|
Author
|
Topic: Who Buys Red Prints?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 07, 2009 08:38 AM
I've never knowingly bought a red feature. I couldn't stand it, (unless the movie was "Big Red" HAHA! ahem!).
I have bought features advertised as decent or good color, only to be beet red in reality. You just can't honestly move them on to another person if they're like that, unless the buyer knows for a fact what they are getting.
I agree with Micheal O Reagan on this, (or I think he may have said something along these lines), as, if I can't watch a good quality print with good color, why not just watch it on the video?
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted November 07, 2009 09:18 AM
I wouldn't keep even "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone with the Wind" if they were given to me and they were red. To me there is such a thing as "worse than not having it."
With Blu-Rays available, the last thing I want is to be dissatisfied when I actually run a Super-8 or 16mm feature film. The point, at least to me, is to see something that is a viable alternative. I don't have a lot of money, so I buy very carefully.
I bought a 6000-ft reel for another film, and the seller had a print on it of a South African Western with Vincent Price in it, so a bit of a curio item; it was on the reel because he couldn't spool it off. Perfect print, no scratches, utterly red.
I watched the film, just to see it, and then into the garbage it went. No way I would offer it for sale, even for $10.
Claus.
--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted November 09, 2009 03:28 PM
"I bought a 6000-ft reel for another film, and the seller had a print on it of a South African Western with Vincent Price in it, so a bit of a curio item; it was on the reel because he couldn't spool it off. Perfect print, no scratches, utterly red.
I watched the film, just to see it, and then into the garbage it went. No way I would offer it for sale, even for $10."
Why not offer it?? That's a bit sad - destroying a rarity that I'm sure several collectors - myself included - would have happily paid at least $30 to see and then maybe sell on.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 09, 2009 04:21 PM
Hey, I found a perfect use for dreaded Eastman film stock!
Use L.P.P. for the normal colored scenes in the B movie classic, "The Angry Red Planet", and then, for thye reel or two that take place on the planet surface, use that dreaded Eastman.
Even when it would fade, you'd still have GREAT color! HAH!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James N. Savage 3
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1375
From: Washington, DC
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted November 10, 2009 06:46 AM
I don't particularly like red prints. However, there seem to be different degrees of red or fading. Some, to me, are tolerable.
I've actually only had to destroy about three super 8 prints for redness. They were Universal 8 digests, and it was such a harsh redness, it just looked too bad. On the other hand, I have a feature thats turned red (Lassie Come Home), thats still very easy to watch.
To me, its harder to watch a print thats too dark, or has very soft focus, than to have a red tint.
I do understand why Clause would destroy a bad print. To re-sell a bad print, even if advertised as such, can give people a bad taste for film. I agree, if its that bad, just take it out of circulation all together!
John- That blue filter sounds interesting. I'll have to try it.
James.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted November 10, 2009 07:51 AM
A few years ago, I tracked down a rare short I'd been looking for for 20 years. There are probably no low fade prints in existence and even if there were, I might never find one - so that was a situation in which I was quite happy to have an Eastman print.
A faded 16mm print of the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', with a rare Bryanston caption at the start, recently went for nearly $750 on eBay, so there certainly are exceptions to the general rule that faded prints are relatively worthless.
Surely the key thing is how 'watchable' a print is. If a film has very little contrast and the dark scenes are very murky with no detail, it has little or no appeal to me, but the more brownish look, with pretty good contrast, that can characterise a faded SP print can be quite pleasant - and more pleasing to the eye than (e.g.) a typical b/w dupe. The purple look of older Fuji can be just as bad as Eastman, though, in my opinion.
Anyone that buys economy prints who would welcome a change from red, might be interested to know that I'm planning to sell a 16mm print of 'Tommy' that has apparently faded to green, and a 16mm print of 'Brides of Dracula' that is unique in my experience as it has become an attractive sepia colour!
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
