8mm Forum: Optical Sound Super 8's

This is topic Optical Sound Super 8's 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=001330

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 28, 2005, 11:40 AM:

Hey folks! New Guy on the block! Howsits? Love the "Visit to a super 8 Optical sound feature factory" piece. I have hoped to put out a web page dedicated to the subject, and that gave much needed info. Id love to hear from other optical super 8 lovers worldwide! Note : I have found that British optical prints tend to have less editing to them! I recently ran across a new print of "Island of Dr. Moreau" that had approximately five exra minutes to it, (color was slightly better too). Perhaps this could be because censorship isn't quite so bad in the U.K. ? Love to hear opinions on that!

All the best!

OSI

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 28, 2005, 12:03 PM:

Osi, I know we have chatted off the forum but I would still like to welcome you aboard. The guys on here are a good friendly bunch so feel free to get involved in whatever way you can. Maybe you should tell us all what sort of setup you have and what you like collecting etc.

Enjoy [Smile]

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 28, 2005, 01:27 PM:

Good point Kev. I used to collect super 8 in 89 to 91, and then stupidly sold my collection to get into Laserdisc. I started collecting again a year and a half ago, and have already amassed quite a nice start! 24 Optical sound features, about 6 magnetic features. By the way, love to find "Close Encounters of the Third kind" scope feature, if anyone knows of any available. It's the only feature, magnetic, that I'm looking for.
Anyhow, I have three projectors, a Eumig stereo super 8, a Copal Magnetic/optical super 8 and have just aquired one of those Yashica Mag/optic projectors. I converted the Copal to a optic only projector, as the mag heads were slightly scratching my films! I have loved film sive I was literally four years old, (now 40), and I am also a scriptwriter, hoping to produce one of my own low budget but highly intelligent sci-fi films, (I don't write for the morons, there's plenty of material for them, I like my audience to think a little!) Thankfully, since there's really little demand for optical super 8, it's a very collectible arena of super 8! Ah, that lovely flickering image!

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 28, 2005, 03:32 PM:

Osi, Close Encounters is extremely rare. I believe that there were only about 20 prints released before Fox asked for the neg back. I think the deal with them fell through by which time Derek had run about 20 prints.
This was a title I had been after for a while and one came my way at the last BFCC meeting here in London so I am now a happy bunny.
I have to say the print is really nice. Very sharp and great stereo soundtrack. You will just have to keep your ears and eyes open.

Kev.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 28, 2005, 03:34 PM:

Kev, which edition was that release? Was it the re-release with the additional scenes or the original 77 version.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 28, 2005, 03:38 PM:

GRRRRRRR!!! Envy rising up! Must control anger! How much did it set you back, (translation from America : How much did it cost? I recently, finally, aquired a print of Star Wars 4x600 scope MONO. The nice thing is that the seller had bought it on the first day of release and had apparently almost never touched it! (It was also signed by Darth vader himself, David Prowse, so that makes it more fun!)

Well then, it looks like I'll be waiting for quite awhile for another print of "Close Encounters" By the way, was CE3K the special edition, or the original edition?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on July 28, 2005, 07:47 PM:

Osi & Tom,

The version that Derann released was the "Special Edition". Although I'm a fan of the original, I feel the SE is a tighter edit and a more dramatic film. Love that ship in the desert sequence!
Kev, I picked up my copy a little over a year ago, and I was told that the print run was 10!

Doug

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 29, 2005, 11:01 AM:

There's probably very little chance of me ever getting a copy then, unless someone leaves the super 8 biz. That, and the fact that it would be no doubt far beyond my ability to afford. I admire you folks in the U.K. You ave such opportunity to great flicks that we yans will never have a chance at!

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 29, 2005, 11:47 AM:

I preferedthe re-edit version. Maybe one day [Frown]

Its definatly a big screen film to. Never ever looked good on TV. Cant remember how many times i saw this film between 1977 and 1980. I even manged to go to the afternoon showings, Hide then sit through it again [Big Grin]

. More than once [Cool]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 29, 2005, 11:53 AM:

Yeah. Until then, I can watch the DVD special edition, which is okay. I have a 200ft. projection TV that's literally Hi-definition, but, alas, it doesn't (can never) truly replace the pristine, sometimes grainy celluloid image! I still vainly hold onto my 400ft. edition. At least the colors still perfect, albeit, slightly scratchy, by now!

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on July 29, 2005, 03:09 PM:

Osi,
you have a 200ft. hi-def TV and you're jealous because those Brits are buying up all the rare, expensive super-8 features? [Big Grin]

Well, I only have one thing to say to that... WELCOME TO THE FORUM! [Wink]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 29, 2005, 06:22 PM:

Yeah, it's swell, but I doesn't come close to replacing film. I'm not speaking of anything new here, but there's a, for lack of a better term, "romance" to the threading of the film, the flickering image. I never have more fun than when I get a new or used print in, and I get to sit down and just clean it for hours. It is most satisfying when you take an old worn print, and you literally make it look new!

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on July 29, 2005, 09:31 PM:

I could not agree more with that! In fact, I'm spending so much time editing/repairing and cleaning films I don't get around to actually watching them, because more of them are waiting to be treated! [Smile]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 30, 2005, 03:42 PM:

The film cleaning and edting is the bomb! (That means "great" to all my foreign friends!) I personally fnd, (believe it or not) that old silent films are even more fun the lder and more scrtached up and spliced they get. EH!! I just may be a little insane!

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on July 30, 2005, 03:56 PM:

quote:
I have a 200ft. projection TV that's literally Hi-definition, but, alas, it doesn't (can never) truly replace the pristine, sometimes

Osi is the 200 feet a diagonal or width measurement? How far back is the projector and how BIG is the room for a 200 foot screen? I don't think any video source and only a few film sources could stand up to that screen size. FWIW, digital cinema is taking over, eventually the guitar pick will become an endangered species when film prints are replaced by hard drives (which may become the distribution mechanism to prevent piracy).

Film is certainly a good presentation, but for those of us who spent our working lives in laboratory and studio review rooms watching brand new prints, it's impossible to sit through a typical theatre presentation.

John

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 30, 2005, 04:18 PM:

This a "Sharpvision" projector that can go from 40 inches to 200 inches. Well, lets put it this way, I have to put up a whole bed sheet to watch it at it's 200ft. or more size, though, at 200 inches, you need to be a good 20 feet or more away, as the lines of resolution come out more. It's just before the revolution of hi-definition.
As to the other statement, (not referring to you) it's sad that we have become so "rushed" and impatient, that we can't just sit down and watch a film in te old fashioned way. If your a film collector, you have to ave a certian amount of patience.

All the best

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on July 30, 2005, 08:46 PM:

quote:
it's sad that we have become so "rushed" and impatient, that we can't just sit down and watch a film in te old fashioned way. If your a film collector, you have to ave a certian amount of patience.

Osi,

My statement had nothing to do with being "rushed" but rather the quality of the projected image in most theatres. The prints are dirty, scratched, projectors are run by popcorn makers and not projectionists in many places, etc etc. You'd know the difference if you'd watched BRAND NEW prints in screening rooms where you spec out the screen illumination before you start. After all we're approving the film for release printing and making timing (color corrections) and checking sound quality, etc.

I see your projector shows a 200 INCH diagonal picture and not 200 FOOT picture. These devices can display nice images and variations on these designs are what's being used in digital cinemas with the Hughes/JVC and TI projectors.

But I"m not "rushed", I've RETIRED so I have plenty of time, but I just have been spoiled to accept the BEST.

John

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 31, 2005, 02:16 PM:

gotcha there, and yes, that is inches not feet, (oops), but it's a decent view, IF you don't have film. I have been up in our local theater and I'm amazed (and a little saddened) by how most theaters have adopted the "big spool" way of projection instead of the good ole fashioned reel to reel. Sadly, that's called progress.

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on July 31, 2005, 02:52 PM:

You mean the platter systems instead of changeovers using two projectors? [Smile]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 31, 2005, 04:24 PM:

Right. I mean, granted, it really does make it easier, as all you have to do is start the machine and it runs all the way thru. I have never seen any of those optical sound super 8 airline machines, I'm betting that they worked on the same premise, as, when I used to recieve a brand new optical super 8 print, (back in the late 1980's) they would be unedited on a spool.

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on July 31, 2005, 05:06 PM:

You are correct - in fact, they came in giant endless cartridges so no rewinding was needed. Read more about it in this topic and especially this one. [Cool]

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 31, 2005, 06:04 PM:

Osi,
Seeing you have 24 optical features, I'm curious to know what proportion have excellent colour? I ask because I get the impression that most of the optical film in circulation are fading or faded, but maybe the ones I've come across are not completely representative.
Adrian

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 31, 2005, 09:43 PM:

You have to be really careful with these optical features. Since the people who manufactured them weren't expecting any lonjevity to these films, (heck they'd destroy them as a general rule after they finished thier run! GRRR!!!), they would print them on whatever available eastman stock they had, and believe me, eastman stock varies tremendously! For instance, I have a print of "Romance of a Horsethief" (1971) that has perfect or near perfect color, while my print of "Gorky Park" (1983) already has a pinkish hue! Very sad, as it is a very good film.

That, and, sadly, most collectors back in the day (70's to late 80's) didn't realize that eastman color could fade so quickly. Most collectors stored thier prints in warm environments, (shudder) and so the color change could happen most rapidly, especially with the last of the lowest grade Eastman stock, which was fazed out as of 1982, but sadly, those who manufactured airline prints saw a great deal from the Eastman labs on this fazed out film, and printed a number of titles on that film, much to us collectors dismay.

You just have to be careful, always ask the color on the print before you buy. What I do with all my Easman prints, magnetic or optical, is that I put them, (if possible) in a good ziplock bag, in the refridgerator, but make sure that you put something in the bag, such as those selica gel packs, (you know, those things that keep the moisture off of things.) as moisture can due even more damage to these films.

One really good point, is that, from 1984 on, possibly late 83, optical sound features were printed on the much better Kodak SP stock, which, even when it does start to age, tends to have a slightly brownish quality, not that accursed pink. The kodak SP prints hold up much better and I've had not a problem with these, though I still store them in the fridge.

So, if collecting optical sound super 8, look at when the film originally came out, if 1983 or earlier, it's a safe bet that it's on Eastman stock. 84 on, Kodak SP, and that means there were five full years of good film stock prints!

Yet, with all this, I believe these Optical sound prints are most collectible. For instance, I have a print of "Stagecoach" (1939), and it's printed in sepia-tone. My friend, you can't even get it on DVD in that formaT

Hah, take that DVD!!

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on August 01, 2005, 07:01 AM:

Osi,
Thanks for the comprehensive reply. My best optical feature is 'Little Shop Of Horrors' (and I have a spare copy if anyone is looking for it) which has pretty good colour that's a bit on the brownish side, so I expect that's an SP print.
I wonder when the first optical airline prints were made? I don't suppose there are many b/w films on optical but it would be interesting to know if any were printed on b/w stock.
Adrian

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 01, 2005, 07:30 AM:

Doug/Tom, my copy of CEOTK is the Special Edition like Doug's. Interesting that mine has got various splices during the film. I think the owner before me took out the extra scenes. Having said that the scenes have obviously been put back and the film runs really nicely. It a really sharp print too.

Osi, Eastman SP was out before 82. It was replaced in 82 by LPP film stock. I have a few opticals where the colour is great and not showing any signs of fade.

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 01, 2005, 11:37 AM:

Thanks Kev. Do you happen to know when it came out? Come t think of it, I have a print of "Battlestar Galactica" (absolutely stunning color!) on kodak SP, and that came out in 1979, (but it could be a later print, I had a first print of B.G. on Eastman that did not fair as well). Perhaps they only moved the optical sound features to Kodak SP when all available eastman stock was used?

What the (****)?! Have you been able to talk to the fellow who sold you a butchered CE3K print? Maybe he has the deleted footage lying around? The strange fact is that when he took that other footage out, it still didn't make forthe riginal feature from 1977, as there was footage taken out in favor of the special edition footage, thereby making for a shortened feature. Magnificent that you have a copy, but dang it, what a bummer!!

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on August 01, 2005, 01:40 PM:

I wondered how some of the other post-1982 optical prints are holding up? Can anyone comment on (e.g.) 'Sudden Impact', 'City Heat' or 'Pale Rider'? I have a copy of 'Nadia' (1984) which is very brownish so it would not surprise me if some old stock was being used up post-1982. I expect they knew for a while that the days were numbered for these prints.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 01, 2005, 03:33 PM:

Most certianly, which is why they tended to use the lowest grade stock available. I've ran into very few post 1984 optical films that are bad in color, and if there is some fade, it is the, as you say, slightly brownish variety.

Most of the titles you mentioned, (Pale Rider, for instance, of which I'd love to find a copy of), are from the later years, and I have NO titles past 84 that have bead color. It is possible, if the owner "abused" thier prints.

But then, alas, most of us, myself included, didn't know the fade potentials on our films in the 80's. I do now, and take appropriate precautions.

All the best!!

P.S. Just got my Yashica Optical super 8 projector. Most satisfied, it has good low end and the optical sound is louder than on my old Copal projector.

Ah, it's like a new addition to the family!

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 01, 2005, 04:22 PM:

Osi, You missunderstood what I said.....CE3K is complete. What I was trying to say was that I think the last owner took out the extra scenes and then replaced them before selling it on. Luckily there are no frames lost at all and the splices are sound. I got the print at a good price so am not complaining [Smile]

I was trying to find out the date that SP stock came out but havent done so yet. Interesting that on the eFilmCentre site they make mention to Airline prints on estar base and SP saying that it is holding out very well. Presumably they are comparring that to the SP on acetate base. [Frown]

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 02, 2005, 11:14 AM:

Good to hear CE3K is complete, (and I'm still very envious). I can certianly say this, once I build that optical sound super 8 feature site on the internet, I'm ging to have lots of good info to work with. Now, I wuldn't be suprised if all kinds of stock was used. I'm betting it came down to watever was available and at the best price.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on August 02, 2005, 05:10 PM:

Your probably right with that but it was an art coating onto thin base polyester film base. Kodak and Fuji seemed to be the only ones which I remember having such animals.

Kev.

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on August 02, 2005, 07:33 PM:

"Art coating?" Are you suggesting that putting these prints down on polyester-base film was an art, Kevin? [Wink]

(I'm sure it was, actually, but I do have a feeling you mean something else...)

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 04, 2005, 11:02 AM:

I had always wondered why it seemed like I had more minutes of film per 600ft. reel when i had an optical print on it. I didn't realize the print was actually thinner, but that does make sense that an optic soundtrack is printed on nstead of a magnectic track being placed on the film! All this wonderful info on optical prints is much fun!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2