This is topic Am I reading this wrong or is it me? in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005097
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 26, 2019, 04:32 AM:
Trawling through fleabay this morning to look for a treat for myself, although this is not one i would buy anyway,
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Viva-Knievel-1977-Scope- SP-Color-Uncut-Mylar/173756368962?hash=item2874afc842:g:oTAAAOSwoZJcMxRe
i couldn't help noticing the description states, very good condition", now unless ive got something wrong with my eyes, this one looks red with a hint of a few colours yet theirs nothing in the discretion about the colour fade.
I know its a bit obvious by the images but i'd normally put, the print itself is in good condition but the colour is fading?
Am i just being picky? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on January 26, 2019, 04:39 AM:
It's an SP print and has gone the way a lot of SP prints do. A light blue filter would improve the picture as there are certain colours present but without yellow.
Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on January 26, 2019, 04:50 AM:
For what it is worth, Tom, this would have passed my own "quality control" standards as it seems more like on the "warm" side as opposed to "red." Not a perfect copy but still got a lot of mileage left in it, I would say. And Maurice's suggestion of the filter I am sure would enhance it. There are much worse examples out there.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 26, 2019, 10:26 AM:
There certainly is.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 26, 2019, 10:41 AM:
hey, at least the sellers honest enough to put up shots of the actual film. If he was wanting to rip the buyer off, he wouldn't put up any shots at all and just say 'perfect color'. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 26, 2019, 01:59 PM:
Defiantly not suggesting the seller is attempting to rip anyone off, not at all, as you say, the images are there to see, i just didn't see fade or fading in the description, only good condition
One thing i dont do is buy from sellers who do not have any screenshots or images of the film itself. Unless its a fellow collector i know and trust.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 26, 2019, 07:41 PM:
There's an element of interpretation here, but I'd view the reference to SP colour as something of a warning, as I'd expect SP to show a degree of fade, even though it would hopefully look better than Eastman.
I can understand the point of view that fade is an element of a film's condition, although I personally equate condition to visible wear, so I wouldn't consider it unreasonable for a description to state that a film displaying fade is in excellent condition.
Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on January 26, 2019, 09:19 PM:
This is my auction by the way and I think people who have bought from me can vouch for me with past sales.
A film can be in excellent condition but have faded color. Thats what the auction is explaining excellent condition sp color mylar stock. I Was not referring to the color.Most collectors hold the view that condition of the film doesnt refer to color.A film can be called mint condition but have faded color. Since I put up screenshots there should not be an issue. people can see its fading without mentioning it. by the way where in the auction it says very good condition?
pictures can be misleading because only projected film you get how faded it will be? when I screened it the color was orange tone but it was still decent.Its an awesome film with good stunts. Never will become vinegar
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on January 27, 2019, 02:56 AM:
I don't accept that condition grades should not take into account colour fade and only be a measure of wear and tear - condition to me must be the overall consideration of all these things - sound quality / scratching / perf damage / splices and colour fade.
If anything the colour fade should be the very first criteria for a print to meet to gain a very good to excellent grading - the most basic requirement of film being a media to watch high quality moving pictures cannot be met if all it produces is a faded mess on screen.
Think of it this way - would you sell a painting and describe it as in excellent condition just because the frame and canvas had no scratches or tears, but the picture itself was faded with hardly any colour left due to years of direct sunlight damage to the paint pigments?
Would you list a classic car for sale as in excellent condition even if the paintwork (ie: colour) was oxidised to the point of showing colour fade on the bodywork and therefore needing a respray?
We do seem to let our romantic view of the special nature of celluloid film get in the way of the obvious truth sometimes.
Kevin.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on January 27, 2019, 03:46 AM:
I bought a feature last year that was Eastman red, but described as Near Mint. I knew of course the seller was referring to the general condition of the film. He posted screenshots, so I knew what I was buying. On arrival, the film is as described, no scratches, splices, and all original leaders and tails.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 27, 2019, 04:51 AM:
Good points from everyone on this, i do agree with Kevin that all aspects of a needs to have an explanation if there's any defects or fade etc.If anything, it protects the seller,which for all of is vital. There will always be someone who will say "you said the print was excellent but the colours faded, or theirs splices" etc. You know what some buyers are like
Any listings i do from here on will now have a separate paragraph for print condition, sound and colour. While this may seem over the top, there will be no doubt form any potential buyers that i didn't list it.
Please remember, i'm not in any way picking fault or suggesting any dishonesty about the seller, merely looking at it as many potential sellers may. Call it, constructive criticism ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on January 27, 2019, 05:11 AM:
Tom - I have bought one or two films from you that you were selling on Ebay, and the descriptions you gave were more than adequate. Whilst I agree that each aspect does need a mention re condition, you of all people do not have anything to worry about.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 27, 2019, 05:16 AM:
Thank you Melvin. Thats good to know.
I think with ebay you can never over do the description, especialy in order to protect yourself.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on January 27, 2019, 06:45 AM:
How many sellers mention an emulsion scratch?; you don't know about this until you view the film. Grading isn't reliable as it changes from one seller to another. I have bought films described as Good, or Very Good, that another would describe as Excellent. The term Very Good can cover a multitude of faults.
A film described as complete with titles and end can have the Columbia, MGM, Warner's, etc, intro missing. It's all a game of chance.
Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on January 27, 2019, 06:51 AM:
Cars and paintings are diffrent establish grading standards then apply to film. A sun faded baseball card would not be graded mint even though it it's has Sharp corners and no scratches. My point is its the standard film collectors describe things. Condition referring to wear of film not color. I used to thinks that they were equal but when I questioned it I was schooled by long time collectors. I just accept it even though it didn't make sense coming From collecting other things.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 27, 2019, 07:06 AM:
The problem these days is with so many faded or fading prints around now its becoming an important issue for buyers.
I fully accept that many collectors are happy with a certain degree of fade,even red prints but i no longer am now.
By the way, as already said, i was only picking up that the condition is very good but no mention of the colour, the images do show it tho. I can fully see where Kevin is coming from on the comparisons. Different things but the rules still apply
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on January 27, 2019, 07:55 AM:
I'm fortunate in that I don't have a problem with faded prints. If you dismiss a film because it's fading, how many years do you have to wait before another comes along, and that may be faded as well. I am more interested in getting films in the best physical condition than worrying about fade.
Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on January 27, 2019, 08:53 AM:
I think this discussion clearly demonstrates that the description of a film is not an exact science. What is "excellent" for one is "good" for another. Faded red is an absolute "No No" for many and a "so what?" for others.
I find that, generally, descriptions on Ebay are pretty accurate. However, that is probably because the films I bid for have passed all the conditions on my "check" list.
First - Are they regular sellers* and/or are they known people from this forum? If so, that is a green light so far. Have I bought from this person before? What was my experience? Was the description accurate?......Is the asking price sensible?
Secondly - If they are not regulars, do they sound as if they are trying to be as helpful as possible? I believe a lot can be gained by judging the way the description is written and worded. Sometimes, people can come over as very guarded or potentially hostile.
Thirdly - Screenshots. Personally, I am not as fussy for pictures for 200' or less. 400' to features should be presented as much as possible. I think we can all judge by screenshots, regardless of whether they are taken with a mobile or a low quality still camera, if the film is just fading..... or is beetroot.....or scratched to hell. The sound description, though, can only be taken on trust.
Finally - Certain words or phrases that, to me, scream "avoid" or at worst "Enter at own risk." Phrases like "untested" or "sold as seen" ring the alarm bells, as does hardly any description at all. Sometimes I may take a chance on "found in my grandad's house" or, as mentioned above, an obvious non film person trying their very best to give as much info as they see fit.
Just as a last comment, another thing I have noticed with films is that if the box or container is worn out, you can bet your life that the print inside it isn't too good either. Funny, really, given this consistency in a random situation!
* not always a guarantee of good service.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on January 27, 2019, 09:23 AM:
I agree with everything you have said Melvin, with the exception of if the dealer is a member of this forum, then that is a green light so far. In December I sold an old B&H projector and the buyer collected it, and asked me if I knew someone who is a respected member of this forum. They had bought three features at Rickmansworth, and were not happy with any of them. One in particular was a composite B&W film that kept changing contrast, and had many bad tape splices: when they tried to remove the tape it pulled the emulsion off. I think they paid £50 for this.
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 27, 2019, 11:10 AM:
I think it's all very subjective concerning film and projector descriptions, but a good seller would always address any realistic issues that a buyer had to avoid negative feedback. I've always done so even for some 'unrealistic' claims.
Posted by Mark Mander (Member # 340) on January 27, 2019, 12:21 PM:
I see the James Bond feature ending today on eBay made me laugh,it's pictures are taken using a filter saying so you can see how good the colour is using them,surely you would want to see the actual film in it's original state,or at least one of each,bidding is going up so I hope the buyer will be happy,all sorts of tricks are used and vague descriptions,Brian's listing seems pretty spot on compared to this,Mark
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on January 27, 2019, 01:16 PM:
That's a good point you make there Mark. The film should be shown in it's natural state. The buyer may not own any filters.
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on January 27, 2019, 03:12 PM:
Or at best shots with and without filters so you can judge if the filtration is worthwhile.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on January 28, 2019, 04:25 AM:
Traditionally, condition has nothing at all to do with whether or not there is colour fade. However, the colour should be described accurately in a listing alongside the condition of the print.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 28, 2019, 05:14 AM:
As far as I knew a long time ago Derann always graded the physical condition not the color fading status. Do not ask for screen shots, they wouldn't bother giving them.
...everyone seemed to be ok at that time.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 28, 2019, 05:52 AM:
Thats true but back then the fade issue was a lot less common. These days every other print seems to have fade. Aside that, derann would always refund if there was a problem. Most importantly, as a seller, i think its important for your own standing to list as good and accurate a description as possible.
As it happens, ive just looked through an old derann list and they did mention fade on one or two.
[ January 28, 2019, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Tom Photiou ]
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 28, 2019, 06:56 AM:
There is no way I could regard a faded print as "mint" or even as "good". I never got a pinkish or redish print from Derann.
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on January 28, 2019, 07:39 AM:
I have a few Super 8 films that I only projected the once, then when I got them out years later they had turned red. Projected only once then lain on a shelf doing nothing.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 28, 2019, 07:39 AM:
Nor me Dominique. The one thing about the dealers is that you are protected to a point. (Not always i admit). But although ebay states they help you, i have found a problem twice with this. Overall though, it's generally OK with no problems. I was always dead against ebay in the the early days but i guess if you cant beat them you join them, but you do it as best and accurate as you can
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 28, 2019, 02:30 PM:
quote:
There is no way I could regard a faded print as "mint"
Dom... "mint" is a physical condition meaning it had never been run on a projector.
A mint film might have faded depending on what stock and the processing method used. I have once opened a sealed packed film (= mint) and it has faded.
If I took the below example you might understand clearly:
A mint vinyl (record) is when it has never been tocuhed by a needle. But can we assure the vinyl does not have pops and has a good sound? no we can't... pops can be produced by bad vinyl material or pressing method. So when we see a bright, glossy, unscratch vinyl and believe it has never been played, physically we say it as a mint vinyl (whether it is sealed or not). Same thing to film.
cheers,
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on January 28, 2019, 05:24 PM:
I agree with Adrian & Michael that sellers have for years used the term "condition" to describe not color, but whether the film has scratches/splices/wear. Brian's screenshots clearly show the state of the film's color.
Both Steve Osborne & Barry Atwood have separate ratings for print quality & color on their sales lists that I find very useful.
Doug
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 28, 2019, 05:40 PM:
Winbert, what's the point to know a film or a record has never been, unsealed if it's faded (for the film) or scratched for the record) ? If I buy a film "mint", or "good", I don't expect it to be faded. Others may not think the same way but since Tom asked us our personnal opinions, I gave mine
[ January 28, 2019, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Dominique De Bast ]
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 28, 2019, 09:42 PM:
Dominique
I remember years ago a seller in Australia was selling a 16mm Scope print of Oliver. I spoke to the person on the phone, he told me the print was in excellent condition. I asked him what the color was like?, he replied "faded". I said how can you say its in excellent condition when its FADED he said its free of scratches and splices ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As you can guess I never bought it, In my view condition must include the color. I know of people that have been caught out by those kind of dealings in the past, in the end moving over to Video Projection totally instead.
Color has to be part of the print condition, to say otherwise is just playing with words to make a sale $$$$$$.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 29, 2019, 12:28 AM:
There are a lot of cases where films have faded since the very first time (perhaps due to the bad negatives) ... so this means it was sold on that condition. They are mint prints but faded.
The expectation to include color condition as part of the description is because today we are only wishing an excellent color film to be in our collection (as Derann's or Red Fox print). However, please remember that was not the point of selling film in 1970s.
I have some DVDs which have really bad mastering that do not match with today's Bluray standard. But I cannot used today's standard for judging old stuff that were made a long time ago.
I am afraid this what we are talking now.... expecting all films from 40 years ago to be the latest Derann's or Red Fox's quality...
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on January 29, 2019, 12:42 AM:
Winbert, you mean that in your country they sold new faded prints 40 years ago ? If so, I understand better your point of view but for sure, in Belgium (and in France), new meant new.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 29, 2019, 12:49 AM:
Dom, yes that is exactly. Some films have faded from the beginning. Indonesia has never printed commercial films so our films were imported from the States.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 29, 2019, 02:02 AM:
Winbert
All the new films 1970s etc here were imported either from the UK or the US..Ken Films, Universal 8 etc.
I bought them new and none had color fade. Many of those prints bought then are now fading or faded completely. There is no way they were like that when they were new, if they were nobody would have ever spent the money on them as they were expensive at the time.
I don't agree that a film is mint or even in good condition if its badly faded...its junk. Color, sound , the hole thing is what I would call its "condition" and any part of the film that's not right must determine its overall description for sale.
To describe a film as mint condition or good condition without taking into account the color is misleading, after all its the image we are watching on the screen that counts the most.
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 29, 2019, 02:16 AM:
I look at film condition and color quality (even image quality) as separate things. I wouldn’t want one overall description for a film, I prefer them described separately.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 29, 2019, 03:04 AM:
quote:
All the new films 1970s etc here were imported either from the UK or the US..Ken Films, Universal 8 etc.
Graham, I am talking from my own experience plus some people (either on Ebay or film forums) have several times stated "The colors have faded (or pale) from the beginning (or since I bought them), it is perhaps due to the negative"
So I am sure I am not alone.
quote:
There is no way they were like that when they were new, if they were nobody would have ever spent the money on them as they were expensive at the time.
So why (some) Niles and Collectors Club were still sold well... with those dupey quality? Because there was a market for that, I am sure!
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 29, 2019, 06:31 PM:
Hi Winbert
I totally agree that the source at printing is important. Some films even new like "Born Free" were lacking color. Ken films and Universal 8 in general were very good "at the time".
Bill Davison's "Bootlace Cinema" for years would grade the films he reviewed with editing, colour and sound. The word fade never came up. Sadly in time, many of those films he reviewed such as Star Wars, Buck Rogers, JAWS, and so on, would start to fade long after "Movie Maker" ceased, some if not many, have now gone completely red, but no one new at the time that this was going to happen.
Its a pity though, as when I bought "Star Wars" brand new when it was released it looked great. I think it got the title "package movie of the year"... now look at it ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
..faded into the sunset.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 29, 2019, 07:32 PM:
quote:
Ken films and Universal 8 in general were very good "at the time".
Our taste as well our judgement did grow according to the time. Our brains (read: eyes) are educated by the enhance of technology. We do remember the very first time Betamax (or VHS) released we were amazed with the picture quality. Same thing with the LaserDisc, and then DVD.. and now Bluray.
If we were now given those Betamax/VHS/LD.... we will be laughing loudly, why we watch this kind of crap pictures. But that what the technology at that time and they were sufficient enough to our needs.
Same thing with 8mm, when "Born Free" was released, those lack of colour was not bothering really to the audience, because the focus was different (perhaps more to the story) and we were not educated yet with 4K picture.
This is what I was telling at the very beginning, we cannot use today's (Derann or Red Fox) standard of printing to judge the old prints from 40 years ago. I am not at all against a description with screen shots or film scans. What I was emphasizing is we have to distinguish between physical condition and printing quality description. It would be more helpful if a listing have both.
The Brian Stearns' listing have had presented both, so it is fair enough to me.
Cheers,
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on January 30, 2019, 10:47 AM:
My personal criteria for film print quality is simple.
A : No film fade.
B : No bad tramline or cross scratches.
C : No dupey or bleached looking images.
D : No poor sound quality.
E : No over abundance of splices.
F : No torn or strained perforations.
G : No severe film buckle or shrinkage.
SIMPLES !
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on January 30, 2019, 11:02 AM:
In the interests of absolute clarity and to get the official take on what is or isn't OK to describe as 'mint' regarding cine film sales on Ebay, I sent them a question a couple of days ago as follows:
I have a question regarding the use of the term 'in mint condition' when applied to cine films (8mm / 16mm) listed for sale on Ebay.
For a cine film that is physically perfect, has no wear or scratches and looks as though it has never been projected, but upon visual inspection the colour of the film has faded over the years and it is now a pink / red colour without all the green yellow or blue colours showing.
Is it still OK to describe it as in mint condition or, if not as the colour has faded to pink / red instead of the original full colour palette, can you perhaps suggest a term to describe the film by that better suits the Ebay item description criteria please?
Thank you in advance for your advice.
Kevin Clark 28th January 2019
I received their reply today as follows:
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for contacting us. My name is Satyaki and I'll be glad to assist you further.
First of all, I appreciate your willingness to comply with the eBay policy. I've checked the details of your email and would like to confirm that "In mint condition" would be fine for use in this particular case. Please make sure that in any case you do not use "New" option as it will be the misleading term. If you still face any trouble, please create a draft of the listing and get back to us. We will assist you further.
Thanks for clarifying the issue with us. We appreciate your cooperation.
Kind regards,
Satyaki T.
eBay Trust & Safety
So there it is - from eBay's perspective those with undamaged scratch free films can indeed state them as in mint condition (but not new) even if beet red or piggy pink.
I still personally, as do others in this thread, maintain that colour fade is an important factor if using mint as the grading but everyone to their own and in this case backed up by Ebay too.
Kevin
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 30, 2019, 11:40 AM:
This is an interesting topic, Tom ...
This will sound strange (as you would think that it would be the other way around), but I find that when I put actual screenshots of the object I am selling, my auctions take LONGER to sell instead of a shorter time. I really don't understand why.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on January 30, 2019, 05:07 PM:
quote:
but I find that when I put actual screenshots
Actual screen shots can also misleading due to several factors, namely: shaky camera, white balance feature (making brownish film to be ok), softener feature (making film grains are gone), camera's resolution (making scratch or notches are unseen) and also our not-calibrated screen can contribute to the wrong judgement.
For not-so-perfectionist buyers these type of screen shots are an OK because most of them just worry with pinky color. But for those who really want to have a kind like brand-new prints in their collection they may get disappointed upon receiving it.
So the fairest way is scanning (like what Brian has done). We can observe every single frames to see what is the flaws. But of course the problem of not-calibrated screen remains.
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on February 01, 2019, 05:36 AM:
With the knowledge that, historically, print condition has been described separately from colour condition, it would just be wisest to enquire about colour separately. This is what I've always done and it's fairly straightforward. One question to the seller.
Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on February 01, 2019, 09:32 AM:
Hi all
and what an interesting topic - having sold on a lot of 16mm and a few 8mm prints in the past. ( I left cine over 10 years ago now).
I did have some very rare and sought after titles - anyways,and actually I cannot remember ever describing a film as "mint" the closest I ever had 16mm wise was a beautiful copy of RoboCop or Godfather 3...these would certainly deserved the "mint" accolade...but I would never ever have described a 16mm or an 8mm print that was in excellent condition but faded as "mint"...I just wouldn't have done it as to me, anyway, it would have not felt right describing it as such. I would have described the the two elements separately ..it just makes sense to do so.
"Excellent original print with no VS but unfortunately suffering with fade" (then generally describe the fade level)
Thats just how I would have listed a print -just the 2 elements of condition and fade. I would not be comfortable with using the word mint at all.I mean, when would mint be actually appropriate..I would say on a brand new from the lab print.
Thats just my six-pennyworth .
Mark
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on February 01, 2019, 11:09 AM:
I'm just glad I'm here to project film it's sheer joy.
For me all the guys at Derann were the best and we will never see the like again.
Dear Steve in the US is doing wonders and the top man for new prints. Every used print is as described as well.
T-heeBay is what it is a take a chance place. Some you win some you loose that's a auction house.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on February 01, 2019, 11:52 AM:
I agree Lee ...
There is just a magic (as far as I'm concerned) about just projecting the film, caring for it. Fortunately, my kids are really getting into it as well, which is good as, as a general rule, most of my prints these day (color) are low fade film stock and the few that are not (mostly opticals) are cold stored to maintain the color for quite a long time, so that when they take over someday, they'll be able to enjoy them for a loong time after most folks will just remember them as a beautiful but distant memory.
(sigh, that almost makes me moody)
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on February 03, 2019, 10:33 AM:
Kevin, thanks for taking the trouble to contact ebay in this matter. The people who run ebay obviously know very little about our hobby. There main thing is making money
Having said that, i do agree with many points in here, as a buyer mint is a term i try not to use any more, good / very good or acceptable. But, i would not buy anything unless i knew how the colour was. I personally think it's vital.
I myself am listing three items tonight, i am going to list them slightly differently to what I've done in the past so any feedback from fellow collectors would be helpful, good or bad.
Pictures can sometimes be misleading. I've taken screenshots of films which are good but due to the fact im using a cheap digital camera with the flash off it often makes good films look like they have fade, it also can make excellent films look sort of average so i always state they are for a guide only, also, i think this is the important thing about a good honest description on all three aspects, print condition, sound and colour. This is only what i think mind!
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on February 03, 2019, 06:41 PM:
No problem Tom - like you I will continue with concise non-flowery or overblown descriptions with grading relevant to all aspects of the film condition and especially what it looks like up there on the screen.
I would never use the term mint unless describing a pack of Polos.
Kevin
Posted by Mark Mander (Member # 340) on February 04, 2019, 01:59 AM:
Best way Kevin and Tom,everyone knows where they are and can buy knowing all the facts,the only worrying factor for the buyer should be "it can't get there quick enough " ha ha,Mark
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2