8mm Forum: Question for Doug! (and review of "Wolfman")

This is topic Question for Doug! (and review of "Wolfman") 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=007801

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 07, 2013, 05:11 PM:

A question for Doug Meltzer, which might hep clarify a few things.

In your screenshots of "The Wolfman" the first one is sepia, where the rest are a bluish color instead. Is your whole print sepiatone or only parts of it? I think that might be what's causing a lot of confusion concerning this print.

secondly. i just finished doing a visual scan of the whole print, slowly, (on rewinds), checking the whole print and I found tat at least THIS copy I nowhold, is sepai all the way through, with one very curious alteration. The very last shot and the THE END titles, are spliced on from a B/W sound Universal 8 print of "The Wolfman". I don't know if this feature was missing that last shot and the end title card or something else happened, but that's that. (see, honest enough to mention every single little thing, in case there was any doubt.)

Also, there is not a single instance of one side of the fram being sepia and the other side beinbg some other color. It's all sepai all the way through (except for the last shot and "The End" shot being B/W)

That clears that up. Hopefully we will hear from our own Doug on the other matter.

OSI

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on January 08, 2013, 12:20 AM:

Osi,

Although that first picture looks more sepia, it's because of a darker exposure. The entire film is split sepia on one side of the frame and cyan on the other. If you look closely at the other pictures you'll see the difference.
I'm not sure what confusion you're referring to.

Doug

[ January 08, 2013, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Douglas Meltzer ]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 08, 2013, 12:54 PM:

Thwe first screenshot you had on the original post concerning the Wolfman, showed what appears to be a fully sepaitone frame, the next screenshots show non sepiatone and just, as you stated, cyan looking frames. Did you adjust the screenshots so that they would all be "one tone", instead of two?

Wow! If all the prints besides this one I have are "two toned" I must have an extreme rarity. I think I have the price high enough, but I wouldn't have been surprised if it would go for higher than the "buy it now"!

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on January 08, 2013, 01:44 PM:

Osi,

There's no adjustment. That first shot is merely a darker exposure, just a variable in taking screenshots. I can see the difference in the right and left side of each shot.
I think if Fred's print was black & white and not sepia, it would have been snapped up.

Doug

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 08, 2013, 01:49 PM:

Osi,

The easiest thing to do with this print of yours is to post some screenshots on the auction. Then prospective bidders can make up their own minds about the print.
I'm not really sure why the problem.
Once again, and I may be wrong here, people are not going to pay the kind of money you're asking, sight unseen.

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on January 08, 2013, 06:11 PM:

If it was black and white I would have bought it months ago! That is one of my favorite films. Osi - did you project the print ?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 09, 2013, 12:31 PM:

To reiterate now a third time ...

1. I'm no wiz at taking screenshots, as my camera always makes ANYTHING look more, even perfect color, so it no doubt will make them even more "sepai' than the print is, causing folks to say "oh, that's way to brwon.

2. I have now screened the second half (rather difficult, in that I don't have projectors with 800ft reel capacity, so i had to hold the danged reel the full time above the projector, gets a little old, but I can say yet again, I see no lighter or darker sides to the sepia, and certainly no cyan at all to the image.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 09, 2013, 01:08 PM:

Osi,
You can reiterate as often as you like - screenshots are a necessity for a print with this price tag.
That's my opinion.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 09, 2013, 01:25 PM:

I understand where your coming from, Micheal, (as I wish I had a good digital camera that would take "worry free" screenshots), but when you have placed as many facts out there as you can about the print your selling (and not even for myself), and your still doubted, well ... no one likes being called a liar.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if this will go out to someone who doesn't even collect super 8 and are just a "Wolfman" collector/fan, and then a fellow collector will go without a very good print. They're loss.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 09, 2013, 01:56 PM:

quote:
...no one likes being called a liar.

You're kidding, right????

[Roll Eyes]

Good luck with the sale.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 10, 2013, 12:37 PM:

In a matter of speaking. I have never represented a film I have sold, so when folks constattly insist that the print that I am personally selling is something that I'm saying it's not, well, at least, I'm being accused of "mis-speaking" (the new title for "lie", most commonly used by politicians. [Smile]

)

As a fairly vocal member of the forum here, my integrity is on the line with every item I list to sell, and even one bad sale can marr your image, in some folks minds, forever, so I am very sensitive to not mis-label a film.

Just going back to the screenshot thing, (just one last time, I promise [Big Grin]

) ...

When I was auctioning off that "Empire Strikes Back" cineavision scope print, I did screenshots for it and, even though it had absolutely lovely color, ALL the screenshots had varying levels of being brownish. I used the best looking ones, unretouched, on the auction, but after I had shown them (on here and on the auction) ...

... right away, I was hearing from members on my e-mail and elsewhere saying, "That prints faded! Your Incorrect!"

... which was never true. I know many hold screenshots at a high level of importance, but screenshots can be used and abused in various ways, (people retouching them to "enhance" color to make the print look better, for instance), and then unamused buyers of prints coming back and saying "I was gypped!"

... so, screenshots, OK, and sometimes useful, especially for a color film. Otherwise, I feel that they are a hindrance.

Still,love ya all, (in case anyone felt I was being grumpy, which, in truth, I was).

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 10, 2013, 12:57 PM:

Can a seasoned old collector be of any help here.I can see the
point of screenshots,but in some cases they don't always give a
true rendition of the print. A film I recently bought on ebay, the pictures did the film no favours at all, as it was a lovely B/W print when viewed. Myself, I have always put my trust in
what I'm told,usually to the good.If someone tells me that there is
a mark or series of splices, thats fine, and I can take it or leave it.
I don't think Michael was implying anything bad Osi, it was the
prints previously viewed had this printing fault,plus the fact
that you hadn't screened it yet due to spool size on your machine.Since then you've said again it's okay, so I would hope
all is well, and of course best of luck with your sale.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 10, 2013, 01:13 PM:

ThanX Hugh! You know, I've been thinking, if the print doesn't sell this week, I might actually buy it myself, not as anything I would really collect, but as a investment. After all, it is quite a rarity!

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on January 10, 2013, 04:54 PM:

I'm still trying to figure out what Doug's print has to do with the one for sale. And why there are 2 threads about it.
[Confused]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 10, 2013, 05:24 PM:

It's because there was a batch of prints that had a fault on the
picture Tony,and Osi was selling one for someone, and the question was asked if the print for sale had the same fault.

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on January 10, 2013, 06:46 PM:

I believe it was a lab on the west coast that was putting out b/w films with the half&half look. I have a print of Duke Ellington's "Black and Tan" (no pun intended) that has this exact situation. But normal people don't even notice it on the screen, only us "special" film people [Wink]

.

James.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 10, 2013, 06:52 PM:

You are right James, we are not normal! [Razz]

Bill

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 10, 2013, 07:00 PM:

Love that description "Black & Tan" James.

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on January 11, 2013, 02:19 AM:

Yes its true we are strange bunch!
I screened the "Little Mermaid" a few years back and I kept riding the focus (This was before I realized the print was soft).
I couldn't stand it but I looked at the audience and they were just loving it! Humming the songs, laughing at the right moments. It must be because in our hearts we must all have been Circus Showmen in a previous life!

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 11, 2013, 07:11 AM:

Or as some might term us Alan.....clowns.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on January 11, 2013, 04:43 PM:

quote:
It's because there was a batch of prints that had a fault on the
picture Tony,and Osi was selling one for someone, and the question was asked if the print for sale had the same fault.

Right, but there seems to be a lot of discussion on the screenshots for Doug's print, and that's not the one for sale. I find it odd to sell a print, but reference screenshots from a different print that is not for sale. And with almost 6,000 posts, I'm sure Osi can answer for himself without any help.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 12, 2013, 01:01 PM:

Yup, sure can, (answer for myself). Actually, someone else brought up this old thread, I had forgotten about it before I had listed this for sale at first on this forum, but then this old thread came up and I became alarmed as the screenshots on this series of posts are not indicitive of the print I'm selling. I'm not sure if I'll list it again on ebay, as i might well buy it for myself after all. I liked what I saw when I watched it. ore interested in the cast than the subject, actually. I was always a fan of Claude Reins.

One of things I like about this film is that it has a top notch cast when they were at they're collective best. Later on, you would rarely see horror films with top notch casts like these, (except in the case of the actors that ended up specializing in such genre ... Price, Cushing, Karloff, Lugosi, Lee, ect.) It just makes the overall quality that much better.

You can have crappy production values even, but with a top notch cast, a really good film. Take Orson Welles "Macbeth" for instance. He completely shot that in three weeks, with so so sets, (it's been said that he raced back and forth from set to set on a bycicle to film one scene and then film another within minutes) ...

... but the film holds up very well with a stark, lean presentation of the material. I've always admired Welles.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 12, 2013, 01:17 PM:

The thing with Orson Welles also Osi, is that he was trained in Theatre, so understood about cue marks.When he was making
"Touch of Evil", the first days were spent in rehearsal, something
that was not really done on a film,but it paid dividends during
the shoot as everyone knew their cues and positions, resulting in the film being "wrapped" well into timeThe man was a pro.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 12, 2013, 01:42 PM:

From the above posts..

....we are not normal

....we are a strange bunch

....Clowns

so....whats normal? [Roll Eyes]

Graham.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 12, 2013, 01:45 PM:

People with healthy bank accounts and room to move Graham.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 12, 2013, 02:00 PM:

English Dictionary states

normal. adj usual, regular or typical; free from mental or physical disorder.

Well that must rule rule out most of the human population of this planet....except me [Big Grin]

Graham.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on January 12, 2013, 07:15 PM:

Since we're now entirely off topic, I think we're done with this thread.

Doug

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2