8mm Forum: Gone With the Wind screenshots

This is topic Gone With the Wind screenshots 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=008944

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 06, 2014, 12:28 PM:

Would anyone have any really nice screenshots from the Derann release of this classic? I'm going to list this on ebay in a few days, but I totally suck at screenshots, and I don't want to downgrade the sale of this with crappy screenshots on my part.

Just so everyone knows, I will state that the screenshots are from another print of the same print run, which I'm pretty sure it would be. A lovely print, to be sure.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 06, 2014, 12:38 PM:

What's the point in putting up shots that are not from the print for sale?

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on February 06, 2014, 02:00 PM:

What's your asking price gonna start at?

I never seen this and not sure if it's rare or not on Super 8.

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on February 06, 2014, 04:56 PM:

I agree with Michael. You should not use screenshots from another print. I think for a film as expensive as GWTW most potential buyers would want to see the actual print being offered even if you state that your print is the same quality as these pictures. I dont think buyers are looking for perfect screenshots, just good enough to show the colour and any marks etc.

Graham S

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on February 06, 2014, 05:25 PM:

Osi, if you have a video camera or can film a clip with your phone, it's much easier to grab pictures from them than taking an actual photo

Get the video onto the PC, run VLC (a free viewer) find a good picture, goto video and click Snapshot and you have a decent picture

http://www.videolan.org/index.html

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on February 06, 2014, 06:33 PM:

If it's the Derann print it should be sharp, nice sound, and with gorgeous eye popping color. I have not heard of a Derann print that wasn't this way. My Derann print is beautiful.
And rare. I think a forum member here sold one for almost $1000 and the last one on ebay went for $650 but that was awhile back. Before Derann closed.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 06, 2014, 10:02 PM:

Guys, as many listings are using pictures from even a still photo or screen shot of other prints or just from google, I don't see any problem for Osi using this with clearly stating in the listing about it.

Osi, lucky I compiled some screen shot in my photobucket. There are 7 screen shot of this very title.

Here is one:

You can find them here:

http://s40.photobucket.com/user/winberthutahaean/media/Untuk%20Email/Gomewiththew ind.jpg.html

(click next for other pictures)

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 07, 2014, 12:39 PM:

Thanks Winbert ...

The point is, if the print is from the same company, with the same production standards (and possibly even from the same print run, but that can't be absolutely proven), same film stock ect. then most but not all prints will have the same color and quality.

The print I will be selling doesn't have a knick or scratch on it and has gorgeous color. Those screenshots look identical to the print I'm selling. That's why.

Believe me, if I could get screenshots like that, I wouldn't ask.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on February 07, 2014, 12:42 PM:

Did you try my suggestion? It probably will give you shots like that

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 07, 2014, 01:47 PM:

If I were selling my car I wouldn't put someone elses same make and model car in the photo.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on February 07, 2014, 03:47 PM:

Hi Osi

I hear ya. My cam does aweful screenshots so i never use them.

PatD

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on February 07, 2014, 03:52 PM:

Still think you should film the screen, then take snaps of the file, much, much easier

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 07, 2014, 05:06 PM:

quote:
You should not use screenshots from another print. I think for a film as expensive as GWTW most potential buyers would want to see the actual print being offered even if you state that your print is the same quality as these pictures. I dont think buyers are looking for perfect screenshots, just good enough to show the colour and any marks etc.

Well said, Graham.

I can't imagine anyone from this forum ever buying a print for the kind of money GWTW fetches, based on screenshots from another print. In fact, I'm pretty certain that, if someone else had put such an auction up on ebay, it would have immediately been brought to our attention here, in the "Ebay Oddities" section, as being ridiculous.
Is this the direction in which we'd like to see the hobby go now?

Come on, Osi. Get a grip, bud.
[Smile]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 08, 2014, 12:01 PM:

Hmmmm ...

Gee folks, lets look at the facts ...

1. Same company (DERANN)
2. Same Film (Gone With The Wind)
3. Same Film stock
4. Same negatives, (perhaps another new negative, but from the exact same source material)

... and, as will be stated in the auction, the shots are not from the same print, but from a print with all the same properties as the one with the screenshots, personally verified by me, and as scratch-less as the print in the screenshots.

Now, that isn't so hard to understand. Besides, I could understand all the fuss if I was using a 16MM print screenshots, or from a DVD (how many times have we seen that on ebay?), but no, I'm using screenshots from a super 8 print, from the same company, with the same film stock and the very same quality. In fact, better, as, screenshots never do full justice to a super 8 print. Close, but never quite as good.

Besides, if you don't want to bid on it, then don't, just have fun nit-picking ...

Oh, by the way, OSI, has a firm "grip" [Smile]

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on February 08, 2014, 12:14 PM:

I totally agree with Michael about selling your car. In the same way anybody selling their house would not use photos of the house next door and state that the room sizes are the same, same builder, same bricks, same age etc.

But its worked for you before Osi so give it a try again if you want to. Were not nit picking, but it just seem odd to any potential buyers and taking a photo is not rocket science.

On the other hand Ian from Perrys never gives any screenshots but still gets top prices for his films.

Graham S

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 08, 2014, 12:21 PM:

I'm not pissed, everybody has they're own opinion, it's just that I have never mis-represented a single print I have ever sold, and even with a top dollar print like this, I wouldn't start now ...

... and yes, it has worked before and as in the other circumstances, I have always stated that, if the screenshots are not from the specific print they are from the same film companies print and on the same film stocks and image quality.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 08, 2014, 01:28 PM:

quote:
Now, that isn't so hard to understand.

No, I think I got it the first time.
[Wink]

Posted by Lee Bombard (Member # 3740) on February 08, 2014, 08:40 PM:

Talk, talk, talk...
How about less talk and more listing of the print? [Smile]

I'm anxious to see the details.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 09, 2014, 01:01 PM:

I believe this is the auction.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GONE-WITH-THE-WIND-featureSuper-8-color-sound-LOW-FADE-film-stock-Excellent-/321318635247?pt=US_Film&hash=item4ad01546ef

Osi,

Is this print on cores?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 09, 2014, 10:09 PM:

Hi Mike,

As I said above putting pictures not from the print being offered has become a norm in Ebay.

How do you see these listings which I randomly picked:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/16mm-Feature-LO VERS-AND-LIARS-LPP-GOLDIE-HAWN-R-RATED-VERSION-MINT-/201031478590?pt=US_Film&hash=item2ece68ed3e

http://www.ebay.com/itm/251441808463

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Laurel-Ha rdy-Gyp-the-Gypsy-The-Bohemian-Girl-400-super-8-sound-Blackhawk-/251446563240?pt=US_Film&hash=item3a8b6211a8

We have been discussing before about this issue (putting picture from other sources), and seems to me as long as it is stated in the description, we are OK with that.

quote:
In the same way anybody selling their house would not use photos of the house next door and state that the room sizes are the same, same builder, same bricks, same age etc.

This even more often to happen in non-film related items' listings. For example:

http://www.ebay.com/i tm/New-Sony-VAIO-SVF15A18CXB-15-5-Touchscreen-Laptop-i7-3537U-2-0GHz-16GB-1TB-8GB-/251447395433?pt=Laptops_Nov05&hash=item3a8b6ec469

Do you think the picture on the above listing is from his own laptop being offered?

No he took from photo stocks of the same item, same size, same company, same color, etc.

If we are OK with the above listing, why we should think different for Osi's.

If I were a potential buyer of the above laptop listing, before I am placing my bid, I will ask first his own laptop's photo. You can also do the same for films listing, right?

The thing is just because OSI requests the pictures publicly does not make his listing become illegitimate.

My 2 cents though,

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on February 10, 2014, 12:06 AM:

For me there is a difference between using stock photos and/or obvious publicity stills for a listing than using pictures of someone elses projected film print. Personally I would rather see an actual picture of the film reels or the derann boxes, etc. than images from someone elses print. Classic just sold the Star Wars print for decent money and only had a picture of the boxes. I know Osi is not doing it to deceive but I doubt I would purchase a print from someone I did not know if they used pictures from a different print.

Osi, many of us have seen some of your music videos, just shoot a vid since you are well skilled at that, then they can hear the audio as well.

I think in this day and age it raises a red flag to most people to hear someone say they cannot get a picture of something because it seems unthinkable when digi cameras can be had for pennies, or if you have a cel phone, or if you have a laptop, or a tablet, or a kindle

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 10, 2014, 12:21 AM:

quote:
Personally I would rather see an actual picture of the film reels or the derann boxes, etc. than images from someone elses print.

Dino, many listings are using someone else print. The only think is the sellers did not mention it in his/her description. But the film listing with still pictures is actually = "someone else" print. It can be from DVD projection or taken from the 35mm positive print. Am I right?

I would rather think in general. And if the general rules apply without any complain, why we should think differently to Osi.

But again, as I say above, if I were a potential buyer of this listing, I would ask the seller through Ebay email server to provide me with the seller's screen shot of the very own print. But as I am not, that is why I am not asking it.

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on February 10, 2014, 12:42 AM:

Winbert, I agree because Osi is honest and upfront in his listing about the origin of the pics I don't have a problem with him or his listing, but honestly I personally do not know of a single other listing that I have seen where the seller used images from a separate projected print..

I think this is where you and I differ, because I do not equate a still photo or a production still as "someone elses" print..I think those types of images are so obviously not from a super 8 film print it would never cause confusion. For Instance I purchase quite a number of prints from other countries, where I do not speak the language, and I rely on things like Google translate...If Osi's listing was on German Ebay or Ebay japan or something and I translated it I may not get a clear translation that the images were from someone elses print and if I bought it and noticed even the slightest difference in quality I would be concerned....

I think the bottom line for me (Osi or not) is it seems like a risky practice in general when there are so many other options that could help sell the print just as easy.

Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on February 10, 2014, 01:13 AM:

Do what lots of other ebay sellers do just put a picture of Cark Gable or put a picture of the reels

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 10, 2014, 12:46 PM:

I'm wondering why it's on cores.

I've been after a Super 8 split spool for a long time.They're very rare. Osi, If you're interested in selling yours, let me know.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 10, 2014, 12:51 PM:

I'm actually going to try my FLIP video camera (that's what I use to do my music videos (720p and marvelous!), and I'm going to try what Vidar was suggesting on the next ebay listing I do with screenshots. Hey, if it works, then great.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 10, 2014, 04:41 PM:

Winbert,

The bottom line here is, for that kinda money, people would want to see shots from the print they're bidding on. The seller says in the auction listing that he screened the print. It's on cores, the shots are from another print. For potential bidders outside this forum, alarm bells will ring.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 10, 2014, 07:09 PM:

Mike, I understand where you are talking.

But I am more a logical person where if "X is acceptable and Y is part of X then Y is also acceptable". In science it is called "logic"

So in this case, say that Osi takes a screen shot/scan from 35mm print (easy to google it) and like Brian Sterns says

quote:
Do what lots of other ebay sellers...

Osi uses this picture in his listing, ....we are OK with that and we will not have this thread.

However then when Osi uses a screen shot/scan from 8mm strangely we are not OK......while 8mm is actually part of 35mm.

Why is that?

Seller who uses 8mm rather than 35mm screen shot is trying to make the closest possible with his/her item. Using 35mm screen shot is actually much more misleading.

Many people consider something is not correct if it is much closer to the reality....e.g when we see a painting with much closer to a photo shot (realism art)..they say that is not a painting...not collectible!.... [Big Grin]

Did you see where am I talking... [Big Grin]

cheers,

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on February 10, 2014, 08:55 PM:

Never mind this post! I will reply on the "Core" thread. [Smile]

Good luck with the sale. Osi!
Its really a beautiful print.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 11, 2014, 12:30 AM:

I don't think a digital photo means that much. I could easily take a photo of a near to red print and change it to "look" like its stunning Technicolor. There are heaps of options with digital photos to change the look if you wanted to.

I think its best if you know the person that is selling it and is one you can trust to give an honest description of the print he has owned and watched.

My tupence worth

Graham. [Smile]

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on February 11, 2014, 02:07 AM:

You're a pretty crappy guy if you manipulate the pictures and would soon (in a closed group like this), be someone that would get remarks if trying to sell again

Not that digital photos do full justice to a print by far in any way

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on February 11, 2014, 05:26 AM:

Osi, since you screened this print, did you "core" it? Do you still have the original reels and/or boxes? Thanks....

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on February 11, 2014, 12:34 PM:

Digital photos can also make a print look worse than it is. I doubt very much anyone on this forum would manipulate a photo to sell, however in your e-bay world that many of "not me" deal in can be easily done.

Prints do vary in quality as with screen shots, that's why in my book, its more down to the honesty of the seller than any photo.

In the past when I did sell films locally, I would set up the projector and insist the buyer watch the film he wants to buy.

That way there is no later come back on me. Also I have sold films with the assistance, not to send me any money until they have watched it, and are fully satisfied, if not, just send it back....no problem.

Graham. [Smile]

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 11, 2014, 12:51 PM:

quote:
Osi, since you screened this print, did you "core" it? Do you still have the original reels and/or boxes? Thanks....

Yes, I was wondering this also.
Osi?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 11, 2014, 01:21 PM:

In this case I got it cored, but just to show my determination to sell something proper, I actually had to "uncore" each and every reel with my one empty 600ft reel, just to test each reel and make sure it was in prime condition.

That's all I have right now folks, one empty 600ft reel (and 2 200ft reels, 3 200ft standard 8 reels too), and then I re-cored the whole film tightly.

I must say, I was stunned by the color and image quality of this film. I really didn't pay attention to the story, as I was always pointing out to the wife, (much to her chagrin, as she loves this film), Look at those flowers honey, look at ect ect"

We had to do this over a four day period, mind you.

"Fiddle Dee Dee"!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 11, 2014, 04:50 PM:

Osi,

Sorry to have to ask again but I think you missed my query above. I am interested in a Super 8 split reel. Can I ask where you got yours?

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on February 11, 2014, 05:35 PM:

Michael,

Osi was implying that he does not have a split reel..

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on February 11, 2014, 06:38 PM:

Osi, thanks for your reply....

[ February 11, 2014, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Joe Taffis ]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 12, 2014, 12:34 PM:

What split reel? I don't get it?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 12, 2014, 12:38 PM:

Actually, now I don't get it.

How did you view a cored, feature length film using just one 600ft reel, Osi? Even more puzzling, to me at any rate, is how the blazes did you recore them tightly when all you had at your disposal was one 600ft reel?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 12, 2014, 01:35 PM:

VERY difficult! I un-core it, winding it onto that 600ft reel, view it, then clean it and re-core it, which is why it took some danged long to view the whole film, days actually.

The thing is, I really feel that I have to do that, as, what if one part of the feature has a lab defect and I don't view that reel, and then some unsuspecting buyer gets a defective reel?

I know I wouldn't like it. [Frown]

Does anyone have any freakin reels for cheap? I really need some danged reels!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 12, 2014, 01:39 PM:

quote:
I un-core it, winding it onto that 600ft reel, view it, then clean it and re-core it, which is why it took some danged long to view the whole film, days actually.

I'm probably missing something. Did you use hand-rewinds or motorized rewinds?
How did you get it back tightly onto the core, not to mention cleaning it at the same time?
I would've thought a split-reel was essential.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 12, 2014, 07:06 PM:

quote:
Did you use hand-rewinds or motorized rewinds?

Mike, I think that is not really hard if we do a little trick.

Below is my video. The film is not on a reel. So I just tape it (cross between the film):

....and rewinding it with a projector:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtgzxI4ssUI

quote:
How did you get it back tightly onto the core,

..and I am wondering too how Osi can put back onto the core...

cheers,

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 13, 2014, 12:41 PM:

Thanks, Winbert, but I'm more interested in Osi's reply. It's... fascinating.

quote:
..and I am wondering too how Osi can put back onto the core...

Exactly...

Osi...?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 13, 2014, 12:44 PM:

Oh, I think I see where your going Micheal. I hand rewound it. It didn't take too long to actually do so and I trust that more than using a motorized rewind, as, sometimes, depending on the speed of the rewind, film can be treated in a rather unkind way. Now, this "Wind" print is on polyester, but I once used motorized rewinding on a brand new acetate print from Germany, and it snapped the damned film!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 13, 2014, 01:03 PM:

quote:
I hand rewound it.

Thanks, Osi, though I'm not sure you're understanding exactly why I'm puzzled. I suppose I'm just not making myself clear enough, though I think that as a longtime collector, you should be able to see why myself, and a few others, appear to find it hard to understand exactly what you did to get the film back tightly on the cores. As I said before, it seems like an impossible task without a split reel for support.

How did you support the cores on the rewinds?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 13, 2014, 01:11 PM:

what I use as a "platter" is the middle section of an old Technicolor cartridge "wheel" (I'll call it a wheel). It's that middle section that the film actually sat upon.

I took this and attached it to a 12 by 12 inch half inch thick plank of wood, enameled (by me) and this is what I place the core on and wind or unwind the film on. It is attached like a wheel to the board. I also attached a slight "knob" to the top of the wheel so that way, while I unwind off of it to the 600ft reel, I am able to rewind back onto it and then, very carefully, I re-tape the core, (with non permanent sticking tape, that's important, as you don't want a "gooey" edge on the film from something like, oh, duct tape).

I hope that makes it a little clearer. If not, then I give up.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 13, 2014, 01:21 PM:

Is that one of those Technicolor cartridges in Winberts video?

Posted by Rob Koeling (Member # 35) on February 13, 2014, 05:30 PM:

The plot thickens....

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 13, 2014, 07:28 PM:

Osi, as you have a good video camera, just show us how did you do that with your camera so we understand the way you put the film back onto the core without a split reel.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 14, 2014, 12:47 PM:

Good idea, Winbert. I think that would be of immense interest to other collectors.

Osi?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 14, 2014, 12:58 PM:

That's a good idea, but I can't get to it now, way too much going on at the moment, but good idea Winbert.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 14, 2014, 01:20 PM:

Can I ask how you managed to clean the print while recoring it with the method you used?

If you have just the one 600ft reel, how did you actually project the print?

To be honest, Osi, I'm not the only one who feels you're being very evasive about this whole thing.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 14, 2014, 01:27 PM:

Sheesh, I don't see how I'm being evasive.

The cleaning part of it is using one of those film cleaning cloths that Steve Osbourne supplies and as I am re-coring it, simply having the film run through the cloth, treated with my film cleaner. Not that hard to do.

I mean, what do I have to do, invite everybody over to my bloody house for a proper inquisition?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 14, 2014, 01:47 PM:

quote:
Not that hard to do.

But...and this is kinda the point, with the set-up you have described, it IS hard to do.

You, yourself said, a few posts back, when asked how you did it...

quote:
VERY difficult!

How did you screen it using just a cored film and one 600ft reel?

Listen, you must admit this - the whole method you're describing is a bit hard to fathom and I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it. So, your acting as if we're all just not understanding some simple concept which you've gone out of your way to describe in detail is a bit hard to comprehend.

Speaking for myself, personally, I understand the actual physical set-up you describe but I really don't understand how it can work. This is why I'm persisting with my questions - I feel as if I'm missing something.

Many collectors have come up with some pretty novel techniques over the years and have been happy to describe them and answer any questions, so I'm not sure why you're so exasperated by all this. Inquisition?? - a little OTT, don't you think?

All I'm doing is asking for clarification.

Posted by Rob Koeling (Member # 35) on February 14, 2014, 05:08 PM:

Osi,

I'm afraid I think it is completely out of the question that it is possible to put a film back on cores using the method you describe, in such a way that it is tight enough to handle.

I thought your story sounded rather dubious from the start, and it certainly hasn't become more credible. I'm afraid I'm less of a diplomat than Michael... I don't believe you've ever tried to put a film on cores and I also don't believe you screened that film before you put it on Ebay.

I think it is time to come clean on this.

But you know what? If you take up Winbert's suggestion and post a video of the action, I will eat my words and I will owe you a humble apology.

Alternatively, I could send you a 600 foot reel with film and a core, and if you send me back the same film on the core, you can keep the reel.

This might all sound a bit harsh, but I think misleading people when selling a film a very serious. You have spun quite an incredible story around the sale of an expensive title and I think this is undermining people's trust in buying film. You've had quite a bit of time to convince us that all was well, but so far you have not exactly succeeded.

Come on Osi, trust me, I would really prefer to be proven wrong!

- Rob

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on February 14, 2014, 06:14 PM:

Guys, I am not trying to be a judge here, but these are the facts I have dealt with:

1. I have once bought 2 x 1200' super 8mm film from Osi (from Ebay, under his old ID toac2001) and it was on core. So super 8mm on core does exist.

2. Upon my inspection on my "technicolor" cartridge, the method Osi says below:

quote:
what I use as a "platter" is the middle section of an old Technicolor cartridge "wheel" (I'll call it a wheel). It's that middle section that the film actually sat upon.

I took this and attached it to a 12 by 12 inch half inch thick plank of wood, enameled (by me) and this is what I place the core on and wind or unwind the film on. It is attached like a wheel to the board. I also attached a slight "knob" to the top of the wheel so that way, while I unwind off of it to the 600ft reel, I am able to rewind back onto it and then, very carefully, I re-tape the core, (with non permanent sticking tape, that's important, as you don't want a "gooey" edge on the film from something like, oh, duct tape).

is possible, but you must use your hand and slowly rewind the film. It will take so long to finish a 600' reel.

3. Mike is asking "How did you screen it using just a cored film and one 600ft reel?",...yeah that is impossible. But If Osi has a 1200' or 800' reel that is not a problem, right? This thread does not show that Osi does not have ones.

@ Osi, the only way to prove you are not wrong is to show a video of your method, by then, everyone who is curios with your method can be satisfied. Even if a video is not possible for this moment, just take a photo snap of your method above.

cheers,

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 15, 2014, 12:46 PM:

No, I'm tired of being called a liar.

I didn't even have to mention how I core and re-core films in the first place. Just because others don't have the ability to do so, doesn't make it impossible.

I have dealt with people, some on this forum, some others some quite prominent that are quick to find fault, but are far from being innocent themselves, (when I have been innocent), and I have never even thought of going after them or calling them a liar publicly, though with all I have on them, (facts mind you), I could end they're "honorable" status on the forums at a heartbeat.

I would not even venture to call someone a liar without having all the facts, and I'm quite insulted.

So ... goodbye

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 15, 2014, 12:52 PM:

quote:
3. Mike is asking "How did you screen it using just a cored film and one 600ft reel?",...yeah that is impossible. But If Osi has a 1200' or 800' reel that is not a problem, right? This thread does not show that Osi does not have ones.

I think it does, Winbert.

Osi specifically says...

quote:
That's all I have right now folks, one empty 600ft reel (and 2 200ft reels, 3 200ft standard 8 reels too),...

Osi,
Instead of acting hard done by, why not just help us out by showing us the technique. Obviously, some of us are interested.
If I was in your position, I would want to go out of my way to clear up this misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, you leaving now would just leave many with the feeling that you didn't, in fact, screen that print at all before listing.
It's a simple enough thing to let us see your technique for recoring.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on February 15, 2014, 01:06 PM:

Osi,

" have dealt with people, some on this forum, some others some quite prominent that are quick to find fault, but are far from being innocent themselves, (when I have been innocent), and I have never even thought of going after them or calling them a liar publicly, though with all I have on them, (facts mind you), I could end they're "honorable" status on the forums at a heartbeat. "

That is quite a worrying statement.

Care to elaborate?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on February 15, 2014, 01:16 PM:

What a huge blow up over nothing. I understand the screenshot concerns but the scrutiny given to "core-gate" is ridiculous.

I think the benefits of continuing this are outweighed by the vitriolic direction this is heading.

This thread is closed for now.

[ February 15, 2014, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Douglas Meltzer ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2