8mm Forum: Marketing film release of "Grease"

This is topic Marketing film release of "Grease" 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=007393

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 27, 2012, 10:06 PM:

I've read that they have made the full feature and the one I recently acquired is on 2 800' reels. The leader says Marketing films and the stock says Safety Film Kodak. Is this a low fade stock? If it is'nt how is the color still this good like in the picture below? And is this the full feature? If you have this print of this feature what is it mounted on? And how are the colors?
Austin

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 27, 2012, 10:24 PM:

Hi Austin,

The IMDB says "Grease" is 110 minutes long, and your two reels run about 80 minutes total if full, so you can't have the whole thing. Hopefully there isn't supposed to be a third 800 footer, but you'll know that as soon as you watch the movie.

Derann's "Grease" is 7x400', so there's enough reel space there for 140 minutes.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 27, 2012, 10:34 PM:

Austin,

Kodak SP is not LPP. It was released before LPP, around the end of 1970s.

Your print has good color but far from LPP. If you see the Grease on LPP (which was issued by Derann) you will understand it.

Now, Steve, please remember that Marketing always use thin stock resulting 800' rel can take 55 - 60 minutes film (if full - equal to three parter). So Austin 2 800' can be a full movie.

cheers,

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 27, 2012, 10:34 PM:

I watched it and it looks to be the whole feature. I have heard they used a thinner film. I just wanted some feedback from members at the forum.
Austin

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 27, 2012, 10:43 PM:

Yes that what I thought so, thinner stock.

BTW, here is a screen shot of the same film which is on LPP.

Does not mean to let you down with your print, but I guess you will see the different between LPP vs Kodak SP, won't you?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on August 27, 2012, 11:10 PM:

quote:
Now, Steve, please remember that Marketing always use thin stock resulting 800' rel can take 55 - 60 minutes film (if full - equal to three parter). So Austin 2 800' can be a full movie.

Interesting!

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 27, 2012, 11:11 PM:

My print still projects very well on the big screen. And I am happy with it I only have about a $35 investment in it.
Austin

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 27, 2012, 11:16 PM:

quote:
a $35 investment in it.

That is a real steal price. May I know if you get it from Ebay?

Steve, regarding 3 parter of Marketing release on a 800' reel has been discussed many times in this forum.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 27, 2012, 11:19 PM:

It was on eBay but I traded up for it and with the trading and everything to get it that's about all I had invested. I was mainly wanting to know if this is the full feature. I should note that it was originally 4X400' reels and is on 2 800' reels.
Austin

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 28, 2012, 01:16 AM:

Marketing released 4 version of this title:

1. 200 feet
2. 400 feet
3. 3 x 400'
4. Full feature (which I guess is 6 x 400')

So I don't know how you can say 4 x 400'.

Cheers,

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 01:19 AM:

In the 2 800' reels there are 2 splices at 400' each.

Posted by Greg Marshall (Member # 1268) on August 28, 2012, 02:40 AM:

Austin,

I've had several of the Marketing prints through my years of collecting. Marketing released most of the 'Grease' prints on a thin polyester stock, on 4x400' reels, very full reels. The prints I had had varying degrees of color loss, some were Eastman prints, some SP. I don't believe Marketing ever released this title on a low-fade stock. Glad you ran the print to find it was the full feature, as a 2x800 set would be just that.

I've since replaced my Marketing prints with a Derann Scope/LPP print, which was a desire for a few years.

$35 was a bargain, truly. Prints I've sold have averaged $100 to $125, depending on condition.

Enjoy!

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 02:47 AM:

Wow thanks for the help [Smile]

Austin

Posted by John Yapp (Member # 2873) on August 28, 2012, 03:18 AM:

Hi Austin
I have the marketing film 4x400ft version, which I have always taken to be the whole feature. The film is very thin, and each of the reels last over 27 minutes.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 03:34 AM:

How is the color? Any screenshots ?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 28, 2012, 03:56 AM:

Marketing Films I think were the first company to release their
films on Estar stock.The length of the film was printed on the box
as 110 M, and it was possible to squeeze 3x400' onto an 800'
spool.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 04:09 AM:

How do I keep the colors looking good on my print?

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on August 28, 2012, 04:25 AM:

I have Marketing #2402 which although in a 400' box is only on a 200' spool. It is on 1979 SP stock and the colour is brilliant.

Which brings me to always smile when I see the box with its alternative title of "Brillantina".

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 04:28 AM:

Wow that's interesting I'd love to see a 200' box that matches the reel do you know if all of the digests from marketing are like this ?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on August 28, 2012, 08:52 AM:

My 4x400' Marketing print of Grease is complete. The funny thing is that Marketing shipped the thin stock features in the same boxes so that they're half empty. I first thought "Where's the rest of it?"
My SP print is fairly warm.

Doug

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 28, 2012, 09:12 AM:

I think people have different opinion in saying fade, warm, good or excelent color. To me I grade the color with this;

1. Faded (as we always found on old Eastman), no color left
2. Warm (normally Kodak SP), where we can see green, blue, yellow, etc but not strong
3. Good (later stock, Fuji or AGFA) all colors are present but not vibrant. It can be pale
4. Excellent (LPP and later AGFA, Kodachrome). No fade, no issue at all, just like current DVD

So I am also curios to know if there is Kodak SP with brilliant color. Maurice, Can you do some acreen shots if you have tinw please.

Cheers

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 28, 2012, 10:30 AM:

Hello Winbert,you've forgotten the infamous Red print,which is
worse than faded,I've come across faded that actually is quite
acceptable, with a hint of colour left.The red print has no colour
just red,and can be pulled round a bit with the correct colour filters.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on August 28, 2012, 12:02 PM:

I purchased this film over a year ago and originally it was advertised as the full marketing feature, mounted on 2 x 800ft spools, it was not the feature, part 4 or 5 was missing. Even on polyester film this feature would not fit onto two 800ft spools. Fortunatly it came from a reputable dealer who refunded us our money.
The original full feature was released by Derann in Scope on 7 x 400ft spools. Last year i purchased the full scope feature and it was suplied to me via steve at the Reel image in the us and came mounted on two nice full 1200ft spools with the added bonus of being re-recorded in stereo. A superb 8mm release with pin sharp image and excellent sound.
I have to say though that the marketing featurette we had did have very good picture and sound.

Posted by Greg Marshall (Member # 1268) on August 28, 2012, 12:06 PM:

Austin.... keeping your prints in a cool, low-humid climate will help. Although I don't have the ability to do this, some keep their prints stored in a fridge. I'm unsure as to what temperature, though.

Tom.... sounds like that specific print was missing some footage. I've had 3 of the Marketing prints, and all three would mount on 2, 800' reels, so it can happen. I believe that early in the run, they were printing on thicker stock. Grease was released on 7 reels, theatrially, and I've heard of Marketing shipping on 7 reels, then went to the thinner stock and put the feature on 4 reels. 'Saturday Night Fever' was released by them on 7 reels, but I don't think they printed on thin stock... longer running time on that one too.

I also have Derann's scope version, and was released on the 7 academy reels, cue marks, and all, and since this is a thicker stock, will take 2, 1200' reels to mount for long play.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 28, 2012, 12:36 PM:

quote:
Hello Winbert,you've forgotten the infamous Red print,

Hugh I rather say red print = faded. So it is no. 1

I may open a new thread about this to avoid more OOT.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 28, 2012, 01:01 PM:

It should be noted that while Winbert is right about this being released before LPP, Agfa and Fuji were around as well, and I have heard factually from a few collectors that they're prints of "War of the Worlds" (the 3X400ft edition) are on low fade.

Remember, there were low fade stocks before LPP on super 8, and while fuji can fade, sometimes (depending of the year of the stock) to having a purplish hue, Agfa still remains brilliant. I have two standard 8mm Disney shorts "Clock Cleaners" and "Moose Hunters" and they haven't faded a bit, and they are from a quite a few years back before the advent of LPP.

I have been impressed with markwting Films prints in general. The prints are quite sharp and the mono sound is truly excellent, but at times, (as has been commented on here) the film stocks have let down the prints.

Curiously, the different cuts of the prints can have widely varying stocks. The 3X400ft of "War of the Wolrds" is on a low fade stock, but the full feature by Marketing, was on quick fade eastman, so collecting the 3X400ft makes much more sense than trying to find a perfect color feature of this title.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on August 28, 2012, 01:29 PM:

Osi, indeed the "War of the World" you are referring is the one I wrote here:

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005211

The screen shots are there and you will see excellent color, but here is again:

And as Adrian confirms there, it is on AGFA. As I stated earlier AGFA is a brand name, so there is AGFA in 1978 (or what ever) and AGFA 1980s. I think this print was printed on later AGFA stock at the same time with "the Raiders of the lost ark".

But again, if you see those Film Office released in 1970s were also on AGFA but they tend not to be strong like the 1980s AGFA. So I would grade those prints from AGFA 1970s as "good" (no. 3)

Here is my AGFA that is faded now (ROTLA):

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003953

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 28, 2012, 02:35 PM:

The way I describe them Winbert would be ; RED PRINT, a film
that has faded totally red with no other colour at all.
A FADED or PINK print is one that has lost some but not all it's colour,some blue or yellow may remain.
A TURNING or WARM print, is one where the colour is not quite
true,especially the flesh tones and the blacks have a colour tinge,
but is still acceptable.
Obviously the best prints to aim for are the IBs ,LPPs ,Agfa or
Fuji's.Some 8mm features were printed on reversal stock.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 02:39 PM:

How do I get the best screen shots?

Posted by Chris Fries (Member # 2719) on August 28, 2012, 05:23 PM:

Austin,

Did you trade with tguinan for this film? If so, it is the same print I bought last year. I thought the color was good but the problem with it was the sound kept cutting out on reel 4. At the time I did not have a good projector for re-recording so I returned it. I saw it show up on eBay last week with a starting price of $25. I put it on my watch list. It was gone a few days later. "This listing was ended by the seller because the item is no longer available." I suppose if I really wanted it back I should have bid when I first saw it. Problem is, the Chinon 1200 I use for re-recording is broken. Even though I can get great sound from my laserdisc, I do not have another sound projector with variable speed control.

I am curious as to how much it would have gone for if the auction hadn't ended early. I paid about $80 for it.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 05:28 PM:

Yes it is the same print [Smile]

Posted by Greg Marshall (Member # 1268) on August 28, 2012, 06:03 PM:

Austin,

Lance Alspaugh has done many re-records for me. He actually did the work on my Grease/Scope print from Derann. Amazing difference that a booming stereo mix makes! If your print has sound issues, you may want to consider having it remixed. Based on his charges, it would probably cost you $70-$80 bucks to test and lay the tracks, as long the sound issues are from dropouts in the sound, not inferior mag stripe that may be coming off. That would definitely add value back to your print, especially when it comes time to sell it (if you do).

Lance charges per minute of running time, not by the foot, which makes it fair. He will listen to you about your issues on the print, test the tracks, and will report back to you if he feels the stripe will take a remix well or not. He'll then leave it up to you to proceed. He's a forum member here. If you contact him, be sure to tell him I sent you.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 07:36 PM:

How much do you think it would cost for 1 400' reel?

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on August 28, 2012, 09:36 PM:

If the reel needs to be re-recorded, then you didn't really get a Bargain. And since the film is a musical, the soundtrack is more important than it normally would be. I wouldn't just re-record Reel 4, because the sound quality will be vastly different from the other 3 Reels. Its best to do the whole film. Unfortunately, that means you didn't get much of a Bargain when you figure in the cost of re-recording the track. But its a good idea to have the reel checked as the soundstripe may be faulty.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 09:55 PM:

I think I'm gonna keep this One so the sound problem I can live with I'm happy with the print its not mint but its a movie I really like and will enjoy for a long time
Austin

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on August 28, 2012, 10:39 PM:

You can always upgrade the print or possibly find another Reel 4 as well. Since its not mint and its not on Low Fade stock, re-recording the entire film may not be worth it. But it can't hurt to look into having the one reel re-recorded in Mono to more closely match the sound quality of the other 3 reels.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 10:43 PM:

Yes that sound like a plan. As far as having it for myself Im happy with it for right now its still very view able [Smile]

Austin

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on August 28, 2012, 10:53 PM:

My Reel 4 has a different volume than the other 3 and has a bit of damage. But I am keeping my print as well. I might upgrade or replace the damaged portion from the 3 part version. But I am in no hurry to do so.

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 10:54 PM:

If you ever find a cheap one I need reel 3 [Big Grin]

Austin

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on August 28, 2012, 10:58 PM:

Now I am confused; Reel 4 needs to be re-recorded. What is wrong with Reel 3?
[Confused]

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 28, 2012, 11:00 PM:

Sorry to be confusing my reel 3 needs rerecorded not reel 4
Austin

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 29, 2012, 01:31 PM:

Thanks for those screenshots again Winbert. I have always been mystified by that color fade on your Raiders (if you still have it). I have always thought that it must have been something to do with enviroment over it being just a bad print run, which can honsetly happen, no matter the print stock.

Man! Would I love to get that "War of the Worlds" 3X400ft! One of those "dream" titles!

Posted by Austin Holcomb (Member # 2507) on August 29, 2012, 02:45 PM:

Osi I too would love to have war of the worlds in my collection [Smile]

Posted by John Yapp (Member # 2873) on August 29, 2012, 02:59 PM:

Austin,
I have just listed my copy of Grease on Ebay. You can see screenshots here.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/330786043321?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 29, 2012, 07:10 PM:

On the subject of film fade, I viewed my old std 8mm print of
"Jason & the Argonauts",which I last run about 9 months ago
and found that reel 2 has gone red,3 & 4 are turning, but part
1 is perfect.This little film is 40 years old and has been shown
countless times,but has held up well.To soften the blow,my
better half, purchased the 16mm print that was on ebay for me
which was a Fuji print from 2007 and the colour is gorgeous
as good as Deranns feature. So the std 8 version,all parts purchased within months of each other all at different stages
of fading.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on August 30, 2012, 03:38 PM:

Hugh - are you saying you have a 'Jason' 16mm feature that was definitely printed in 2007? If so, it's astonishing that this was printed so recently and I can only assume it was done 'to order' for a collector.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 30, 2012, 06:40 PM:

Hi Adrian,well according to the film analysis site I was looking at
it said that the Fuji film stock is followed by two digits that
specify the year of printing, on this copy it has Fuji 07.Which I
would have thought meant 2007.The colour is excellent,and
the film has been very well looked after,no lines or splices.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on September 01, 2012, 06:27 AM:

Hugh - That's amazing, you must have found it almost unbelievable when you saw it. No doubt it's a polyester print and it may be no coincidence that the German lab use Fuji for 16mm colour trailer releases. Other than about 3 features from 2007 that an Australian 16mm library have, your print is the only evidence I've come across of a colour feature being printed on 16mm after 2006, and it's something I've done quite a bit of research on.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on September 02, 2012, 04:19 PM:

Hi Adrian,to say I was chuffed was an understatement, the original
advert is still on ebay,the gent was a Parisian, who kept saying
in the ad it was brand new,but wasn't quite sure of the stock.
Myself,I wasn't too concerned what filmstock it was, the frame
shots looked excellent.On checking the tails,it read FUJI 07.
The print is very clean,no splices & begins and ends on fades at
spool changes.I already have another two on 16mm,one red and
the other on the turn.I think this print will do my time here on
Earth,and of course Derann's print.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on September 04, 2012, 04:17 PM:

Hugh that sounds like a great print, you lucky thing.
We have jason on super 8mm on a full 800ft spool made up of the extra long part one which Derann released for a short while,(Battle with Talos in full with all front credits, superb print),plus parts 2.3.and 4. We recently purchased a good part 4 so the reel is generally very good and with the 400ft part one is a much more satisfying edition [Wink]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 04, 2012, 05:09 PM:

John,
Based on the screenshots on ebay, I would describe your film as heavily faded.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2