8mm Forum: Poltergeist

This is topic Poltergeist - Red Fox 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=002603

Posted by Keith Ashfield (Member # 741) on March 11, 2007, 06:17 PM:

Can anyone give me any info on the quality of the Red Fox 6 x 400ft version of POLTERGIEST please? Regards and thanks, Keith.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 11, 2007, 07:33 PM:

I have personally heard that this print is pretty good overall.
Bear in mind that this Poltergeist is NOT in scope. It's a flat print.

Also bear in mind, that Red Fox prints have been known to have varying speeds of fade. Bearing the title in mind, however, it might be a LPP print, but I would verify that if I were you first.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 12, 2007, 03:49 AM:

I haven't seen the flat prints but would advise you stick out for an early 'Scope print as they're amongst the best ever issued on Super 8.

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on March 12, 2007, 04:16 AM:

I sold my Red Fox flat print last year and colours were really good.

Posted by Dimitrios Kremalis (Member # 272) on March 12, 2007, 07:05 AM:

Were all 4x600ft prints in scope?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 12, 2007, 09:49 AM:

My Poltergeist is scope and 4X600ft., but that doesn't mean the others are.

Posted by Dimitrios Kremalis (Member # 272) on March 12, 2007, 01:31 PM:

Are there two versions of 4x600ft, one in scope and one in flat?
Or the only flat version is the 6x400ft?

[ March 12, 2007, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Dimitrios Kremalis ]

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on March 12, 2007, 05:29 PM:

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen any Red Fox release on reels larger than 400'. I think that even the Red Fox features that Derann re-released were on 400' reels.

Posted by Keith Ashfield (Member # 741) on March 12, 2007, 06:29 PM:

Hi Dimitrios. The Red Fox Version is 6 x 400ft reels and it is "flat" format. I have managed to purchase a brand new, sealed copy, from Germany, so when it arrives, I'll let all know what the quality is like. [Wink]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 13, 2007, 02:24 PM:

Keith
I have a copy of Poltergiest flat Red Fox 6/400ft version, and the print I have is LPP I watched it last night, first time in many many years, I thought I will just watch the first reel only, well that led to reel 2 reel 3 ....4....5.....6 so much for watching just reel one. The colour is good, rock steady image, I found in this print on certain reels, the focus to be a lttle bit soft on the middle and long shots, close ups looked great, on the sound side OK could be better, but those are only minor flaws, your new print might not have, its certainly well worth getting.

Graham. [Smile]

Posted by Keith Ashfield (Member # 741) on March 13, 2007, 03:10 PM:

Thanks for that encouraging reply. Glad my question prompted you to enjoy a classic thriller/horror, once again. It is amazing how you can get enthralled in something that you "take for granted". How many people have watched the T.V. to say "Oh no! not that film again. How many times has that been shown!" and then sit down and watch it all over again. That's the beauty of being film fanatics I guess. I should be getting my copy of Poltergiest early next week, so I will be able to judged for myself.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 18, 2017, 04:20 PM:

I have just purchased this title from a fellow forum member, patiently awaiting delivery in early June. Have to say i havnt looked forward to film as much as this for many many years.
It is the Red Fox flat print but i can wait no longer for a scope one as they never appear [Wink]

Posted by Bruno Heughebaert (Member # 2756) on May 18, 2017, 05:00 PM:

I have an early kempski scope print. Beautiful pictures mounted on one 2400 reel.(not for sale).

Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on May 18, 2017, 05:32 PM:

Tom - You won't be disappointed in the picture and sound quality.
The only place where the flat version does let itself down slightly is in the scene in the kitchen when the chairs stack themselves. The effect does fall a little flat (pun not intended). Nevertheless, great to see on the big screen.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 18, 2017, 05:39 PM:

I just love the added sharpness and brightness on screen from the flat prints. I just don't get this whole "has to be scope" thing when we are talking Super 8mm.

Give me one fast and sharp lens only, everyday for Super 8mm viewing.

I have many scope prints and I enjoy them, but I always crave sharpness of image and brilliance on screen preferably over any other attributes.

Ultimately, I find only flat prints can give me this.
The frame finds itself magnified enough without attempting to stretch it twice more.
I have even heard 16mm collectors say the very same thing.

I find once your eyes have become accustomed to looking frequently at a high standard flat print on 8, there is nowhere to go to gain a better looking image on 8.
You then find yourself constantly chasing the focussing knob when viewing scope films even using the very best suited scope lenses for the gauge.

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on May 19, 2017, 08:42 AM:

While I have always wanted to see a scope copy of Poltergiest to see what I was missing...I have to agree with you Andrew that watching a movie flat does have its own perks.

I have the flat Red Fox version and for a lot of scenes its pin sharp.

My favorite shot of the movie. I had to watch Veritgo after seeing this scene.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 19, 2017, 08:51 AM:

Yes very sharp indeed with very good colours for Super 8mm.
However you do lose a hellava lot of the original picture
area and don't see the composition as it was intended to
be seen by the director and cinematographer.

I have no real love of P&S prints although I do have a couple in my collection.
[Smile]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 19, 2017, 09:44 AM:

Yep, just like my own Jason. Fab isn't it! [Smile]

I wouldn't swap mine for a scope version, no chance.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 19, 2017, 09:56 AM:

I don't blame you in a way Andrew as most Super 8mm transfers
are not that good.

Super 8mm is not really suited to Scope. There is always a trade
of picture wise. Be it grain or colour fringing and lens problems or soft images.

That's why I prefer watching my Scope prints on 16mm / 35mm and
of course DVD and Blu-Ray with very little loss of composition.
[Wink]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 19, 2017, 10:03 AM:

Yep, agreed David, regarding your main point there.

I don't agree that most Super 8mm transfers are not that good however.
You only have to look at Jason's fine photographs above to question that one David.

One respected and long term 16mm and Super 8mm collector recently said on another forum that in his opinion only 35mm can truly give off a decent image for scope presentation.

I agree with him ultimately.
Obviously I take it he was including 70mm in his assessment also.

Even on my digital images which can easily match or even surpass those of a 35mm projector for clarity, I prefer the shape of the picture projected in widescreen mode to anamorphic widescreen.

Cinemascope looks brilliant where it belongs, in full sized cinemas on full sized screens imho. Plenty of depth to the image then.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 19, 2017, 11:47 AM:

Grerat screenshots Jason, but i certainly agree (owning an early print of this title in scope, and in stereo) that, if you love this film, you really have to get the scope version, but you'd probably make back most or a good deal of hat you paid for the scope, by selling the flat version.

But I must confess, in some regards, having the flat version helps just a little. For instance, there is that very memorable scene at the end where the house "implodes" and you would be able to enjoy the deatil that went into that effect more in the fklat version, than the scope version ...

so, each has it's "perks" but the scope, ahhhhh, the scope!

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 19, 2017, 11:51 AM:

"The fog" would look the best in scope! [Big Grin]

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 19, 2017, 02:03 PM:

Andrew I have to disagree with that collector who ever he is.
I have shown Scope 16mm prints in a CINEMA and they were quite
stunning every bit as sharp a 35mm film.

As for flat prints of Scope films... Well its like only looking at a small part of a painting or listening to only one movement
of a symphony. In other words incomplete and not as it was intended to be seen or heard.

Also as for depth of field Super 8mm film is very limited be
it flat or scope. Also most Super 8mm prints be they flat or
scope are cropped any way.

However if flat prints of Scope films is what rocks your boat
then who am I to argue ?
I wont be sailing on that boat with you though thats for sure !

I am not a fan of severe cropping of an image.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 19, 2017, 02:11 PM:

That flat version looks good color wise Jason I gave mine away as it had faded [Frown]

Regarding P/S or Scope I do believe in projecting a film as it was originaly intended. I was once given a flat version of "Raise The Titanic" 600 footer to look at, not only was the print turning red but in one scene the actors who were taking to each other you could not see them due to the P/S they were out of the picture. I understand there were different edits of this 600 footer, anyway this one was terrible and I switched the lamp of before the end as it simply was a waste of time watching it....junk.

Thankfully the owner of this print has now got it as a full feature with great color but most importantly its in Scope [Cool]

here is a we you-tube video of Super8 in Scope....

https://youtu.be/sbGOMk52j_Q

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 19, 2017, 02:15 PM:

Graham thanks for that link. Great to see you are using
a 35mm Scope lens for Super 8mm. [Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 19, 2017, 02:26 PM:

Thanks David

Here is a another short video but this time 35mm

https://youtu.be/LCz5v-Z5gvI

[Smile]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on May 19, 2017, 02:53 PM:

The only review of a Pan & Scan version of an edited 400ft film verses the scope edit that came in favour of the P&S was that when I dialogue scene where the two speaking were either side of the fame was edited in the P&S version to hide the jump cuts by only showing one or other of the faves at a time.

The possible gain in a scope version is that the Pan & Scan might be one more generation down from the original increasing grain and contrast.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 19, 2017, 06:43 PM:

Crikey, I am completely lost there Brian? [Confused]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 19, 2017, 07:08 PM:

Jason

If you are on Facebook there is about 1 minute worth demo on the Poltergeist Super8 Scope print....its on the BFCC page [Smile]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 19, 2017, 07:11 PM:

Seen it Graham and it's a winner...until you see the sharpness of a none overly magnified print!

Nowt missing of note, despite all of the claims! [Wink]

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on May 19, 2017, 09:13 PM:

Awesome Dances with Wolves clip. Makes me want to get into 35mm!
I like to project movies in Scope as they really give a cinematic -theatre like feel to your presentation. But sometimes the prints are not that sharp. They are "reasonably" sharp but not as good as a flat print in most cases.
"The Fog" does look great in scope! Not the sharpest print but good. "Poltergeist" in scope is not the sharpest print in scope either. "Halloween" in scope was one of the softest prints I have seen in Scope. But "Titanic" in scope is very sharp. One of the best scope prints I have ever seen. The screenshots of the flat "Poltergeist" look sharper than my scope print. But then again the scene with the Clown and the Boy on either ends of the screen..that needs to be seen in Scope! ah.. Apples and Oranges...

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 20, 2017, 04:42 AM:

Graham thanks again. I already watched it and subscribed to
your channel.
Great stuff and I would like you post more if you can.
[Smile]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on May 20, 2017, 05:48 AM:

Do like scope on any format, the only problem with super 8 is its the wrong shape, and maybe 16mm too. That's why 'Cinevision' came about.

One of the worst I've seen for pan & scan is The Return Of The Pink Panther. It involves a panning shot following a character who is walking to the right faster than the pan. The p&s then keeps him in frame by scanning left. It looks really weird.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 20, 2017, 05:54 AM:

You are correct there David. Scope is the wrong shape on 8mm
and 16mm. Its a pity the Cineavision/ Animex reductions never
became the standard for both. That way nothing would have been
lost image wise when reducing from 35 mill !
[Smile]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 20, 2017, 06:04 AM:

I wonder why the cinevision thing never became the standard. I have to say that the cinevision image was very good and as you say if it was possible to do scope without losing anything why on earth wasn't it done as standard? Why the reduction of image in the common scope format on 8?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on May 20, 2017, 06:49 AM:

Although many members here have mentioned this many times, I honestly still don't understand why Cineavision is the most ideal way for scope presentation.

Can someone enlighten me in a simple explanation please.

Cheers,

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 20, 2017, 07:07 AM:

very simply, there is no cropping of heads on the cinevision prints. No reduction. My scope screen is sized up for the remaining 400ft cinevision prints we have, in a simple terms, if i project a normal scope print, then put on a cinevision print i have to zoom up to enlarge the image and it not only fills the scope screen the image is actually bigger.

My scope screen is made in a way that when i project the cinevision print the whole screen left to right and top to bottom is totally filled. When i put on a normal scope print the screen is full left to right but approx 4/6 inches top to bottom shorter due to the cropping.

To be fair we have many titles in scope but rarely notice the cropping. It's never really bothered me but you do see a vast difference when you view a scope film then put on a cinevision film. [Wink]

Hope this makes sense [Big Grin]

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on May 20, 2017, 07:09 AM:

I guess, that it has to do with the actual seize of the Super-8-material: if there is only a space of approx. 6mm for the image You will lose more image when You think of the bars on both sides of the Cineavision version.
I own 2001 in Cineavision and the details are not the best.
The Cinemascope trailer is much better in focus and details.
My POLTERGEIST Scope print is also not very sharp. But You should see in Scope, because it was meant to be seen like that when it was made.
Another sad example of a flat Super-8-version is BARBARELLA!

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on May 20, 2017, 08:00 AM:

I used to own the Star Wars Scope Cinevision print. While it did have the entire image complete with black bars the image wasn't very sharp. I think its just too much information for that little frame. The Derann Scope Print while it did crop the top of a few heads was much sharper.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 20, 2017, 08:08 AM:

I've never been troubled too much from any cropping on the scope features I have, I have to say.
I certainly cannot recall seeing the tops of heads missing too often anyhow, if at all from the films I have.

It's just the overall sharpness at times that I'm not 100% happy with but then without the Kowa or Isco scope lens in front, they all look perfectly sharp just as their flat prints always did from a certain era onwards.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 20, 2017, 11:43 AM:

I agree David, which is why I have always loved collecting the Cineavision Animex prints. Fortunately, in most cases, the color has held up well.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on May 20, 2017, 03:10 PM:

So why the crop does not happen in 35mm print? Isn't that the proportional cell area (ratio) between 35mm vs 8mm is the same?

If it is the case, when the 8mm is made of 35mm, how some pictures are crop?

Still don't understand.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 20, 2017, 06:31 PM:

Thanks David I hope to do some more in the rear future [Smile]

Alan what you need is a late model Kinton 35mm projector with large reels [Cool]

..in fact you could pick one up these days for a fraction of the cost of a GS1200. [Wink]

Winbert with 35mm the aperture plate changes for Scope. With Super 8 its fixed. The next time someone here runs some Scope films, run your framing knob up and down, you might be surprised whats on your frame but you are not seeing it due to the aperture plate. I have often thought about making a variable one that opens the top and bottom up for scope, however I doubt the lens would allow for a larger image [Frown]

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on May 20, 2017, 09:36 PM:

Graham, I knew today's 35mm scope using aperture plate for scope presentation, but wasn't long time ago 35mm used squezeed print, hence the need of anamorphic for desqueezing?

[ May 20, 2017, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Winbert Hutahaean ]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 21, 2017, 02:21 AM:

Agree with Andrew and as i already mentioned the cropping on super 8 scope has never bothered us. Three best images we have on scope are the fog romancing the stone,(very good image),& grease which is one of the best but i have to say altthough i know there is slight cropping as there is with every scope print,(except cinevision) i have never noticed it or been bothered about it.
Back to poltergeist, im still looking forward to our flat print [Big Grin]

[ May 21, 2017, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Tom Photiou ]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 22, 2017, 11:15 AM:

Hey Winbert!

To answer you're question, no, the ratio from left to right, (on a super 8 frame of film), is wider than the ratio of a 35MM frame of film, hence the special process. I don't know exactly the ratrio on super 8, and that is something those more knowledgeable than I can answer correctly.

I think it's the same as the ratio on 16MM.

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on May 22, 2017, 01:47 PM:

To be really specific: super 8 scope (and 16mm scope) is not wider than 35mm scope: it is narrower. In 35mm the aperture for scope is approx 1:1,19 so the image is taller than the 1:1,33 image of super 8 and 16mm.
When copying from 35mm scope to super 8 or 16mm scope one loses a bit of the top and the bottom of the image.
When you project 35 scope the aspect ratio is approx1:2,39 (1,9 x 2) with super 8 and 16mm this becomes 1:2,66 (1,33 x 2). So yes it appears wider but, there is no extra with in the image, just less image top and bottom.

Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on May 22, 2017, 04:37 PM:

I believe that the Cineavision prints are softer due to having to go one generation further away from the original neg to enable the correct squeeze. At least I think I read that somewhere. [Big Grin]

Should also say, the clip of Poltergeist that was shown at the last BFCC blew my socks off. Sharp as a tack, great contrast and colour and a quality of sound I found hard to believe from that tiny mag stripe.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 23, 2017, 12:32 PM:

There was a series of articles years ago written by John Clancy in cooperation with another fellow (who's name escapes me at this time), who stated that.

I agree to an extant, but, while the film stock hasn't always held up well, (most have), they have tended to be quite sharp prints. In fact, I have never seen a Cineavision print that didn't boast a good focus, never hard to focus.

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on May 23, 2017, 03:05 PM:

I have a Cineavision print of "2001, a space odyssey" unfortunately on Kodak SP, so it's pretty brown by now. But besides that this print has good definition and is certainly as sharp as the best 'normal' super 8 scope prints I have.
Cineavision prints don't have to be one generation further away, as they only require a different set up of the optical printer to take the full height of the 35 mm frame into the super 8 frame. The squeeze factor does not change, it's always 2x for commercial scope movies.

[ May 23, 2017, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Alexander Vandeputte ]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 23, 2017, 04:11 PM:

we had the Ben hur 3 x 400 cinevision which was good until the colour went, we also had jaws 2 which has a very sharp image but, (in my view) was such a poop film i had to sell it on, the kids were overacting and the screaming just got on my wick. and what a clever shark pulling a helicopter into the sea, what a load of trash [Big Grin]

anyway, back to poltergeist, still looking forward to our flat print [Big Grin]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on June 05, 2017, 04:09 PM:

Its on its way [Cool]

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 06, 2017, 01:52 AM:

Congrats Tom!

Btw since I have been following your posts many time and you have a strict rules on how much you will spend for a print, but at the same time Poltergeist is kind of rare, is the print you are waiting for now has been breaking that rule? [Wink]

Cheers,

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on June 06, 2017, 11:43 PM:

Hello Winbert, fortunately it did not break the rules, if it did i most certainly would have gave it a miss. In fact i think i can safely say from what i have read here and in other places that the quality,(i am yet to view it) is going to be better than my other title i look for Die Hard. Poltergeist in both scope and flat has collectors praising the quality while DH seems to have collectors give mixed reviews with bluish tint and only average sound if it isn't pre striped stock so maybe this title coming my way instead of DH is a blessing in disguise.
I have been fortunate to have asked for this title on here and got it & thank the fellow collector for contacting me and giving me the opportunity of obtaining this print.
i will put up some screenshots after viewing within the next week [Wink]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 07, 2017, 11:51 AM:

I know that there are those who prefer having the pan and scan Poltergeist, (I'm betting more due to costs as, quite honestly, it is cheaper than the scope version)...

... but any film is always better in the widescreen original aspect ratio that it was shot in. The shots were designed specifically for that format and you do miss something in the translation, obviously.

Now, when it comes to films that were shot on full frame 35MM, those are "letterboxed" and they are usually shot to take into account the letterboxing, but sometimes in the case of those films, I actually prefer to see them in thier full frame at times. [Smile]

I hope I'm not too redundant, as I didn't get around to reading every post here.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on June 07, 2017, 11:59 AM:

All good stuff there Osi,
i purchased this one as i have waited for 20 years to find a scope copy, however, i didn't want to turn this one down as i know the seller to be a very respected collector so , A/ i know it will be a good one and B/ if i had said no i may well never get my hands on any copy of this movie at all.
But i will be more than happy to own this print and even if a scope copy came up now i can honestly say, (unless it was a scilly low price which it wouldn't be), i would have to turn it down as i respect very much the fact that another fellow collector has sold this one to me at a "normal" price. This movie may not be to every persons taste but i am a very proud owner now and will look after it along with all our other films. [Wink]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2