8mm Forum: Derann Star Wars Feature On Ebay UK

»	8mm Forum » 8mm films for sale/trade/wanted » Derann Star Wars Feature On Ebay UK (Page 2)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Derann Star Wars Feature On Ebay UK

David Guest
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted March 07, 2017 06:29 PM

no chance the quality must be terrible on a 12ft screen trying to project a big picture through a small image of film

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 12:43 AM

You'd be surprised David. Naturally, if you're sat on top of the screen then of course it wouldn't look brilliant, just as any film projected image wouldn't.
But if you sit 2 or more screen widths away from the screen, as recommended, the image quality can look absolutely superb!

The screenshots I always post are around 8ft wide for a flat film and I think many look rather nice as you have commented yourself occasionally David.

Admittedly, earlier film stocks from the 70's and even earlier can look grainy and many of the Walton prints at times reveal this grain, but by the time the film stocks advanced from around 85 onward, there are many fine grain and well saturated super 8 prints to be had and some can look amazing from such a tiny frame, even on relatively large screens.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

David Guest
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted March 08, 2017 06:50 AM

I would love some one to come to blackpool on the Friday night in November and project a 60min or so film on super 8 on my 12ft screen

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 08:52 AM

I thought David Watson already had done?

Keith W will show you how it's done David. He is the master of S8. [Smile]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Simon McConway
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1085
From: Doncaster, UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted March 08, 2017 09:53 AM

You'll be there Andrew?

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 10:38 AM

You never know Simon. [Wink]

Either way Simon, it matters not whether I'm there or not, only that you all enjoy yourselves!😊😊

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted March 08, 2017 11:29 AM

Not being a fan of the movie, I did not realise that this is the only existence of the original 77 film. Come to think of it, I didn't realise that there WAS an original '77 version.
It's interesting.
Has Lucas ever tried to interfere with circulation of these prints?

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted March 08, 2017 11:38 AM

I've wondered about that myself Micheal.

The 1977 version has been shrouded in mystery for years. It's in the "Cineavision" anamorphic format instead of the normal scope format.

Now, there was an official 400ft Cineavsion digest, (which is the same edit as the Ken Films STAR WARS part 2 digest, in scope, not Cineavision ... my guess being that they simply reprinted the Cinevision digest but came in a little bit on the image), but,

... being that this feature print (printed on L.P.P. film stock! YAY!), was in the Cineavision super 8 film process, and no one but Cineavision actually used the pocess, the print was no doubt an "underground' printing. Curious thought as L.P.P. film stock dodn't become available until 1982.

It should be noted that there was also a Cineavision feature print of "Empire Strikes Back" but sadly, it was not printed on L.P.P. but instead, Kodak SP and has started to brwon these days.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

David Hardy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 955
From: Johnshaven Village , Montrose, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2015

posted March 08, 2017 11:39 AM

Alan is that because "the sand" has sunk just like the Titanic ? [Smile]

If my memory is correct I can recall seeing a fair amount of
film grain on the original 35mm cinema release prints we had of
'Star Wars' in 1977.

'The Empire Strikes Back' had a fair bit of sideweave on some
scenes when we first showed it.

So things have never been that rosey from day one regarding
these films. [Wink]

Does anyone have a 1977 original print of Star Wars on 35mm ?
I can bet you its starting to fade.

--------------------
" My equipment's more important than your rats. "

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted March 08, 2017 12:56 PM

Not necessarily. I've seen just this last year, a 35MM print of STAR WARS that was offered on ebay, (forget how much it went for) and it was low fade. I forget the film stock but it really looked great.

Poeple for get that low fade film stock existed before the early 80's, and not just on Kodachrome, of course. [Smile]

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Alexander Vandeputte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2009

posted March 08, 2017 01:26 PM

In Europe, some of the original release prints of STAR WARS were actually Technicolor IB prints. Some of those are still around, and they look fantastic.
The nice thing about the IB process is that it somewhat de-emphasized filmgrain

See for yourself:
http://fd.noneinc.com/savestarwarscom/savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html

Although the article states that there was just one IB Tech print made, that is off course hard to believe as no one would go through the trouble of creating the expensive color separations just for one print. In fact there are reports of other IB Tech prints of STAR WARS

| IP: Logged

Oemer Yalinkilic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Berlin, Germany
Registered: Jul 2003

posted March 08, 2017 01:42 PM

Here is a clip from my -ib print.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmkw_jxF1JE

Of course, they are lot of IB´s around. I heard from 3 other IB prints.

| IP: Logged

Alexander Vandeputte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2009

posted March 08, 2017 01:57 PM

Hi Oemer, off course I knew you had one, but did not dare to 'out' you here [Smile]

Glad you share this nice clip.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 01:59 PM

Did not dare??

Why what's the big secret?? [Big Grin]

What does it matter who has what?

Share and share alike is my favourite motto.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Oemer Yalinkilic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Berlin, Germany
Registered: Jul 2003

posted March 08, 2017 02:11 PM

Of course, I have not a problem to say what I have, but Alexander is right, they are lot of collectors they don´t want make public his collection.
It can be also a problem to screen Star Wars in public.
This clip is from a private screening in theater, but maybe George Lucas or Disney see it different.

| IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003

posted March 08, 2017 02:36 PM

It does make you laugh a bit why this title is so tightly kept etc, its 40 years old!!!! who cares where its shown now, there a shed load of sequels and prequels a TV series, it made Mr Lucas one very wealthy bloke, he should relax a bit now and let Disney do the business. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

David Hardy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 955
From: Johnshaven Village , Montrose, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2015

posted March 08, 2017 02:52 PM

I can tell you now that there is no way we showed an IB TECH
copy on 35mm at our site.

--------------------
" My equipment's more important than your rats. "

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 03:02 PM

So ok then Oemer, accepting what you're saying,..then please explain to me, like I'm a five year old,..why on earth it is that SOME collectors don't like to admit what they have?

What on earth is the issue??
What on earth are they afraid of????

As I say, who cares whatever anyone else is fortunate enough to have???

But it's still nice to share the treasure and allow others to see JUST how good these things are or can be! [Confused]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Alexander Vandeputte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2009

posted March 08, 2017 03:18 PM

The thing with 35mm prints, unlike 16mm or super 8 prints is that they were never 'for sale'. 35mm prints were always the property of the producer or studio.
So, all surviving 35mm prints residing in private collections, got there in an 'unorthodox' way... Thats is why 35mm collecting was always a 'hush hush' affair.
Off course nowadays many industry people acknowledge the importance of private collectors when it comes to rescuing or restoring titles in peril.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 03:36 PM

Right, I get all that Alexander, and of course I have heard that said many many times, to the point where I think to myself, if these don't belong to you, why have them in the first place if you have to hide the fact?

We aren't talking 35mm here, we are talking Super 8mm often or 16mm.

So then what's the excuse?? [Confused]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Alexander Vandeputte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2009

posted March 08, 2017 03:39 PM

I was referring to Oemers 35mm print of STAR WARS. And off course there is no reason to be secretive about ones super 8 or 16mm collection.

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted March 08, 2017 03:44 PM

Going to pop it on Blu Ray tonight on LCD.

Has anyone done a comparative viewing with the 8mm or Blu Ray on a high spec LCD projector ?

Be interesting to hear how both compare.

Best Mark.

PS obviously the BR is the tinkered version.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted March 08, 2017 03:46 PM

I have what you ask for on Blu Ray Mark, but I'm only running film tonight. I will gather some images from the Blu Ray soon if this is a worthwhile as an exercise?

Obviously Blu Ray will beat 35mm let alone Super 8mm hands down just for image quality and clarity of image every day of the week on a decent HD HOME CINEMA dedicated projector.

It means nothing to those who want the film.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Mike Newell
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003

posted March 08, 2017 04:20 PM

16mm great gauge everything in black and white or faded colour and nothing after 1980. If you do get a non fade print or something recent like before 1980 upto 1985 you pop one of your kidneys in the post to pay for the bugger.

Added to the fact you will have arms like Popeye and a double hernia to look forward to really can't beat it.

35mm I think I would have to be single or recently divorced / widowed not get out much and have understanding neighbours as I play the Odeon plus have cement floors or live in a bungalow.

Titanic not much sand there . Dodgy rivets metal fatigue and a big ice cube😀😀

| IP: Logged

David Guest
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted March 08, 2017 04:21 PM

yes kieth did project at blackpool on super 8 about 6ft picture and about 10ft from the screen still waiting for offers to project on Friday night for 60mins

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2