8mm Forum: For Sale: The Jungle Book from Derann (Stereo) SOLD

This is topic For Sale: The Jungle Book from Derann (Stereo) SOLD in forum 8mm films for sale/trade/wanted at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=005703

Posted by John Fields (Member # 4490) on July 18, 2015, 11:17 AM:

I'm selling my stereo copy of the The Jungle Book from Derann.

I've enjoyed owning it, but I want to move on and obtain some more films. The film does have slight wear, nothing bad, just not what I would consider mint. There is a line to the very right that comes and goes for a few seconds at a time on reel 1 and some other wear noticeable at other times. Again, nothing bad, I just wanted to give full disclosure.

The box also has wear but all the artwork is intact. What you see in the picture below is the flash from my cell phone.

$350 with free shipping in the US.

Thanks,
John

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 18, 2015, 02:29 PM:

Brilliant film and a superb Derann release for both picture and sound quality on these Stereo versions (not all were.)

This was one of only a few I have that I was extremely satisfied with the sound on both tracks straight from the vendor.

Highly recommended very repeatable print! [Smile]

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on July 22, 2015, 03:35 AM:

Hi Andrew

I agree with that J/book observation - for the life of me my favourite Derann Disney was 101 Dalmatians...but the sound was a bit lacking on their striped print..a bitt fluffy and dull.

Mark

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 22, 2015, 03:18 PM:

101 is Ok on my best print, my other suffered from a less than perfect pasted stripe and lab faults on the last reel.

Both were mono originally. The good one still is as I kept it as original. it was good enough so just backed up the main stripe on the balance.
The faulty print I re recorded but it does sound a little patchy in short spells here and there.

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on July 25, 2015, 01:40 PM:

Hi Mr. Fields,
what would be shipping cost to Germany?
It´s a great print...
Thanks
Oliver

Posted by John Fields (Member # 4490) on July 25, 2015, 07:53 PM:

Hello Oliver,
I have sent you a PM.

Cheers,
John

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 25, 2015, 09:09 PM:

Have you got the Blu ray of that please for £3 new sealed and steelbook edition please, like my Oxfam local charity shop has?

Posted by Koen Keevel (Member # 4109) on July 27, 2015, 01:40 PM:

Is it already sold?

Cheers

Posted by John Fields (Member # 4490) on July 27, 2015, 01:57 PM:

I have given Oliver a shipping quote. If he doesn't want it, it's still available.

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on July 27, 2015, 02:31 PM:

Hi Mr. Fields,
I am very sad about this but I need to let it go.
Altogether with the fees of the german customs it would be too much money for me to pay at the moment.
I am very sure to make another collector very happy with this decision.
It´s a breathtaking print!!!!
All the best and thank You for Your very kind offer,
Oliver

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 27, 2015, 06:45 PM:

That really does look lovely John, if I collected features one I`d have to own.

How does the Blu Ray actually compare to this, I know some are not as good as the derann 8mm ones.

Also do the 8mm ones beat 16mm generally being finer grain.

Best Mark.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 27, 2015, 07:15 PM:

I reckon given it's source of origin and given the condition of the actual original box let alone the print, I must have one of the best left of these.

This is not meant as a boast by any means as I paid an absolute fortune for it compared to any other 3 x 600ft Derann print that I own, and I doubt I would ever recoup my outlay. But for example the film was in its original box with it's original cellophane wrapped around the box plus the original price tag still stuck to the original cellophane still stuck to the original box...you get the picture.

Point is, Just like the box, the print is as good as it gets both for sound and picture.
Must certainly be AS good if not better than any 16mm print of this film, simply because it looks like a first run perfect print from a top original Disney studios owned negative which of course, is what it is.

Would this better my Blu Ray of this title...no

Unfair comparison every day of the week now due to the advancements of digital transfers, digital enhancements and of course digital projectors advancements also.

Just like in the earlier posts, there is no point in trying to intercompare the two as digital images are perfect!
No negative sparkle, no splices, no drop outs in the sound, nothing physical and nothing mechanical.

The Blu Ray is simply perfect in every way (perhaps over perfect for anything made in 1967 if I am to be slightly critical), but considering this film was produced by Derann in the early to mid 90's and the original Disney negatives must be far older of course given the film was actually made in 1967,... then nothing in that same era could have possibly surpassed it in terms of quality apart from the 35mm print.

The screenshots illustrated above are by no means exaggerated. This really is how the print looks when it hits the screen.

The best prints of this title are simply THAT good for both picture and Stereo Sound!

Not bad at all for what was out there in 92/95 latest!

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 27, 2015, 07:37 PM:

I know someone who thinks some of the derann ones do beat some of the blu rays.

Mind you that can be down to the projector type I suppose.

Even on super 8.

I once did a side by side comparrison of a nice-ish print on an Elmo ST180 and a Fumeo 9119 and the difference was amazing. You honestly on the Fumeo would of thought it was another far far better print. It had the 1.1 xeno onboard.

I`ve often found a lot of 16mm can be on very grainey stock, especially from the 80`s and before. 90`s on the kodak stock really improved though.And since the 2000`s it went even better.

Much as some super 8 B+W can beat some 16mm, especially some of the L+H`s.

I wonder where this print will end up as a beauty.

Best Mark.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 27, 2015, 08:05 PM:

No I'm sorry to say Mark..He's wrong.

Nothing can be better to date of this title than the blu ray, in fact I would say the same of any Disney title I've ever seen.

The Lion King is probably one of THE very best blu ray transfers I have ever seen. Simply out of this world on even the very largest of home cinema screens.

On cine, you're quite right Mark, the projector and lens make all of the difference. The Schneider Xenovaron certainly adds to all of my viewing pleasures be it on the Bauer or the Beaulieu!

I am surprised this print has lasted on here as long as it has Mark, but trouble is, everyone is looking for THAT perfect print nowadays and of course, those are getting fewer and fewer, and in some cases..non existent.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 28, 2015, 03:25 AM:

Well can`t wait to see it, as got a Blu Ray steelbook !!!!!! of it, was only a couple of pounds more than the usual Blu Bay .

Must admit thinkng back to the Fumeo really tempts me feature wise.

Going to borrow my sons NEC WXGA Semi profession VP to run it, although only 4000 contrast and 2800 lumens on 2nd eco the picture is amazing so should look good.

I wonder what you would pay for a poly LPP 16mm print of this ?

Best Mark.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 28, 2015, 03:51 AM:

Can't answer that one Mark as I am clueless to the prices that top 16mm can fetch. I have been completely flabbergasted before now regarding this matter with best prints that come up for sale.

As for your forthcoming Disney steelbook Mark...enjoy!
I doubt you could possibly be disappointed in any way.

[ July 28, 2015, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]

Posted by Koen Keevel (Member # 4109) on July 28, 2015, 02:40 PM:

Hi John,

Send you a PM.
Cheers

Posted by John Fields (Member # 4490) on July 29, 2015, 08:56 AM:

Film is SOLD!

[ July 30, 2015, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: John Fields ]

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on August 01, 2015, 01:46 PM:

When Derann signed the deal with Disney in the early 1990's, all negtives were made in Burbank and shipped to Derann for printing.

"The Little Mermaid" was an early mistake, as Disney mis-understood, or simply didn't care about the master material.

This was quickly put to rights.

"Cinderella" is the only Disney feature negative that I can recall which was produced from a print source, hence the certification board at the beginning of the print. It was a little warmer and had more grain than the other Disney features, but was still beautiful.

Other Disney feature film negatives were generally produced by Disney and then printed in the UK.

Most "modern" realeases ie. post 1990, were pan and scan versions, I guess from 16mm interpostive versions of 1.85 theatrical versions.

Although, "Beauty and the Beast" was preserved hard masked in the 1.85 format.

Releases, such as Bambi, suffered from 1.85 hard masking from the original 1.33 Academy ratio, as they were produced from new theatrical interpostives for re-release in "modern" cinemas that were pre-engineered for 1.85

And of course, the scope negative versions were made with the full 8mm width in order, hence some frame cropping top and bottom.

What happened whilst printing here in the UK resulted in varying results.

Rank did their best, but certainly a "first print run" was desirable.

Later, a certain lab in the north, despite "coming to the rescue", simply didn't seem to give a ****.

Hence prints covered in white dirt speckles, off-centre and off-colour in later years.

Sorry for being so blunt, but it always frustrates me when quality is available and yet laziness takes over.

And also, I want to say that despite enjoying "digital" (sorry) these days, I have a deep fondness for film, especially 8mm which will never leave me.

I suspect this is true for most of us here and I think we should continue to enjoy sharing our "real" film knowledge with each other, despite our other movie related interests! [Smile]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on August 01, 2015, 01:57 PM:

Some great information there Rob. Much I have no idea about regarding the technical printing aspects,interpositives and cropping etc. Thanks for that Rob.

I think I must be lucky with mine as they are all of the typical Rank Lab standard and no white specks etc,just a little neg sparkle here and there leading up to the end of a reel occasionally.

Colour is excellent on them all and I was pleasantly surprised when I received Cinderella as I really wasn't expecting too much from it colour wise given the bad press I'd previously read.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on August 01, 2015, 02:01 PM:

Andrew, I apologise in advance as I re-read my post and thought it may need some re-editing, perhaps before you, or others read it or replied.

I think we all love film here and the more we share our nostalgia the better.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on August 01, 2015, 02:02 PM:

Gentlemen,

Excellent information, however since Jungle Book has been sold I doubt anyone will come looking for this thread. You might consider adding to this existing thread.

Thanks!

Doug

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2