quote:

---

if they really think they were made like that, they will have less respect for older films....

---

quote:

---

It seems Wittner from Germany have a special filter you can use to still somehow enjoy films that are faded.

---

They are expensive (really! 119,83 EUR., approx. $175.00)

Doug has once made a review on that, and you can see the result here:

Product Review: Color Rebalance Filter

The filter will not work for very red print. It make the film to become cyan.

The result shown on the above review was just the same with those fileter I bought from Ebay for $18.
 

---

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on January 30, 2013, 11:35 AM:
 
What about all I said?
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 30, 2013, 12:19 PM:
 
Joe, I think your idea is the way to go. Different film stocks fade in different ways - just compare early Eastmancolor reddish to late 60s/early 70s pink with late 70s brown. So a single expensive filter is not necessarily going to look good with all types of fade.

So, I think your idea of using gels is a low-cost, highly flexible alternative to a ridiculously expensive filter.

And little new film is being made. Don't toss anything projectable, I agree. If you can't stand it, sell it on fleaBay for 99c.

[ January 30, 2013, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Bill Brandenstein ]
 

---

Posted by Zechariah Sporre (Member # 2358) on January 30, 2013, 12:27 PM:
 
I don't think any true film collecter should ever keep a red print. They should ship them all to me :-) seriously though. I personally don't mind watching red prints from time to time. I would get sick of them if I watched them the majority of the time but I'm not to picky about print quality. Obviously.
 

---

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on January 30, 2013, 12:32 PM:
 
I would rather have red than nothing. I can always upgrade when another print comes along.
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 30, 2013, 12:32 PM:
 
I agree on the cyan filter, it can do wonders with a fading print, (but not too faded as then, it basically looks like a sepia tone print).

It ticks me off, i had a lovely glass wheel that was absolutely awesome, it had the whole color spectrum all round it, not overly brilloina t colors, and I used an old bunsen burner as the thing it was connected to and I'd put it in front of the lense and then just turned the wheel about until I came to the perfect adjustment for the optimum color. Basically, it was like the knob on old TV's that allowed you to adjust the tint of the TV image, and it worked brilliantly ...

and for the life of me, I can't find the danged thing! (GRRRR!)
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 30, 2013, 01:12 PM:
 
Personally, I wouldn't be interested in watching even 30 seconds of a red print, nor would I inflict it on any audience of any age.
However, Brad, there is a market for these prints, as you can tell from some of the responses here, so why not sell them off cheaply??
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 30, 2013, 01:30 PM:
 
I have a confession. I hate red color, it's my enemy. I worked in a commercial photo-lab for years, and do digital restoration/retouching on the side. Most of my color prints were purchased in the 80's and virtually none were LLP. The second my first color prints showed signs of beginning to warm, I sold them all faded or not. I just couldn't handle the idea of sitting and watching my color catalog slip away from me.

Red doesn't just represent a shift in color it's the loss of other colors, and the loss of the range of contrast and details that the other colors comprised. When yellow and blue are gone only the ghost of red content in those details remain.

I agree with most here that say that film has a quality that video doesn't match, but only when it's color is sound, it's the ratio of which the film was originally projected, and it's not a multi-generational dupe. If not, then in IMO you're better off projecting a DVD or better yet Blu-ray of the film in question.

I will now put on my raincoat to duck the rotten fruit and vegetables.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 30, 2013, 01:55 PM:
 

quote:

---

I agree with most here that say that film has a quality that video doesn't match, but only when it's color is sound, it's the ratio of which the film was originally projected, and it's not a multi-generational dupe. If not, then in IMO you're better off projecting a DVD or better yet Blu-ray of the film in question.

---

Timothy,

I totally agree.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 30, 2013, 03:34 PM:
 
Well, there is something about showing imagery in the same format in which it was shot, picture-by-picture image-by-image.

So I guess the question would be, at what point are you betraying the art for the medium on which it's being presented. I'd say red color definitely fits that bill.

However, it works two ways. There is a new Blu-way of WHITE ZOMBIE that just came out yesterday, and sadly the lab that did the HD transfer chose to filter the image to waxy over-processed mess. They also included as an extra the "raw" transfer of the film with no adjustments at all. To me the raw version is infinitely more desirable and film-like.
 

---

Posted by Laksmi Breathwaite (Member # 2320) on January 30, 2013, 04:05 PM:
 
Gary and you guys I agree with Winbert. Most little kids don't look at the colors like a dog is seeing in black or white kids only see the story. When I was a kid I first only watched TV in Black and white Superman 1940 Cartoons till I grew up I never new they were in color. My parents bought this screen that was going to make the tv into color . Maybe you older guys can remember that . You don't need to buy a high priced Tv. Anyway it made the whole TV movie red. Wow I thought as a kid I have a color TV! When I show movies that are red to kids no one questions it. I never hear why is that cartoon red or why are the people not flesh tone etc. The kids just laugh and get into the story.
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 30, 2013, 04:24 PM:
 
I don't throw away my red prints. I wait until I find a better copy. I also use red prints to test different projectors sound and to see if the film is getting scratched. I have a 200' sound version of BORN FREE that is so red and faded that there is hardly any image left...but it sounds good and has no lines. I could also use it for testing the recording funtions.

I just have a hard time throwing any film away!

Bill
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 30, 2013, 05:31 PM:
 
I have bought in a red print of a favourite film, and corrected the
colour with gels, sometimes unwittingly, but if its a film I want,
thankfully not too many, I will put up with it until replaced.I have
three features on 16mm of "JASON & THE ARGONAUTS", one that
couldn't be any redder, one that is passable and the other a
stunning colour print.Has anyone noticed that the red prints are
usually the prints without a mark on them.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 30, 2013, 05:33 PM:
 
I've been to drive-in film festivals that show both new and vintage horror films from the 60's and 70's. The vintage prints are kind of nostalgic for me, but people definitely react to the difference. Some comment that it looks bad, and I've overheard others say, "that's how all those old movies look."

My guess is those folks don't watch movies of that age on a regular basis, or they'd know they don't have to look that way.

The most troubling theatrical experience is the screening of 35mm prints with replacement footage on low-fade or vice-verse.

I was at a screening of THE RAVEN, and overall the print was getting pretty warm,but the audience settled into it. Then "click" five minutes of low-fade with a full spectrum of color that looked like it was shot yesterday, then back to red. After a couple teases like that, I felt it was almost worse than just seeing the only the faded color.
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 30, 2013, 05:37 PM:
 
Yes Hugh I have a 16mm print of FLOWER DRUM SONG that I received as a gift and if it wasn't red it would be top notch! I have to say though I watched it once and it did strain my eyes....but it's still on the shelf...I can't bring myself to throw it away.

It is sad though to think that a film that could be worth maybe a couple hundred dollars is rendered worthless with color drained out of it. No lines, no splices, good sound....no color.

Bill
 

---

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 30, 2013, 06:00 PM:
 
Time to bin them.

There was a time you could show red prints to an audience, even friends and family, and they would accept it if the film content was decent, but these days it is just an embarrassment.

I have nothing but love and nostagia for film, but if it is to be taken seriously, we have to present only the best prints to our "unsuspecting" audiences.

I used to sit through terrible prints and love every minute because it was "film". Now, I just think, ah to heck with it...is there a decent Blu-ray or DVD version of this?

Usually there is, often really obscure titles, and with all the restoration work lavished upon many titles, suffering a knackered old film print is just ridiculous.

But only because, I think, digital projection is finally comparable to film, if you have the right gear...

I'd never give up my film collection, projectors, etc.

I still enjoy the odd private screening of some fading treasures. But the bad ones, red / vinegar, etc. are past their sell-by date and time for retirement.

It is difficult and I have struggled emotionally, but some of my 16mm prints have gone in the bin...
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 30, 2013, 06:16 PM:
 
Yeah..I hear what your saying Rob.

I only show bad prints to myself...I would never show a red print to an audience.

Maybe one day I will un-spool it in the trash can but for now I'll keep it.

If I watch a VHS, DVD or laserdisc it is only on my TV set so I don't have the capacity to show these on a big screen so I'll keep all my bad prints for now.

Bill
 

---

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on January 30, 2013, 06:56 PM:
 
I have several reels that have VS. I'm thinking of spooling the film off into the trash and cleaning the reels. Any recommendations for cleaning the reels or is that even necessary? They are Eastman Kodak metal reels.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 30, 2013, 08:13 PM:
 
"It is difficult and I have struggled emotionally, but some of my 16mm prints have gone in the bin..."

But why do that when there are collectors, possibly with limited funds, who may have happily paid a modest sum to own the prints in question? If you offer them and there's no interest, I'd then find binning easier to understand.
 

---

Posted by Zechariah Sporre (Member # 2358) on January 30, 2013, 10:19 PM:
 
Hi Bryan, I had one film not to long back that had terrible VS. So I spooled it off in the trash. I don't know for sure that it's necessary but I soaked it in hydrogen proxide (I have some real hydrogen proxide not the stuff in the store that is only like 3-5%). Then I washed/rinsed them with soapy water and the reels seemed to clean up pretty good.
 

---

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on January 30, 2013, 11:00 PM:
 
I was thinking of soaking the reels in a baking soda and water solution to neutralize any remaining acetic acid and then soapy water. Regarding the industrial strength hydrogen peroxide, I work with hazardous waste during the day and don't like to take my work home with me.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 31, 2013, 01:23 AM:
 
Did TV stations show red prints back in the day when 16mm was the most common means of presenting films? I honestly don't remember, and seeing it takes a couple decades for color to go south, I was wondering if the window of color TV to TV going all video was too brief for significantly faded prints?
 

---

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on January 31, 2013, 01:35 AM:
 
I recall seeing a few features and television cartoons where the color was definitely turning but the prints weren't red. The station must have had their own old film print library. I'm sure that the image was tweaked in the Control Room to make the color better but it still was off. The station was using their old prints as a cost saving measure I imagine.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 31, 2013, 01:58 AM:
 
That's interesting. I remember a local station having a print of THE HOUSE OF WAX, which I loved. They ran it so often and I watched it so often that it was painfully aware that each time there seemed to be more spices and more missing footage. They must have had some pretty brutal projectionists.
 

---

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 31, 2013, 04:08 AM:
 
Adrian, I'd taken the prints to Blackpool with no interest. Even at give away prices.

To be honest, for the time involved and the cost of shipping, ebay wasn't really an option.

They weren't immaculate prints anyway, despite the fade, so I took the decision as they took up a lot of room.

I did once sell a red copy of "Tales of Terror" at Blackpool, and I seem to recall when I brought the subject up here, there was a lot of cynical ridicule for even thinking about selling faded prints, even when being totally honest...so I just gave up on passing them on.

For example, why would you want to sit through a splicey, pan and scan, faded, scratched version of "The Illustrated Man", when you can see the scope version in full colour with a decent video projector.

Like I said, I love film, but there are sensible limits me thinks.

I currently have a slightly faded print of "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"; one of the worst films ever made and hilariously entertaining as a result.

I really don't to see it go, but it stinks of vinegar and so is bagged up on its own.

What do I do with it??
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 31, 2013, 10:49 AM:
 
I see plenty of red prints on Ebay, but as I'm not interested in them, I never follow up if and what they sell for.

I do amuse myself to see how some merchants describe a red or fading print. Some don't have a clue how far gone the color is.

I even got a print of WITCHFINDER GENERAL off the Derann list ages ago that I felt was much more compromised than they described. I think they said "some fade" and you'd be hard-struck to see anything but brown, red. and an occasional faint breath of greenish-brown.
 

---

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on January 31, 2013, 12:38 PM:
 
Gentlemen, I say again, like old comics, toys and LPs, don't throw out those worn prints - The nostalgia of first acquiring them will remain with you, then long after you will want to run that print once more - They may have turned, but don't turn them away from you - Shorty
 

---

Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on January 31, 2013, 12:41 PM:
 
While not preferred, I don't mind red prints as long as they are fairly OK when I use my cyan filter. I have yet to find a red print that's "too red" for my filters

I may not show them to the audience, however, they are prints that I enjoy when alone, whilst saving the LPP titles for the others
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 31, 2013, 12:52 PM:
 
Hi Rob, well first thing is if you suspect the print has vinegar, then
don't bag it up , let it breathe.I bought in a print of a B/W film
that had vinegar, I sealed it up with special treatment sachets
for a month, then a good clean with Filmrenew. To date, there is
only a faint odour as it's stored in card boxes.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 31, 2013, 01:03 PM:
 
Joe, I understand you sentiment, nostalgia is what drove me to produce the 8mm horror/sci-fi cards. Sadly though, part of my nostalgia with buying something like THE WIZARD OF OZ brand new, was how breath-taking the color was. I sure now wherever the print is, it's lost that vibrancy because it was getting a hair warm 13 years ago when I sold it.

Oddly enough when I projected the Warner Blu-ray I got nostalgic about the film I sold all over again. Not about the print itself, but the excitement of how fantastic it looked when new.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 31, 2013, 01:07 PM:
 
I agree with Adrian, wholeheartedly.
Put the prints up on ebay at low price. At least you're earning some money which you can use to buy new prints or DVDs with. I see no sense in just binning the prints. There are always takers for these, especially at a bargain price.
 

---

Posted by Chris Fries (Member # 2719) on January 31, 2013, 01:09 PM:
 
I also have film that is "too red". I'll use a filter rather that watch something that is completely faded. I don't mind. Sometimes I get interesting results. Like this copy of the U8 400' "Phantom of the Opera" with Claude Rains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFOw35_fuGI

I only throw away film with bad VS, not fade. I will keep a film with some VS because I really like it.

My altered version of "Phantom" was also mentioned in the review.

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000456
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 31, 2013, 02:14 PM:
 
Shorty has a good point ...

Take my "Grizzly Adams" I currently have. It is at about 60 percent color, with a definite reddishness to it, but I'm going to hold onto it until I can (hopefully) obtain a good color copy of it.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 31, 2013, 02:35 PM:
 

quote:

---

I also have film that is "too red". I'll use a filter rather that watch something that is completely faded. I don't mind. Sometimes I get interesting results. Like this copy of the U8 400' "Phantom of the Opera" with Claude Rains.

---

quote:

---

Then, how is film colorized? To account for flesh-tones, as example, they are rarely on target

---

Well, that's a whole different ball of wax, and a digital one at that. They start with a B/W film that has all the visual information intact, then make everybody look embalmed.

Seriously though, the problem with a red/faded print isn't that the colors other than red have transformed, they've actually vanished, and taken details they defined with them.

I don't know of any "analog" chemical or blanket treatment to get lost color and detail back once its gone. If there were it would probably be so expensive that you'd be better off having a fresh print made.

Actually that brings me to another question. Theatrical 35mm prints have been mastered from digital files for quite some time now. Is it possible to strike an 8mm print from a HD digital source?
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 31, 2013, 07:07 PM:
 
I suppose I think along Shorty's train of thought that perhaps
a bath of blue dye, then yellow would help towards restoring
the colours ( if this were possible, remember this is wishful thinking ) or maybe a tinted projection lamp perhaps in conjunction with a certain filter.Remember that there are people
out there like me that would purchase a faded print of a longed
for movie, such as "The Wicker Man"or "Black Sabbath"
 

---

Posted by Patrick McGrath (Member # 1210) on January 31, 2013, 07:36 PM:
 
I have some fading prints and some that are really beat up, but I have a very limited budget, too. The appeal for me is running the film. I have shown some of my better stuff to friends but just because I wouldn't exhibit the red ones doesn't mean I can't still get some enjoyment from them.
I have a 16mm print of Mothra that is pretty red and splicy but I sure enjoy threading it up and wondering what other projectionists have run this very film, or what TV station had it in their library. It helps that I'm also a big fan of the genre.
 

---

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on January 31, 2013, 07:40 PM:
 
Red prints have no marks on them because nobody ever watches them a 2nd time!
I hate red prints. And I really hate when you last watch a film and the color is decent and then you put it up and find it has faded! Grrr!
That happened to my "Fists of Fury" print on Super 8. But...not all the reels. However if all I have is a red print.. I'll still watch it. But I will be disgruntled!
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on January 31, 2013, 08:40 PM:
 

quote:

---

I suppose I think along Shorty's train of thought that perhaps
a bath of blue dye, then yellow would help towards restoring
the colours ( if this were possible, remember this is wishful thinking ) or maybe a tinted projection lamp perhaps in conjunction with a certain filter.

---

Well, I'm afraid it's a matter of not being able to retrieve whats gone for good. A color film image is part due to the original exposure, and partly due to chemical reactions that bring those colors out of the the film. When those colors fade away, they just aren't there to be retrieved any longer.

That's why red prints are not only lacking color, but appear lighter and flat, with a decreased range of contrast.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 01, 2013, 02:10 AM:
 
No I was just thinking of a "paint" job Tim, if it could be done,
a bit of wishful thinking, I realise once the original dyes have
faded, that's as they say in the game of rugby league "sine die"
pardon the pun, but who knows what marvels lie in store in the
world of chemistry.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on February 01, 2013, 02:47 AM:
 
It's a funny thing, most mediums hit their peak just as they fall into permanent decline. There is a world of difference between the image quality capable on the first laserdisc, VHS, DVD... from the last. Same held true for film, those eventual low-fade stocks that Derann used in the last 10 years waay out-shined the 80's Super color titles I bought, and they will no doubt outlast them all in color.

It's sounds like technology in reverse, but as I suggested earlier, it would probably be possible now, to strike beautiful LLP Super 8 prints with a digital HD exposure, there's just no economic incentive to develop such a process, though in the long run it would probably boil the cost of making prints down to just a matter of the positive film-stock.

If I were a wealthy man, I'd love to finance such an experiment, but alas, I can even afford to dream about it.



[ February 01, 2013, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Timothy Ramzyk ]
 

---

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 01, 2013, 11:16 AM:
 
Sorry, but I don't get wanting to sit through red prints.

Why?

As film fans, we should be looking to watch the best versions available.

I've many faded prints (pink / brown) that I still enjoy; often they are a good reference for DVD and Blu-ray releases, sometimes even having better shadow detail, etc., despite the fade.

But why anyone would want to torment themselves with a red print of a film that is available elsewhere with decent colour, to me, is just crazy.
 

---

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on February 01, 2013, 11:25 AM:
 
Call me crazy - Like throwing out an old comic book because the colors fade? You can't always buy another and if you do, it will be at a premium - You can't (unless you're well-financed), always buy another print of a rare film - Then, how is it, on some Eastman stock (travelogues, as example), I cracked open the original cellophane on some, and the prints looks as good as when it was manufactured near forty years past; Vibrant, Spectacular and True - I ramble on - Would never throw out an old recording, just because it's worn, nor an old toy because it don't work - There is some value to all these as well as red prints - You don't hear of a 16 collector tossing a grainy original of a Hal Roach short, just to get a Dupont - Point is, my opinion, keep them - Shorty - And yes, cyan filtering helps
 

---

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 01, 2013, 11:49 AM:
 
Joe, I'm nostalgic too, but red prints, especially 16mm were made to serve a purpose and that purpose is done. (I'm not talking about rare or valuable prints).

The film lives on in new, better versions, so why hoard it?

If new versions weren't genuinely better (like throwing out film and replacing it with VHS, for example) I'd understand, but so much hard work has gone into providing new, better versions of films that worn out old prints have now served their purpose and to keep hold of them, to me, seems just somehow retentive.

I'm a big film advocate and I still love my vinyl record collection, so I'm not in the habit of dumping old technology for new, but there is a great A.A. Milne quote (from Winnie The Pooh, if I'm not mistaken) which I tend use as a judge of hoarding;

"If it isn't broke, don't fix it...if it is very broke, don't fix it either"...
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 01, 2013, 02:53 PM:
 
If it can be found, (as it was on this forum years ago), there actually was a patended process by which color was supposed to be able to be corrected on fading film. I remember seeing the drawings for the machine, (from the original patent paperwork, I think).

Now, I don't know if anyone was ever able to construct this "box", but what I believe it was was some form of chemical bath that was supposed to either restore, re-balance or re-apply the missing layers that have faded.

(Now, I know that there will be a mad dash by some on here to try to retrieve that series of posts, but it was rather interesting).

While I would of course be in favor of this kind of machine being built and used, (could you imagine the business this person would get from collectors who want to restore precious prints?!) ... but I do have a thought on this ...

Someone has mentioned, not too far back that, while you may be able to restore a layer that has been compromised, would you also be able to restore the "contrast" and such of that layer which, If I understand correctly, is a characteristic of that specific color layer?

Thoughts folks?
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 01, 2013, 03:06 PM:
 

quote:

---

I've many faded prints (pink / brown) that I still enjoy;

---

Nope. For me, these are just as bad as fully red prints.
 

---

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on February 01, 2013, 03:18 PM:
 
I understand, just gonna keep my 6 red prints, all 200' and I don't think that will bother anyone - Even if I look for new ones (again, getting more difficult), will still keep these out of dabbling with the idea of restorative process. Remember, I was one who started the thread of a direct correlation between tobacco smoke and VS...Shorty, the village idiot
 

---

Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on February 01, 2013, 03:34 PM:
 
Michael, if they bother you, I have a nice place for you to keep them stored, it's called: MY HOUSE!
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 01, 2013, 04:47 PM:
 
Hi Christian,

I don't have any, but, should I run into any they're yours.


 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on February 01, 2013, 04:53 PM:
 
I was going to say as outspoken as you are Michael about faded and red prints I didn't think you had any!

Bill
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on February 02, 2013, 02:31 AM:
 

quote:

---

Osi Osgood - If it can be found, (as it was on this forum years ago), there actually was a patended process by which color was supposed to be able to be corrected on fading film. I remember seeing the drawings for the machine, (from the original patent paperwork, I think).

---

I remember hearing a whiff of this elsewhere a few years back, but then I never heard anything about it again. I'd think studios, and archives would have been very eager to get such a process off the ground for problematic elements, where other means of restoration were not feasible due to fading.

For this to be possible the must be some sort of record of the faded color still in the emulsion, or the initial exposure, that isn't visible to the naked eye, but that can be brought out with chemistry. Almost as if you were "re-developing" a lost color.

I'd love for it to be true, and I'd love to see a before and after demo, but I also think if it were true I would have? Maybe if it can be done it's so laborious that treating thousands of feet of film isn't feasible?
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on February 02, 2013, 08:33 AM:
 
My "Kelly's Heroes" has gone a bit on the brownish side, but still watchable.

Its not only films that have a problem, some of my early 'laserdiscs' have got laser rot you can see where on the surface its gone blotchy, thinking of making them in to wall clocks because they will not play now. At least with faded/red film priits they are still watchable.

Just think all these restored films that a now digital, proberly on large hard discs, even when not used they fail.
 

---

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on February 02, 2013, 09:01 AM:
 
Digital isn't always safe either, eventually there will be micro-digitized chips (ultra-ray) - All I'm saying is keep the old prints on the side, why not? Doesn't hurt anything - At least it's a reminder as to what film stock WAS like (Eastman as example)
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 02, 2013, 09:39 AM:
 
Hi Rob, there's also another slant on that old saying, "If it isn't
broken, break it", ala Tony Blair & the Labour Party.
There's no way that I would throw a red print of a favoured film,
at least not until it could be replaced with better, and I STILL
have DVD as back up.No with the application of a couple of
gels, they can still be enjoyed.
 

---

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on February 02, 2013, 10:44 AM:
 
Again, Cheers to Hugh
 

---

Posted by Chris Fries (Member # 2719) on February 02, 2013, 12:19 PM:
 
Sometimes owing faded film has to do with cost. All of my 16mm feature prints have some degree of fade. Would I rather have them on LPP instead of Eastman? Sure, but I know they would cost more.

I bought these films because I wanted them and the price was right. I also knew I would have no problem watching them with a cyan filter.

As for those who don't like fade or filters, I understand. It's all subjective. Like when I was buying laserdiscs instead of VHS in the early 90's. It was usually the only way I could get a letter-boxed version of a movie. Then there was the flip side. When I worked in a music store in 1993, I had to special order full frame LD's for a guy who "hated those black bars".

To each his own.
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on February 02, 2013, 12:26 PM:
 
Has anyone ever seen an explanation of the chemical breakdown that happens with dye losses? Do the mutant substances just evaporate into thin air, or are they still incorporated into the emulsion, albeit clear? If the latter, too bad there is no known calalyst to rejoin the broken molecules.

I think Larry Arpin was looking into something like this at one time, but if it were that easy, you'd think it would've been done already. Either that, or someday Larry could become very rich (he'd like that, I'm sure!).
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on February 02, 2013, 01:22 PM:
 
Chris Thought all Laserdisc

quote:

---

Then there was the flip side

---

had a flip side I bought the Phillps early version very cheap (waffle iron) The one now is Pioneer that plays both PAL/NTSC/CD I watched a couple of film, mainly to see if it still worked. It does and a big plus they look like film. Like I said some won't play now.

My 16mm "Where Eagles Dare" the snows getting a pinky tint. And its one of my favourites got it on 8/16/beta/vhs/laser/dvd/blu-ray. The blu-ray is not much improvement over dvd. My 16mm is flat though.

I would NEVER EVER throw a print away.
 

---

Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on February 02, 2013, 02:02 PM:
 

quote:

---

Has anyone ever seen an explanation of the chemical breakdown that happens with dye losses? Do the mutant substances just evaporate into thin air, or are they still incorporated into the emulsion, albeit clear? If the latter, too bad there is no known calalyst to rejoin the broken molecules.

---

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


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2