8mm Forum: Chump at Oxford question

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Chump at Oxford question

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Chump at Oxford question

Patrick McGrath
Film Handler

Posts: 97
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Registered: Jul 2008

posted February 16, 2014 06:21 PM

I recently acquired a Blackhawk 4x400 print of this film and upon screening last night I see a good portion of reel 2 and all of reel 3 are printed quite dark with a loss in sound quality as well.
Anyone with a similar print have these issues?
Still was an enjoyable screening, if a bit jarring to change so suddenly mid reel. And reel 3 is mostly the maze scene which is of course at night so less bothersome.

| IP: Logged

Zechariah Sporre
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 557
From: Ladysmith, WI U.S.A.
Registered: Dec 2010

posted February 16, 2014 07:29 PM

I just watched a Blackhawk print of this about 2 weeks ago. It had nice steady contrast and sound through out. I felt it was typical Blackhawk quality. This was in the green L&H box super 8 print.

--------------------
There is a fine line between a hobby and a mental illness

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1632
From: California
Registered: Aug 2007

posted February 16, 2014 11:32 PM

I have an old ex-library print of You're Darn Tootin' that does this, which otherwise has good image quality.

| IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007

posted February 17, 2014 06:29 AM

Is buying a Blackhawk print a bit of a hit or a miss affair?

--------------------
Maurice

| IP: Logged

Patrick McGrath
Film Handler

Posts: 97
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Registered: Jul 2008

posted February 17, 2014 11:54 AM

This is my first Blackhawk in the pink box. I have a 2x400 of Beau Hunks that aside from a few lines, is very nice and consistent in both picture and sound quality.
That one came without a box so I don't know its vintage.

Seems to me, most all film print purchases are a bit of hit and miss.

| IP: Logged

Zechariah Sporre
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 557
From: Ladysmith, WI U.S.A.
Registered: Dec 2010

posted February 17, 2014 01:08 PM

Hi Maurice. I have tons of Blackhawk Filma and most of them I find to be very nice prints. I am almost always happy with the quality.

--------------------
There is a fine line between a hobby and a mental illness

| IP: Logged

David Guest
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1704
From: Lancashire, UK
Registered: Oct 2011

posted February 17, 2014 02:16 PM

I have some stunning prints of laurel and hardy on 16mm cant beat it

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted February 18, 2014 04:58 AM

Its like any film print what went on at the labs on the day. Who did it. Were they distracted. Were the chemicals old etc etc

Any film, odd reels can be different. I suppose when more was done one day you might run/print reel one, next day reel 2,s etc. Each reel printed has to be set up right whatever.

Its the nature of the beast, and if you buy from someone who hasn`t watched it, or wants thier money anyway its bad luck.

Sadly the film side hobby is far to money biased with sellers rarely mentioning flaws etc.

Best Mark

| IP: Logged

David Ollerearnshaw
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1373
From: Penistone Sheffield UK
Registered: Oct 2012

posted February 18, 2014 10:59 AM

Reading an old letter from Derek Simmonds in Movie Maker about the quality of 'The Adventures Of Robin Hood' 3x400ft version. (Someone had written a letter earlier complaining about his copy.) Derek's reply was that they had 3 negatives to print from at 3 different labs. Sometimes the prints got mixed and one reel came from a different lab. This could cause the frame line to be miss matched and a different look to the image.

I'll try to scan the letter and post link here.

--------------------
I love the smell of film in the morning.

http://www.thereelimage.co.uk/

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2