timing rather than fade.

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on November 06, 2009, 10:11 AM:

If the print is SP, then the fade issue is almost certainly the print itself. Take a look at a fade to black in a scene that you think is not faded -- is the black 100% solid black?, or does it have a brownish look?

Can you post some pictures?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 06, 2009, 10:27 AM:

Steven ...

I really wish I could, (and all it would take is a bloody cord to me computer! Funds are tight, however).

Interestingly, as that two minute sequence that's faded, ends,
the "The End" title comes up, fading in from black, and that title card is a beautiful blue/black, so it's definitely that little two minute sequence ...

which is too bad. I'd rather the Yoda sequence had faded color.

According to Andreas Eggling (in Germany), the edit for the UK and the rest of the world in general (of this title) is the same exact edit as the American version. I would be curious to find out if the prints from around the world were all print6ed on either Kodak SP or Eastman.

For certain, the Kodak SP prints of this have aged far better than the Eastman prints, (pinky/purple snow just doesn't cut it!)
but I would love to hear that there were either L.P.P. or Fuji prints of this title. I know that the classic era Disney Digests and short subjects were printed on very good fuji stock, and have aged beautifully, while the same digests, printed in america, have faded to a pinky oblivion.

I agree with you, Steven, in that I don't see how a negative from a just released film, (less than a year) can have color fade on the negative and, as Timothy stated, it is probably more due to sloppy color checking on the print that they sent to Ken films for editing.

It makes us all that much more thankful that we have had Derann, CHC and other smaller companies over the years, (Perry's, for instance, Barry and company), that have made the best effort to find the best possible negatives before making prints.

I have read, for instance, about how Derann has rejected some negatives at times, in order to find the best negative, knowing full well the collector is not going to buy a crappy print, (in general).

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on November 06, 2009, 11:16 AM:

Osi, Just a thought. Is it possible that in the past those last 2 minutes could have been treated with some cleaner/lube like 2.22. I have heard bad things about this product on this very forum that 2.22 speeds up fading. Or could it be something similar has been applied to it. But then again 'The End' is perfect. Puzzleing [Confused]

Post some pictures if you can.

Graham S

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 06, 2009, 01:13 PM:

MIcheal ...

I forgot to respond to that earlier comment concerning not having any meaning.

What I was saying is that, for a film to have been released to movie theaters in 1980, as in the case of "Empire Strikes Back" and the negative used for this super 8 release, having it's processing done in a film lab within that years time, you would not expect any fade whatsoever to be existent in the negative.
There simply hasn't been enough time for that to come about. The original question I asked in the beginning is, "Is it possible for the negative or any film print in general, to fade that quickly, within a years time?"

The Kodak SP stock has nothing to do with the original preprint material. Thats merely the film stock used for the Super 8 print. The Kodak SP film stock will only manifest as much color as the preprint negative manifests in itself. It would make no sense that this specific scene in the digest would have a brownish fade to it, while the rest of the digest would be spot on and, as stated earlier in this series of posts, I have noted that others copies of this part 1 of this digest have this similar fade in this same exact spot.

It must have simply been poor pre-print material of that specific scene that wasn't caught at the time by either Fox's people or the Ken Films editors.

Did that clear it up for you Micheal. For anybody else, is there any confusion on the subject?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 06, 2009, 01:21 PM:

Yeah, I had the impression you were talking about just ordinary print fade.

OK, thanks.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 06, 2009, 01:32 PM:

Osi, I'm thinking it is poor grading. Lets face it, lab grading was all over the place back then, especially for super 8.

If you have "Star Wars" Pt. 1 Ken, this is gonna drive you nuts...I've seen several prints and because they are all graded too light, you will clearly see traveling matts around many of the effects shots. Just watch the tie-fighters attack the Millenium Falcon and become aware of that grey fluctating square around each tie-fighter...it'll ruin it for you!!!

Once you see it, you'll see it all over every 8mm version of Star Wars, Empire, etc...or maybe just ignore me and enjoy them [Smile]

!

Certainly, the theatricals weren't graded like that!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 06, 2009, 02:30 PM:

You do see that special effect "glitch" just a little, (almost impossible to get completely out of the picture in yesteryears films), but it is much less noticeable in "Empire" and "Return"

I believe that your right Rob.

Still, with all this discussion, this 2X400ft digest, (along with the Marketing 600ft digest), is one of my most repeated digest in my collection. I'm surprised at how good of shape it's actually still in, considering all the viewings it has had, (it has been treated every other time with "film-Renew").

Being we are on this Empire Strikes back series of posts, could anybody verify what scenes are in the "Empire Strikes Back" original movie trailer, (the flat version), that could potentially be added to the digest?

Then again, cutting up a perfectly good trailer is kind of nuts.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 06, 2009, 03:00 PM:

Isn't this whole movie available on DVD? Wouldn't that be better than a "digest"?
[Razz]

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on November 06, 2009, 03:45 PM:

Yes, but Michael, that's NOT the emperor in the DVD!

The real Emperor is half monkey, half man, everyone knows that! [Wink]

And really, since when did Bobba Fett speak with a New Zealand accent. Not that there's anything wrong with a New Zealand accent, but who IS that imposter inside Boba Fett's costume for the DVD with his half-hearted, "...as you wish" nonsense. The REAL Bobba was hard and mean sounding!

Plus I still think, "...any agressive move will not be tolerated" is such a cooler line... [Big Grin]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 06, 2009, 04:26 PM:

Super 8 watchers Rule!

Video watchers DROOL!

It could be one better, I could have the "Empire" scope feature, but that's just wishful thinking!

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on November 06, 2009, 11:24 PM:

I have both 2-parters of the S/W saga. Both digests of the first movie are faded. Many of the outdoor scenes are a nice tumbleweed brown. The climaxes on both are still faded, but not so terribly as the parts leading up to the last 5 minutes or so of each reel. My "Empire" digests don't seem to be as badly faded, but it's apparent that over the next few years, they too, will be relegated to solitary screenings and not up to par to show to an audience. It would be too embarassing.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2