This is topic Osi's coring video 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=009012

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 03, 2014, 08:37 PM:
 
Osi sent in this YouTube link to his Coring Machine video, requesting that I post it along with the following stills. A number of Forum members have repeatedly asked for Osi to demonstrate his method and here it is!





Doug
 

---

Posted by Paul Spinks (Member # 573) on March 03, 2014, 09:51 PM:
 
Wonderful stuff!!! I am constantly amazed by the ingenuity of film collectors.
 

---

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 03, 2014, 10:55 PM:
 
So what's the toaster for?
 

---

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on March 03, 2014, 11:03 PM:
 
Osi, first let me say thank you very much for going through the trouble of putting the video together. I never doubted you, on th contrary I think I got charged up about your method thinking it may have solved something I have long troubled with, but unfortunately as cool as your method is, I think it still leaves me needing a different solution.

I may have to simply make a split reel for Super 8 because the one thing missing from both yours and Winbert's methods was the ability to actually put the film on those little plastic cores...I am sorry it became such a big deal for you, but I do know it is dangerous territory to announce a method of doing anything to film collectors and then not showing it, since we all exist on transferred knowledge... Right? If someone's figured it out already why re-invent the wheel yourself?

So I'll go back to the drawing board with my giant cored films


and don't worry about the nay-sayers, you showed your method which is all you were obligated to do... As much as I was hoping your method was going to work for me, I think it is a very cool method and will work for most people since it is a simply constructed piece since those little ball bearing wheels can be found fairly easily, even if you don't have exercise equipment.

I commend your ingenuity
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 03, 2014, 11:12 PM:
 
Well done Osi your method looks
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 04, 2014, 12:19 AM:
 
Osi well done!

I am afraid some people owe an apology now.

Dino, regarding "the core" you wanted. I trust using a 50' reel as I showed on my video is the answer. You can combine the method that osi has shown and mine. So if you do not have 2 turntables, just follow Osi's method but use a 50' reel instead in the middle of Technicolor cartridge.

BTW, if you can tell me what those little plastic cores can do which 50' reel cannot, I will figure out another solution. I am trying to exercise my creativity here.
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 04, 2014, 12:56 AM:
 
A 50' reel can't be used with a split reel and the little plastic things can.

Bill
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 04, 2014, 01:08 AM:
 
Bill, what I am asking is the different function of a yellow round plastic thing vs a 50' reel when film has been taken out from the reel.

We are not talking a split reel here, because the idea is to core/recore film WITHOUT a split reel (please read "core" here as a verb not a noun).

If there is something specific and that is really essential, then I will try to find another solution. But if it is because you see 16mm use it, and here is not hence you want it, I don't see that is an essential thing.
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 04, 2014, 01:41 AM:
 
Then it shouldn't be called coring...to core a film is to put it on a core....maybe you should call your method "winding on a 50' reel"

Isn't this fun?

Bill
 

---

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on March 04, 2014, 02:14 AM:
 
Bravo! Nicely done.
BTW- I met the 2nd voice of Bullwinkle when the company I worked for redid the Rocky and Bullwinkle series for DVD. The 2nd Bullwinkle was from Down Under!
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 04, 2014, 04:11 AM:
 
Bill, how about then "to xerox" (American verb for photocopying )...do we need to use the actual Xerox machine...?

Yes this is very funny!

In fact "Kodak" in Indonesia refers to cameras, no matter what brand they are.
 

---

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on March 04, 2014, 04:30 AM:
 
I still think its a shame to subject films to this treatment and create a higher risk of damage, all for the lack of some reels.
I also think when selling "pancakes" of film the description should be clearer to the average collector than just stating "film is cored"....
"this film is not on reels" would be more accurate....
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 04, 2014, 05:32 AM:
 
I'm 'Hoovering' up all the comments on this topic.

I would expect to pay a lower price for a film not on reels or spools. Especially the film that started this 'Gone With The Reels'

The only time I ever received super 8mm films not on a reel were optical sound features. These were of course used 'airline prints' they usually had countdown leader at the start with no other starts then the end leader. These were always on a 8mm core.
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 04, 2014, 10:40 AM:
 
Thanks for the feedback guys!

As for people apologizing, I'm not expecting much, as, people are far more willing to call you a liar, than actually admit they are wrong publicly.

Sorry my little machine can't be a help to you, Dino ...

Oh, to clear up one little thing, I have heard on another forum, that there has been some confusion about one thing, and I'll clear that up.

Some are arguing that there is no plastic core in the middle. No, I don't use plastic cores, though I would certainly want to have some no doubt. Though it does not have a core in the middle, I have always referred to this as "cored" film, because it is simply not on a reel. However, I have heard some collectors refer to this as a "pancake". That's kind of cool, I must admit, but I think that I will continue to call it a "cored film", as, if I called them "pancakes, well, we would have a no doubt 10 page topic and argument about Super 8 pancakes!!

Soon to come, OSI's collection video. Give me a week or two!

[ March 04, 2014, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Osi Osgood ]
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 04, 2014, 12:19 PM:
 
Its OK to call them pancakes today here in the UK. It s pancake day.
 

---

Posted by John Yapp (Member # 2873) on March 04, 2014, 12:42 PM:
 
That works for me. Fair Play Osi.
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 04, 2014, 01:02 PM:
 
Osi,

Because of the terminology, I would ask you to make sure a prospective buyer knows that the film is not wound on a core.

Doug
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 04, 2014, 01:10 PM:
 
Osi,
I apologise to you for not dealing with this issue in private in the first instance, before bringing this up in public and then allowing it to become the big issue it has become.

But, as ingenious as your device is, I cannot equate what you show there with what you say you were able to do with the GWTW print.
However, I will freely admit that I may just be wrong, and I have removed all reference to "dishonesty" in my post on the other forum.

But now.....you, and everybody else, will have to grant that the word "cored" in film circles, refers to film on an actual core, and not film with a hole in the centre.
Consequently, will you do something? Go and alter the wording of your prints on ebay, particularly GWTW, to describe exactly how the film is supplied. "Film is cored" to a potential buyer, means the film is on cores.

I think that, surely, nobody here can dispute that this is the fair and honest thing to do.

Joe's suggestion -"this film is not on reels" - is not enough, though. You should be explicit about how the film will be supplied, ie, with an empty middle where the core should be. Here's your chance to be perfectly honest.

Once again, Osi, you have my apologies for starting this up in public without first engaging you in private.

[ March 04, 2014, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Michael O'Regan ]
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 05, 2014, 12:32 PM:
 
Not a problem Micheal ...

and

ROCK ON!!!
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 05, 2014, 01:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

Not a problem Micheal ...

---

quote:

---

If you don't, then we still have a problem,

---

A reservation huh....

Osi, just put one core and that's it. Nothing then you have to change in the listing.

Or probably using your creativity, find a replacement for that yellow round thingy (intrinsically: a core) rather than leaving the middle of film empty like your video has shown.

ps: If the listing says "Art work cover is xeroxed" (= photocopied), you don't need to actually use a Xerox machine.

cheers
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 05, 2014, 08:46 PM:
 
I'm gonna start calling you "stretch" Winbert!

Xeroxed - that term went out in the 80's.

Bill
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 05, 2014, 08:59 PM:
 
Bill I am actually trying to make everything short here by asking Osi just to put the so-called core so we can end this debate.

What about "to google"... but using yahoo instead?

No "xerox" as a verb still exist.
 

---

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on March 05, 2014, 09:29 PM:
 
Osi

Excellent video whatever you want to call it!

PatD
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 05, 2014, 10:09 PM:
 
OK Stretch, I'll play along....

All recliners are called LA-Z-BOY's even if there not.

Film is cored means that the film is on a core to everyone except you and Osi.

Your turn....

Bill
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 05, 2014, 10:26 PM:
 

quote:

---

All recliners are called LA-Z-BOY's even if there not

---

quote:

---

Film is cored means that the film is on a core to everyone except you and Osi.

---

That is why I have told Osi now just to put a core and no need to change the listing, so end the debate. No need a reservation, "OK I am sorry if...".

With this video, it has now been proven that putting the film out of the reel with a Technicolor cartridge is possible, something that was the main concern before.
 

---

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 06, 2014, 03:09 AM:
 
Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying:- "The Americans and the British are identical in all respects except, of course, their language".
Osi's eBay ad said "Film is cored".
Whilst this implies it was on a core, it appears it was not a core as we generally acknowledge what a core actually is, and how it's used.
A clear case of mistaken identity.
 

---

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 06, 2014, 06:00 AM:
 
I have understood what you meant from the start Winbert. I'm glad to see you finally understand what I meant. Thank you Maurice for your input.

Now I have a headache. I'm going to take a Tylenol (even though I'm really taking an asprin)

Bill
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 06, 2014, 12:08 PM:
 
Sheesh, if I had plastic cores, I would certainly use them, but those little things are hard to come by. About the only place that I have ever seen them on are on brand new cored super 8 optical features, and those are becoming nearly extinct these days.
 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 06, 2014, 12:15 PM:
 
I found out LA-Z-BOY sells a line of office furniture...(seriously!)

I'd imagine the desk tops have foot rests and the chairs recline extra horizontally!
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 06, 2014, 12:31 PM:
 

quote:

---

Osi, just put one core and that's it. Nothing then you have to change in the listing.

---

quote:

---

That is why I have told Osi now just to put a core and no need to change the listing, so end the debate. No need a reservation, "OK I am sorry if...".

---

I'll restrain myself in the interest of forum decorum. My apology was given unreservedly. I was and am willing to admit that I may have been wrong about my original suspicions. There may even have been a misunderstanding about the word "cored".
Now, however, there is no such misunderstanding.

[ March 06, 2014, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Michael O'Regan ]
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 06, 2014, 05:15 PM:
 
The thing is and it has been mentioned before, that most if not all film collectors would expect something that's advertised as having a core, that being placed in its "centre" supporting the film, be it plastic or cardboard or whatever, to be just that.

I do like Osi video, its clever ...but it would be more "up front" to advertise "GWTW" as without one as it stands at the moment..just my tu-pence worth.

PS. If anyone on this forum, does buy the film, could they post another video on how they managed to get it onto reels?

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 06, 2014, 07:03 PM:
 
The right thing for Osi to do is to remount the whole film onto reels before selling it, in other words sell the film in the accepted normal way.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 06, 2014, 08:08 PM:
 

quote:

---

Sheesh, if I had plastic cores, I would certainly use them, but those little things are hard to come by.

---

quote:

---

So, Winbert, you think that will be OK? One reel on a core, the others with nothing in the middle?
How do you think a buyer might feel about it?

---

No of course, if Osi the GWTW is on two spools then he has to put both on cores. That is why I opened the above thread.

I just want to congratulate Osi that through his video, he can prove that his Technicolor method does really work. Should Osi get the cores from my above thread and putting it on the middle of his Technicolor method, then there is nothing to debate here anymore.

cheers,
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 07, 2014, 12:16 PM:
 
Oh for Petes sake (and who is this Pete?) ...

If I had reels in the first place, it would be on them, even if it took 30 200ft freakin reels, (though, that would really be a pain in the arse! I wonder how many 200ft reels if would actually take?
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 3812) on March 10, 2014, 04:36 AM:
 
Great Video Osi..well done.

The correct term for what you are doing there is NOT "coring" as you are not using a core..as nil available...the term is Plating Off "in 35mm parlance".
In the past when there were things like newsreels they arrived in battered tins simply wound nice and tight onto themselves with a hole in the middle about 15mm in diam.
When you recvd them and needed to wind onto spools to project (this was 2000 foot changeover days) you simply carefully placed them on the feed spindle of the rewind set, placed the end into the reel slot and CAREFULLY wound the film off itself onto the reel all the while holding holding your fingers of your left hand OVER the top of the plated film to help guide it and stop it falling off.
Wind on until all on the projector reel and you are done but maybe have to rewind cos the thing was Tail Out.
When you needed to send the newsreel or cartoon back you placed the plating device onto the threaded spindle of the winding side and very carefully wound the film from the reel onto the film stack slowly building up on the plating device but holding it firmly by the edges and winding on slowly and TIGHT.
At the end, tape the film end down and then carefully hold the 1000 foot of film and wind the plating device backwards slowly and slide the "plated film" off the spindle of the plating unit and in your hand you could hold 1000 feet of film wound nice and snug that you could hold horizontally and it would NOT end up a mess on the floor.
It took a bit of practice but once mastered was dead easy.

The Plating device was not unlike what Ozi has produced but was a brass spindle about 15mm in diam with a aluminium plate about 300mm in diam bolted onto a 50mm flange that was also part of the spindle.
You wound the film in snug against the ali plate (edge binding it is called) and I still use one today to send 35mm trailers back that have been sent out without cores.
IF wound on firmly I reckon you could get 1200 feet of S8 into a plated format suitable to ship between 2 bits of stiff cardborad which IF you had a hole in the middle of the S8 size the whole thing could be slipped over a projector spindle and secured and the stuff wound off carefully onto a spool.

I will see IF I can get some images to post using the 35mm setup to plate off a S8 film..it is dead easy if you have 16mm or 35mm rewinds available.
I guess that there is a time limit on going back to a post and Adding stuff.

For any site still using 35mm it still comes on cores NOW and one uses a split reel to core the feature back to return to the depot.
Have not seen 35mm film reels for shipping film in this country for at least 12 years..it is all cores or nothing and simply shipped in cardboard boxes...trunks went out with reels.

Lindsay
 

---

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 10, 2014, 04:46 AM:
 
Osi
In answer to your question, you would need 24 spools of 200' length, although I can't conceive why you would even consider mounting "Gone With The Wind" on 200' spools.

Derann originally put this film out on 8 x 600' spools.
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 10, 2014, 08:56 AM:
 
Speaking of long releases/small spools, I had the pleasure of meeting Ernie Zahn yesterday and the subject of Blackhawk's 8mm Intolerance came up. They released it on 13 200' reels!

Doug
 

---

Posted by Tommy Woods (Member # 2437) on March 10, 2014, 09:53 AM:
 
My wife asked me why I haven't put in my two pennies worth,as "you have an opinion on everything"

That's when the fight started !!!
 

---

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on March 21, 2014, 11:36 AM:
 
We have seen the "Platter onna Plank" video where Osi explains how he transferred the Gone With The Wind print onto a reel. This way he could view the film and clean it. This was to answer the question how it was done. Osi said that he
received GWTW from the person he was selling it for without reels or cores. I spoke with Fred K. Willders last week about a film I am buying from him. Fred is a great guy. During our phone call, Fred mentioned that Osi was selling a handful of his prints. I mentioned to Fred that I saw where Gone With The Wind had sold. Fred said GWTW was one of his prints he had sent to Osi to sell. I told Fred it sold without any reels or cores. Fred was surprised. Fred stated that he had shipped all his films to Osi on reels. So, why the "Platter onna Plank" video??
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 21, 2014, 02:00 PM:
 
To be honest, I heard this too but was a bit worried about bringing it up. I promised Doug I wouldn't mention it on this forum unless someone else did.

So, when Osi said this, specifically about his GWTW print, he was lying blatantly:

"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."

Osi, what's goin' on?
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 21, 2014, 02:02 PM:
 
Now this must be Osi's favourite


 

---

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 21, 2014, 02:05 PM:
 
"Cored".............. or "Bored"????????
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 21, 2014, 02:07 PM:
 
David, very funny!

Dan,

I hope you've been well.

Michael,

I'm glad you waited till the person who actually made contact with the seller posted.

I'm sure Osi will reply shortly.

Doug
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 21, 2014, 02:26 PM:
 
Actually, there's something else a little worrying, which I didn't in fact know about, till reading Dan's post.

If Osi sold Fred's GWTW print on ebay on March 8th - two weeks ago - , shouldn't Fred know about the sale?
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 21, 2014, 04:26 PM:
 
Who is Fred? This name was not mentioned from the beginning of this debate. And why it is mentioned now here.

I checked on the other forum, the very same post made by Dan was also posted.

My understanding is this thread was made to proove how Osi could uncore and recore those films and not really care about how he got those films.

Why we have to know somebody's else business? I am so puzzled now...
 

---

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 21, 2014, 04:30 PM:
 
The question is "What did Osi know and when did he know it?".
If I were him I would take the fifth........ (of whiskey)!
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 21, 2014, 05:11 PM:
 
Any chance that this could go onto the "Judge Judy" show?


 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 21, 2014, 05:27 PM:
 
Let's just give Osi the courtesy of allowing him to reply before getting into a debate, shall we, Winbert?
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 21, 2014, 05:37 PM:
 
It is just not in my sense, you started all of this with "why you want somebody's else screen shot for your listing", then it was dragged into a question "do you have a split reel", and now "Fred used to own the print".

If this is in the court, like Graham's picture above, we cannot make a new accusition in the middle of a trial, but instead open a new case. By this, please open a new thread with a new subject, e.g "Osi where did you get your print "? etc, with a possibility like Martin's post above "cored or ....bored"
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 21, 2014, 05:38 PM:
 
OK, if Doug wishes to move this new issue to a new thread, that'll be fine with me. In fact, it might be best but that's up to Doug.
Otherwise, do Osi the courtesy of allowing him to reply.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 21, 2014, 07:40 PM:
 
Yes Doug, please move this.

Otherwise as if in the court, the Judge will say to the accused "you don't have any obligation to answer that question"
 

---

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 21, 2014, 07:46 PM:
 
If Osi is found guilty as charged, what is the sentence? I would suggest 5 years of watching GWTW once every day, with possible parole after 2 years for good behaviour, meaning no more uncoring(or is it coring?) of films.
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 22, 2014, 08:18 AM:
 
Unfortunately my super moderator powers cannot move a group of off topic posts to another thread, so instead I suggest we hold off a bit for Osi to start a new thread with his response.

Doug
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 22, 2014, 12:18 PM:
 
Doug I hope in your role as super moderator you don't have to wear the full costume of underpants over tights. But you must be a super collector
 

---

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 22, 2014, 12:53 PM:
 
No need to start another post ...

to address Micheal's "concerns" ...

I actually got ahold of Fred about GWTW selling earlier this week, (Tuesday, I think), but since he has not written me back as of yet, I'm not sure if he got the e-mail, as he doesn't head to the library (as I do) every day, (except Sunday) or even, every week).

I've waited for a little bit because, with high dollar items, there is much more of a chance of a buyer watching a film once or not even watching it and getting "Buyers remorse" and demanding they're money back. It happens, folks.

If I was to send off Fred's money to him right away, and the person puts in a dispute for they're cash back, that would end up coming out of my own pocket, and having not worked a regular job in fours years (and literally living on "fumes"), well, there is no way that I am going to eat that!

So, I wait a little longer to let him know on GWTW. I treat Fred the same as the number of other people that I also sell for, (Fred is just one among many).

Now, onto Dan's latest diatribe ...

(sheesh, were on about all of this again?!)

Dan saw a post on the other forum from Joe Tafis ...

"Osi, After seeing all the "cored" films you're selling on eBay; I have a good idea of where all the Elmo 1200' aluminum reels I bought from Fred came from "

... To make on thing clear, all the films which I have recieved from Fred have been on 1200ft reels. In the unfortunate circum-stance of GWTW, Fred mailed off the four reels in separate boxes, reel 1# came with another two reels from him, and about a week later, the other three reels arrived, 2X1200ft and one 800 ft reel. The second package was unfortunately damaged in transit, (it's pretty hard to damage those boxes that Fred sends his films in, but apparently, it's possible).

Reels 3 and 4, on 1200ft ELMO reels, were bent and damaged too much to mail out with the sold film, the 800ft reel (white plastic ELMO reel), was actually cracked and broken.

Fortunately, the film itself was not damaged.

Now, I can't speak for any other seller, but I personally think that to sell one good 1200ft reel (part 1) and then have the other reels all cored would be silly and just cause more questions than answers, so I took the film off of reel 1 and cored that as well. Yeah, I said cored, whoopee do.

So, technically, the film arrived on reels, but un-useable reels
so, if you want to argue semantics all over again, go ahead, I'm done with this topic.

Dan, I highly encourage you to read the other post I have just put up.

Sincerely OSI Osgood
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 22, 2014, 01:35 PM:
 
Thanks for your reply, Osi.
One thing still puzzles me and it's the contradiction between two posts of yours regarding GWTW.

The first one was on Feb 11th on this forum:

"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."

So, there and in a separate post elsewhere, you plainly stated that you received the print cored....and then just today you said:

"... To make on thing clear, all the films which I have recieved from Fred have been on 1200ft reels."

This is a clear contradiction, which cannot even be put down to something like an innocent mistake.

Oh, and I also wondered about this point. You said above that you received Reel 1 on a 1200ft reel from Fred, and:

"... so I took the film off of reel 1 and cored that as well."

You originally told us you had just one 600ft reel at your disposal. When pushed on that point you said that you had actually had two 600ft reels at your disposal. But, now it would appear that you also had a 1200ft reel to spare.

Again, it shouldn't be too difficult for anyone to see why I find it hard to reconcile all of this in my mind.

You understand my confusion, I'm sure. With obvious incongruities like that, you can understand why people might question you.

Can you, perhaps, clarify (clearly) these issues and maybe we'll be able to put this all to rest.

[ March 22, 2014, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael O'Regan ]
 

---

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on March 22, 2014, 07:39 PM:
 
Osi Osgood wrote.....

quote:

---

Dan, I highly encourage you to read the other post I have just put up.

Sincerely OSI Osgood

---

quote:

---

These forums are for discussion and enjoyment of film collecting, selling, and reviewing, etc., not for wild goose chases

---

Dan it is in your very own forum you did that by opening a specific thread.

ps: the previous URL that linked to the context above has been deleted, of course by that forum admin/owner. That's fine with me because it is coincidentally in accordance with this forum's rules (that I just realized) not to link with another forum site. But below is the google cache of the topic that I meant. I think it will be a hard job to anyone, that includes Barrack Obama, asking google to delete this..

http://goo.gl/kNjA91

http://goo.gl/tJMpSS

What are they Dan? And btw welcome back, you break your hybernating periode with this forum only to chase Osi....

pss: you also break your very own rule "will not delete, lock up, or edit any posts"...

cheers,

[ March 25, 2014, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Winbert Hutahaean ]
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 24, 2014, 01:26 PM:
 
Osi,

I'd really appreciate honest answers to my questions above. Thanks.
There's no semantics involved in this, BTW. You have purposefully posted contradictory statements, and I'd just like you to help me understand why.
I await your reply.
 

---

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 24, 2014, 08:43 PM:
 
I thought this thread would not continue, but I am wrong....

Mike, do you really want to know everyone's business till that detail?

The main issue which started this debate has been solved.

I could imagine, that

quote:

---

A Chef is saying that he is cooking a steak made of Kobe Beef (the most expensive beef in the world only available from Japan).

Someone is suspicious that the steak is not made of Kobe Beef but instead from Canadian Angus Beef. He asks for a proof that the beef is a Kobe. The chef with his own way can show that it is a true Kobe Beef and everyone now believes in him. While he is explaining he says that the Kobe Beef was brought to him using a GMC Savana.

The man later found that GMC Savana is not available in this country, so it comes to his mind 'how come the Kobe Beef brought to this Chef?'. And he starts arguing that since GMC Savana is not available here so the Kobe Beef is not true.

---

I would say we better concern on the original (main) issue and if it is solved that is the end of this debate. There are probably many reasons why Osi saying that but that cannot remove the proof that Osi can put the film out of the reel v.v

cheers,
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 24, 2014, 10:20 PM:
 

sorry folks but I cant help it.....
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 25, 2014, 01:24 PM:
 
I'd appreciate a reply from Osi.
 

---

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 25, 2014, 03:47 PM:
 
Give me a nice Aberdeen Angus steak any day. A proper one though where the mum & dad were both from Aberdeen. The Kobi looks to fatty for me.

Now if they could de-core the fat that would be great.
 

---

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on March 25, 2014, 09:18 PM:
 
I'm surprised Doug hasn't locked this thread...

 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 26, 2014, 01:27 PM:
 
I'm surprised that everybody believes Osi, and doesn't see (or doesn't want to see!) the implications of all this for the forums, but there ya go. Such is life.

 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 26, 2014, 02:10 PM:
 
I've been watching this develop and can honestly say I don't take Osi's side in it, nor anyone's.

There will be no winners here, not among the participants or the bystanders either. There will be no stunning victories: just a lot of scars, soiled reputations (deservedly or not...) and a current of anger running just below the surface.

The "good guys" and the "bad guys" (so hard to tell without the color coded hats...) will probably all be here next week and next month and come the day an excuse arises this will erupt again as some new crusade for Justice and Truth.

Of course it's traditional when something like this happens, some new film collecting Forum will pop up. I could actually start a Long Island 8mm Forum but with just Mike DeAngelis and me we could do that by E-mail!

Someday each of us will have a Forum, and everybody but the owner will be banned from all of them.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 26, 2014, 02:26 PM:
 
To be honest, I can totally understand why this whole business has angered a lot of people. In fact, it angers me, because I've come off the bad guy all 'round.

However, if anyone would like to take the time to check back over all the threads ( and I don't expect that anyone will bother - can't say that I blame you)) it would become readily apparent who is responsible for the length of time and space this has taken up. There has been evasion after fabrication after inconsistency after change of story, etc....and anyone who can't see this is deliberately choosing not to do so.

It could be argued that this should have been pursued privately and I did, in fact, apologise to Osi for perhaps not having done so in the first place.
So, at that point (about three weeks or so ago), in an attempt to keep further discussion off of the public forum, I contacted Osi privately in order to get some answers to my still unanswered queries. However, Osi immediately chose to make the discussion public again by answering my PRIVATE messages in public (on the other forum).
So, for anyone who thinks that I've dragged this on and on....that ain't the way it happened.
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 26, 2014, 02:37 PM:
 
For the latest development, please see this thread.

Doug
 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 26, 2014, 02:38 PM:
 
Acknowledged, Mike.

I don't think you are a bad guy, or the bad guy here at all.

-what I'm saying is in the end this is a story that has no white hats and deserves to ride off into the sunset, maybe with its tail between its legs.

The odds are pretty slim we're going to going to have a big toe-tapping musical closing number and everybody go home happy.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 26, 2014, 02:52 PM:
 
I agree, Steve. There's not going to be a happy ending, or in fact, any ending at all, as such.

The thing is that this is going to hang around Osi from here onward. He hasn't pulled the wool over everybody's eyes.
 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 26, 2014, 02:55 PM:
 
No white hat for anyone.

Maybe it will end like "2001, a Space Odyssey"

-the lights came up, the people started to half stand up, and we all said "That's IT??!"
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 26, 2014, 03:03 PM:
 

quote:

---

No white hat for anyone.

---

OK!
 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 26, 2014, 03:06 PM:
 
Truth be told, everyone wears a gray hat...metaphorically.

-even if you show up with a white one it gets soiled eventually.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 26, 2014, 03:08 PM:
 
Now, who's dragging the thread out!!!???

 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 26, 2014, 03:11 PM:
 
See the thread about conjoined movie titles and see who's dragging it out!

(OK, no more hat metaphors!)
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 26, 2014, 04:48 PM:
 
Mike.

I will quote you. "I've come off the bad guy all round"

No you haven't.....you have asked straight forward questions....and expected straight forward answers, it is as simple as that.

Although some of us might take some parts this topic a bit light hearted, that's really to cool things down a bit.

The thing with the internet is, that whatever you put out there people will query it "like the name of this topic".. as long as folk are honest and up front, then its never going to be a problem.

I do hope "Osi" will make the effort to answer your questions.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 26, 2014, 05:24 PM:
 
Thanks, Graham.

I don't think it's really necessary for Osi to answer anything at this point. I've got a pretty good idea of what's been going on, as does anyone with any intelligence.

 

---

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on March 26, 2014, 05:45 PM:
 
This thread is like the Movie Serial "The Perils of Pauline"
(Substitute "Osi" for "Pauline")

 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on April 05, 2014, 05:02 PM:
 
Geez, I'm confused.

Didn't this whole thing start off with Osi looking to use someone elses screenshots for his GWTW auction, because he said he was unable to take good enough screenshots himself?

But, earlier today on the other forum he is offering to send out screenshots of his which apparently are good enough show off the colour differences between scenes of a Blues Brothers print.


 

---

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on April 05, 2014, 05:13 PM:
 
Micheal, you probably answered your own dilemma a couple of posts ago. This topic has now been been done to death and clearly has not been a good experience for relationships within the forum.

Perhaps it's best just to draw a line in the sand and move on from this as the forum, acting for the greater good of everyone, is more important I feel, than any personal point scoring excercises me thinks!

I believe a well respected moderator on another forum has contemplated closing the forum down because of the issues caused by this subject and for me personally, some of my friends and doubtless to say, many others this would be disastrous!
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on April 05, 2014, 05:18 PM:
 
Yeah, I guess you're right, Andrew.

Incidentally, this is not about scoring points. I have no need of those, here or anywhere else.

 

---

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on April 05, 2014, 05:22 PM:
 
I respect that Micheal but we all want these forums to work mate.
 

---

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on April 05, 2014, 05:27 PM:
 
Ah, Andrew, now you've hit the nail right on the head there.

That was and remains the reason for this whole issue in the first place.

See, my feeling is that, on a forum such as this, where buying and selling amongst members is a vital part of the proceedings, it can only work when all of the members are honest and up front with each other.

Am I wrong in such an assumption??
 

---

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on April 05, 2014, 05:30 PM:
 
Point taken Michael!
 

---

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on April 05, 2014, 05:53 PM:
 
Its funny because I remember the first time I saw someone else's photos of a print they were selling. I couldn't believe how clear it looked and also how nice the color was. When I tried to take photos they always came out blurry and washed out. But then...I took a photo with my iPhone and thats the ones that I always use. Something about the shutter speed or whatnot that syncs well with movie prints projected on a wall.
If all the prints were the same, and I am pretty sure all the prints of Gone with the Wind on Super 8 were all the Derann prints - then there didn't seem to be a problem in asking for shots of the print to use.
All was smooth sailing until...Coregate!
This thread is a crazy one for sure but in the end I'm sure that the print had no problems, looks great, is probably on reels now somewhere in the world, and if the film had a problem I am pretty sure the seller would have no problem addressing the issue.
Or Paypal would do it for him!

 

---

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on April 05, 2014, 06:03 PM:
 
Point also taken Alan, just trying to do my bit for the greater good of the forum and as far as I can see..... Nuff said!

I sure would hate to be a politician!
 

---

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on April 05, 2014, 06:10 PM:
 
Mike,

You assume that because the rest of us haven't picked up torches and pitch forks over this that we are taking Osi's side and disregarding everything that's been revealed.

That's not true. We've been watching and considering. Opinions have been formed even if we aren't yelling them out here.

I find this is nasty business and I really don't want any part of it. I don't want to take sides. I don't want to condemn anybody.

I really don't want to hear another word about it either.

I think the membership of this forum should pick a date no more than a week from today and petition Doug to lock all of these threads and the membership agree to declare this subject out of bounds.

Anybody with me?
 

---

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on April 05, 2014, 06:12 PM:
 
Here here!
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on April 05, 2014, 11:32 PM:
 
The petitions have started already and I see no need to wait any longer.

I seriously doubt if there are any other points to be made.

Doug
 

---

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