8mm Forum: Lab Printing Of Package Movies

This is topic Lab Printing Of Package Movies 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=008663

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on October 19, 2013, 05:17 AM:

As I mentioned in another thread I have just bought a brand new super 8 Castle print which has never been projected. I went to trim the leader and discovered that the first inch or so was actually 9mm wide, going in a further inch of two to the proper 8mm. Obviously badly slit.

Futhermore, the first five frames said "The End", and on the sound track side could be seen the ends of perforations.

All this points to multi printing of a release title, both lengthways and sideways.

It would interesting to know if any member knows how such titles were printed, obviously the stock was much wider, and was probably perforated either before or after slitting. 35mm stock perhaps?

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on October 19, 2013, 11:25 AM:

To my little bit knowledge they were done in 2 on 16mm film or 4 on 35mm. And then slit down to 8mm

On ebay a few months ago a 16mm negative was for sale. I believe from Collectors Club this had two 8mm images on it. Although I always thought a 16mm negative was used and this was then printed down to 8mm (Reduction).

Have a look for the Walton booklet that was done after they closed. This had a few different types of film samples.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 19, 2013, 12:36 PM:

He's right. Especially when it comes to standard 8mm, they were printed on that old double sprocket 16MM, the first 16MM that was for home movie collecting, one was printed one direction, while the other was printed opposite, and then, they would just be slit down the middle and sold separately.

Amazingly, every once in awhile, you will actually find these un slit down the middle. The only thing that I can guess is prints that never made it to the distributor, (castle films, for instance) made they're way out of the film lab into some lucky collectors hands.

If I see another one pop up on ebay, I'll buy it, as they HAVE to be very rare!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on October 19, 2013, 03:23 PM:

Osi
If you find such a rare item will you run it on a 16mm projector and close one eye?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on October 19, 2013, 04:39 PM:

That would be something to see!

Two frames wide, two frames high.

Each frame in a column shifted in time just slightly from the one above or below it.

The individual frames would be running double speed since they would be skipping the other frame(s) also on screen at the same time.

One side upside down and running backwards!

Depending on which sprocket holes were first grabbed during threading you'd see either four complete frames or halves of four frames and two complete frames!

-play this scenario out 4 frames wide by 4 tall on 35mm and it would become just plain disturbing!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 20, 2013, 08:37 AM:

Maurice ... you're awesome! what a thought, made me laugh, (and you can't laugh enuf!) [Big Grin]

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on October 20, 2013, 09:51 AM:

You could watch both at the same time if one eye was upside down!

I have a a reel of Castle's Headline edition of The Mummy's Tomb that wasn't split.

Doug

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on October 20, 2013, 09:57 AM:

Doug
Would you think that was printed on pre-perforated stock 16mm wide?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on October 20, 2013, 10:09 AM:

Maurice,

I believe so. It would be the same method that was used for Double 8mm or Double Super 8 film.

Doug

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on October 27, 2013, 05:16 PM:

Some of the formats for printing from the Walton Goodbye pack

16mm to 9.5mm

16mm

35mm with 3 x 9.5mm

35mm to super 8mm x 4

35mm Walton logo

16mm standard 8mm x 2

16mm super 8mm x 2

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 27, 2013, 07:58 PM:

Awesome stuff there, David!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on October 28, 2013, 03:32 AM:

Thank you, David, some very interesting details which can explain a lot of how release prints were obtained.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2