8mm Forum: Super 8 Film Reviews Anyone?

This is topic Super 8 Film Reviews Anyone? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000781

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on October 03, 2004, 03:33 PM:

I was wondering if we could have that here in our own forum just for 8mm. We already have general, equipment, and films for sale areas. Why not a film review?

Thinking we could pick titles from our collections, and write our own reviews for all to see. Even if the movie is out of print or no longer available, the reviews would be interesting!

Any takers? Brad, could you set that up for us? Maybe just a trial basis see how it goes?

CG

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 03, 2004, 04:44 PM:

I think that's a great idea Chip. If Brad could set up a separate
menu button for film reviews I would be glad to contribute reviews from my collection. I would suggest that we all stick to the Derann and BFCC grading sytem for print and sound quality e.g. Print B, Sound A/B etc. It's worth noting that the BFCC web site has a Super 8 review section which covers a lot of the more recent releases, but is far from complete. So maybe user reviews could be posted there as well.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on October 04, 2004, 08:32 AM:

Paul your ideas are good. I would like to point out here the idea is we must really write our own reviews. Do not copy someone else's reviews from other publications. However, for expanded reviews, we could mention other printed materials. The reader (in this forum) would then search out the other reviews, etc.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on October 07, 2004, 04:36 PM:

Alot of this is already done in Steve Osborne's REEL-IMAGE - Shorty

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on October 07, 2004, 05:14 PM:

Correct Shorty. But his printed magazine is not on the internet to the best of my knowledge.

Chip

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 07, 2004, 06:11 PM:

I think this is a brilliant idea. How about Brad adding another section to the site for us to add our reviews?

Kev [Smile]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on October 08, 2004, 09:06 AM:

A very good idea, i agree with sticking to the Derann/FFTC scoring however would it also be good to add one more catergory and that would be an A_D rating for the actual qaulity of the film print. As i understand it you can have an A rated print but the actual qulity of the picture, colour and Sharpness is often crap. I have been caught many times! [Confused]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 08, 2004, 12:35 PM:

Tom,
I have always assumed when Keith Wilton or John Clancy rate picture quality A, it means very good print quality, and AA means really excellent print quality, that is both sharpness and color.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on November 02, 2004, 03:10 AM:

Thanks to the wonderful Super Daryl, the glitch in the forum program has been tracked down and now this forum is available.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 02, 2004, 07:45 AM:

What Tom? I don't think we'd grade something in the 'A' class and it would have crap print quality. There are always variations between prints but an 'A' should always be pretty good regardless.

The top mark is A* and this is rarely awarded. When Super 8 was at its height (in terms of print quality) there were a whole batch that warranted the A* rating but it is not often seen any longer. There have been exceptional prints that have just squeezed into this bracket but nothing that can really compare with the likes of the Buck Labs prints of Fall of the Roman Empire, El Cid, Predator, Commando and a few others. A/A* is quite often seen in more recent years - for example, the two 'Scope trailers from the Lord of the Rings sequels.

Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on November 02, 2004, 12:39 PM:

Great idea Chip, i would love to be able to read an evaluation of a print before i bought one, and i am sure i could contribute as well.

John. Are you saying that the scope trailers are 1000% better than the 400ft extract.

Chris.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on November 03, 2004, 06:39 AM:

I only saw the 400ft extract once and the sound was 93 seconds out of sync' so it was difficult to concentrate too hard on the print quality. The trailers however look very good. This is sometimes down to the quick-cut nature of modern trailers which can successfully hide defects but certainly I was most impressed by them both.

I didn't care for "Lord of the Rings" but the 'Scope trailers to the sequels are highly recommended.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 03, 2004, 10:24 AM:

The Film Review Section of this forum is starting to turn into a second technical forum. Lets keep it exclusively for film reviews, and confine technical discussions to the main forum.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on November 04, 2004, 12:08 AM:

Well you see there are two sides to your comment. You are correct, but then again if we list scope or flat, mono or stereo, why not cue marks for changeovers. Alittle tech stuff related to the reviews doesn't hurt. I'd even go as far as to write recommendations for big reel make up from 400 or 600 footers to 1200 footers and YES all in the reviews!

cg

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2