|
Author
|
Topic: sealed prints
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 07, 2012 06:31 PM
Hello Adrian,no I'm not impuning any sense of "foul play",it just
goes against the grain with me,as I couldn't pass a film or
anything else to someone,before I had made sure it was okay.
You yourself have been collecting films for a fair time and know
the many pitfalls that can beset a brand new film,it doesnt have
to be sound recording,it can be missing stripe,stripe on picture
out of frame,sideways weave.Keith Wilton in his reviews points
out various faults on his check prints,and you know as well as I
there's always that chance it's your print you've just bought
that will have one or more faults, except there's no chance now of replacement,my own copy of "Jurassic Park" had to have a
total re recording because the sound was bass heavy and
unintelligible,it took two attempts by Derek to get it right,
which the man did.Luckily some sound problems can be rectified,but a visual problem,hardly,that's why I have little faith
in this mint print unprojected lark ,speaking for myself,I am happy when the seller,like yourself tells me,he has viewed it a few times,that puts your mind at rest because it's been checked.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 08, 2012 05:44 AM
Hi Michael,I suppoes if you examined a print "forensic" fashion,you might
be able to discover scuffs or slight abrasions around the sprocket
hole that would distinguish it from a totally brand new,but I
would think this is going a bit far,when we get into the realms of
microscopes.Adrian is quite right about DFS in their attitude to
customers on returning faulty prints,Derek was not above
"trying it on" and had to be gently reminded that as a paying
customer,you wanted it right.The print I received of "North by
Northwest" was the first time I had ever seen 8mm film as a
solid mass,after some good natured kidding it was replaced
but I wonder who got it next? The postage on these returns
was never reimbursed,and I have it on good authority that when a faulty spool was sent in,it was promptly returned,so
entailing more expense to the customer on a next attempt.
That's why I am always sceptical of a sealed Derann print.
My print of "Flash Gordon",bought as new,but part 2 marked,
the print was replaced,but that was supposed to be a new one.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted July 08, 2012 06:00 AM
I'd say the post-processing faults that can exist on a new, unprojected print are:
Poor slitting, resulting in sideways weave/movements.
Poor striping, which could mean uneven or thin stripe(s), or even blobs of stripe in the frame area.
Poor sound recording, which occasionally could be linked to poor stripe. Derann prints often had 'pops' or rumbling sounds that existed prior to recording, so only erasing or re-recording would remove them.
You also get the occasional scratch, but it's generally impossible to say what caused it and when it happened. Otherwise the above faults can often be rectified, but the owner is likely to need specialised help and must of course be willing to pay.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
Allan Broadfield
Master Film Handler
Posts: 452
From: Bromley, Kent
Registered: Nov 2010
|
posted July 08, 2012 06:15 AM
Going back a step from the distributors, having worked in two major labs I would say that 8mm prints were sometimes treated with a little less reverence than what would be considered 'professional' guages. Standard control methods were not allways followed and the 8mm departments were often an entity to themselves.
This is not to say that good prints were never made, but that any problems arising from bad masters etc., would on occasions be made anyway to honour contracted timescales etc. Dare I say it, an attitude of 'it's only amateur'?
The magazine 'Movie Maker' had a 'Bootlace cinema' section featuring the latest releases. This was very popular, but a pattern emerged where the reviewer would compliment the print quality, but readers experiences would often be quite different. The magazine found this to be true, it depended on which lab supplied the prints and what masters were available. Naturally the reviewer got the best.
Similarly, DVD collectors today can predict which suppliers are likely to turn out the best discs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 08, 2012 09:00 AM
"Sealed prints" even when they are found today, doesn't really mean much.
1. What is it sealed with? Most sealed prints that I have seen on ebay, for instance, have far too "brand new" looking cellophane wrap on the print, hence, not original seal.
2. A truly originally sealed print can actually be a bad thing. Imagine a print being sealed, without any airflow, for perhaps thirty years or more! It will affect print quality. I once ran into a Walt Disney 400ft that was a truly sealed brand new print. It was as pink as the day is long.
In truth, the only thing yu can be assured of (as a general rule, bearing in mind some of the earlier posts in this series) is that the actual film quality will be scratchless and pristine. However, unless the buyer knows that the print was actually an LPP, Agfa print, (and how many pople knew that way back then?), then there is no promise that the print will not be faded.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted July 08, 2012 01:36 PM
I suppose so Michael, but we should bear in mind an earlier post from Adrian, with which I also totally agree, that one person's idea of a "fault" won't bother someone else...I have a few feature prints that I've considered selling on ebay, but I feel I'd tie myself in knots trying to describe it as I would like it described myself, rather than actually selling it!
I'd nit-pick the thing to pieces just in-case the buyer was as fussy as me and end up selling what one person would pay £££££ for for 99p!!! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Although, personally, I get bugged by everything, so that rules me out of passing pretty much any print as "perfect", but that doesn't mean that someone else (or come to think of it, me, following a few Stella Artois) wouldn't just sit back and enjoy it...
So, perhaps, to consider a refund based upon specific criteria seems a bit, well, too harsh and a bit, "sue-you" ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'd rather think that unless there was a major problem that prevented a buyer from enjoying the film, we should all just accept that film isn't perfect...
After all, this is our hobby ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 08, 2012 01:55 PM
So was I correct in saying that buying a sealed print now is more
of a gamble than it ever was,because there is no fast cure anymore,a faulty soundtrack you might cure,but stripe on your
picture,regretfully no,it could even be a reversed print.Isn't it
fun,just like Christmas,or as Forrest Gump said, a box of chocs
without the map,you don't know what you'll get,bit of Russian
Roulette really.Happy unwrapping.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted July 08, 2012 02:13 PM
Alright, I agree in principle, Michael, but also consider that said "faults" may be of varying degrees.
Weave, for example, may be persistent, constant, unwatchable...or once or twice during a reel, a couple of moments when you think you may have had too many, but no more!
Sound stripe may be thin for 200ft during a 600ft reel...or just thin for a few feet at the end, enough to forgive sound with no bass for a few minutes.
Stripe on picture may be repeatedly annoying throughout a reel...or just once or twice enough to turn a blind eye.
A lab mark may be annoying...but just think, if the reel could be re-printed, would the steadiness / sound be better or worse...
PS. Hugh, just read your reply...and I agree wholeheartedly!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 08, 2012 03:24 PM
I know that we all strive for perfection in our hobby, and if I was
offered a sealed print I would ask for the seller to have a look
for me,it wouldn't alter the price, I'll pay what was asked,but I
would ask the seller if he would have a check for me to alay
any doubts and fears rather than play the lottery of it being
faulty.Scratches I can tolerate,if not too bad,and lets face it
sooner or later prints do get the odd running mark.There are loads of films out there now with marks and splices that must be 80-90 years old, and still beloved by their owners,so the odd
mark or splice wouldn't put me off.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
