8mm Forum: A GOLDFINGER question

This is topic A GOLDFINGER question 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=011490

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on May 16, 2017, 02:30 AM:

Hi,
I own a Super-8-print of GOLDFINGER and the seller didn´t know if it is a DERANN-release. I put a Stereo soundtrack on it and it could be a gem.
The print has great colours, but the sharpness is only okay and the whole print is on the darker side: the car chase in the woods is hard to follow.
My question is: is every print like this or are there differences in the DERANN releases? Or is my print from a different distributor?
It has english titles.
Thank You in advance.
Oliver

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on May 16, 2017, 06:43 AM:

In my experience, even every print from the same distributor tends to be different, sometimes very different, sometimes barely noticeable. Depending on when it was printed and lab conditions on that particular moment. Is your print Agfa or Kodak LPP ?
I think what you have, is a genuine Derann print. If it was an Italian / Spanish bootleg, I doubt it would have been in lowfade stock.
My Derann Goldfinger is on Kodak LPP and the print is sharp but not pin-sharp and indeed a tad on the dark side.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 16, 2017, 06:55 AM:

Spot on Alexander, and often film reels making up a feature could very well have been printed at a much different time zone and even on different stock at times.

Knowing the Distributor details, ultimately guarantees you nothing. All prints tend to be very individual items for the most part.

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on May 16, 2017, 08:36 AM:

My copy is on Kodak film with a date code of 1988. I seem to remember my copy also having some scenes that seemed to be dark. Here's a few pictures from my print.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 16, 2017, 09:45 AM:

Yours is a stunner Jason. [Smile]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on May 16, 2017, 09:58 AM:

Also remember that the Derann release came from a negative that was in poor state. After a certain number of prints it had to be patched with scenes from another one so this release would have variations over time.

I remember in his review Keith Wilton thinking there would only be a limited number of prints struck and said "forget your holidays this year and buy this release".

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 16, 2017, 12:10 PM:

Wasn't this originally a scope feature? I might be wrong.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on May 16, 2017, 12:15 PM:

No Osi just flat, they went to scope for the next one Thunderball.

1.66 : 1 (intended ratio, Europe)
1.85 : 1 (intended ratio, USA)

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on May 16, 2017, 01:08 PM:

Thanks,
so many stunning informations!!!

This is how my print looks. Where do I find the print stock?

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on May 16, 2017, 01:39 PM:

Oliver, your print is the real deal.
Print stock: look for markings in the print, between perforations. Agfa will usually have S1 or S2 or S3 or S4. Kodak LPP will state Kodak LPP and it will have a date code. For example: "++ triangle" for a 1988 print.
When print stock is unmarked, there are sometimes other clues but not always. For example: acetate Agfa has a very distinct smell and no other film smells like that.
Polyester prints: when you hold the reel against the light an Agfa reel will have a grayish color, a Kodak reel will have a brown color. I am guessing your print will be Kodak LPP. Let us know [Smile]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on May 16, 2017, 04:57 PM:

My print is on Agfa.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 16, 2017, 06:01 PM:

Derann used two negatives after the first one was damaged. The first batch of 30 prints were as shown. Slightly dark in places but more than acceptable. Also felt the need to use 150 watt projector when showing. The other run of prints had mark and faults that made Derann discontinue title. Shame as it would have been a great seller.

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on May 16, 2017, 09:20 PM:

Mike, that`s interesting history concerning this feature. It`s a pity that they were not able to make many prints. I`m curious what those prints from the second negative look like...I might have to watch my print again and see which negative my print came from.

The last time I watched it I do remember it being somewhat dark even though I was using a halogen GS-1200. I`m sure this film wouldn`t look too bad with a xenon projector.

Oliver if your copy happens to be on Kodak film, it may not necessarily say LPP on it.
My print has Kodak Eastman Safety Film written along the sprocket holes. Even though it doesn`t say LPP on it, it has a plus sign and two triangles date code on it which according to the chart means the film was manufactured in 1988.

https://www.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedfiles/motion/Guide_to_Identifying_Year_of_Manufacture.pdf

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on May 16, 2017, 11:42 PM:

Guys,
You are amazing! History and facts about GOLDFINGER... Wow!

I took a pic from my material.

I can read EASTMAN LP SAFETY on the material.
The pixel restrictions make it impossible to show a better picture.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 17, 2017, 11:58 AM:

Jason is correct. LPP low fade wasn't always marked as low fade, especially in it's earlier days.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2