This is topic Derann Star Wars Feature On Ebay UK in forum 8mm films for sale/trade/wanted at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on March 01, 2017, 03:21 PM:
Not my own auction but sure to be of interest to many collectors here - there is currently an excellent Derann 'scope Star Wars feature on Ebay UK starting at £399:
Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on March 01, 2017, 05:07 PM:
Nothing to do with me either, but it was on 4x 600' spools, but now mounted on 2x 1200' spools.
Good luck if you are bidding!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 01, 2017, 05:15 PM:
The Q & A's after Ian's advert are hilarious!
Who'd want to be a dealer? 😂😂
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on March 01, 2017, 05:19 PM:
No bidding from me as I already have Star Wars myself it just seemed logical to mention it here as others have done so in the past when it has been priced much higher - I thought considering the around £900 it has sold for a number of times previously on Ebay that the starting price of this print seemed fair.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 01, 2017, 05:28 PM:
It is,but Ian knows what he is doing by placing this one on ebay instead of here, just like every other dealer has done in the recent past.
When Ian's ebay sales previously reached very high amounts, all were started at very reasonable prices.
Can't say fairer than that!
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 03, 2017, 11:08 AM:
... let the bidding start! Yarrr! an let the Ian profit me hearties!
Yarr, Jim Boy, Yarrr!
Sorry, I'm just in a goofy mood! I always love watching these get bid up and you're right, VERY smart to put it up on ebay as, you'll only get film lovers on the forum's, but STAR WARS is the kind of title that people who don't even collect films will buy, just to say that they own an actual print of a beloved film!
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 03, 2017, 11:28 AM:
I think its a bit of a joke myself, its a second hand product of around 30 years +. Its at a good,(very good), start price, if you want it bid, if you want a brand spanking new print without a mark on it dont bid. Simples!
BTW, I Dont mean its a joke being on ebay,i mean the thick and fast questions, people want a 30 year old print to be brand new, it aint happening.
Its like the dickheads we get in our place in the car dealership and there buying a 4/5 year old car and pick at the most ridiculous things, i say, try the showrooms where you will find brand new cars.
[ March 03, 2017, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Tom Photiou ]
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on March 03, 2017, 01:27 PM:
You are spot on there Tom - Ian's clear but basic film condition descriptions never attempt to instil the false high expectations that some sellers on here do and I wish him every success and hope he gets a good price for it.
None of that 'Stunning' / 'Mint' / 'LPP' (not!) hyperbole from Ian - thankfully just good old fashioned top notch customer service both before AND after the sale.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 03, 2017, 02:55 PM:
I don't think there is anything wrong in describing a 30yr print as "like new" or even "near mint", so long as it is!
I have a fair few that I'd happily use these descriptions to describe them.
In fact a few, really are like when they first arrived on your doorstep, cellophane and all.
Not bad for a 30yr old useable item prone to wear, and all credit to their previous owners when they do show like this.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 04, 2017, 04:58 AM:
My much more modest film from Ian this week is absolutely great, and just as he said. Lovely order and low fade colour.
Chuffed to bits. Always nice to deal with too.
Also a great litle bit of buzz in the hobby just now too.
PS safe to say I will never be owning a copy of Star Wars though.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 04, 2017, 06:03 AM:
Probably nor me given the prices these fetch!
I like Star Wars but no more than many many other films.
Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on March 04, 2017, 12:01 PM:
Price now £439
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 04, 2017, 12:27 PM:
Long long way to go yet Melvin.😊
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 04, 2017, 02:50 PM:
Star Wars fans might be better to wait for the NEW prints that
will be released in 3 months time via Reel Image.
Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on March 04, 2017, 04:37 PM:
Very good point David, but will they listen......
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 05, 2017, 08:10 AM:
Its being re released??? This original version or the sprused up one? Thats interesting.
Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on March 06, 2017, 03:14 PM:
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 06, 2017, 04:19 PM:
Could easily go to 1500 by the end. This man's prints are MINT from my own observations.
Only ever run on "safe" machines by all accounts!
"I like Star Wars, but no more than many many other films".
It will never be me at these prices, not even if I won the euro jackpot.
As Tommy Cooper once said, "it's not the principle, it's the money!"
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 07, 2017, 08:29 AM:
Well done to Ian.
However at these prices it should have been a complete feature
print of ... ' ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD ' that sold.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 07, 2017, 08:33 AM:
It's the pre-striped stock that people want David. You won't get this ever again I suspect.
You can develop a sensational Stereo track on these for sure!
Something that's highly unlikely using today's modern grey paste etc etc.
Didn't even noticed it had finished until reading your post above David. That's how much interest I personally have in Star Wars for a bag of sand!
[ March 07, 2017, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 07, 2017, 11:38 AM:
Yes, most well done Ian! (great to back into super 8 ... eh?)
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 07, 2017, 02:56 PM:
Andrew I couldn't care less if any film is on pre-striped
stock or mono or stereo.
I don't like any film that much to pay that price for on
Now I might pay that for a print of say for example
' Lawrence Of Arabia ' on 35mm or 70mm or even 16mm but 8mm
No way .
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 07, 2017, 03:09 PM:
Have to agree with you on this David. This is why my Brother keeps deciding yes or no to sell his copy. At the end of the day its a movie. As often said before there are limits and reality checks in life. Great for any seller though and easy to see why a few long term collectors are letting go some very sought after titles.
Have to say, in its own right it is a reasonably entertaining film, my Brother is the bigger fan, its great to see it on the big screen,One of the attractions of the super 8 feature is the fact that it is the original untouched 1977 version. Many many fans want this. Once George Lucas modified it with improved SFX later on in years he vowed never to allow the original 1977 version to be re released ever. Disney are also unable to get the untouched original re released so our super 8 version is very often the one the star wars fanatics want
At the end of the day the improved version was George Lucas's actual image of what he wanted, the SFX just weren't quite there in the original release.
Posted by David Guest (Member # 2791) on March 07, 2017, 06:12 PM:
I don't care how much a 8mm film sells for but blow the picture up to about 8ft and it will like watching a film with sand in your eyes
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on March 07, 2017, 06:24 PM:
I take it you haven't seen the print of Titanic on Super 8. I have on a 12ft screen. Really really nice.. no sand either.
Posted by David Guest (Member # 2791) on March 07, 2017, 06:29 PM:
no chance the quality must be terrible on a 12ft screen trying to project a big picture through a small image of film
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 12:43 AM:
You'd be surprised David. Naturally, if you're sat on top of the screen then of course it wouldn't look brilliant, just as any film projected image wouldn't.
But if you sit 2 or more screen widths away from the screen, as recommended, the image quality can look absolutely superb!
The screenshots I always post are around 8ft wide for a flat film and I think many look rather nice as you have commented yourself occasionally David.
Admittedly, earlier film stocks from the 70's and even earlier can look grainy and many of the Walton prints at times reveal this grain, but by the time the film stocks advanced from around 85 onward, there are many fine grain and well saturated super 8 prints to be had and some can look amazing from such a tiny frame, even on relatively large screens.
Posted by David Guest (Member # 2791) on March 08, 2017, 06:50 AM:
I would love some one to come to blackpool on the Friday night in November and project a 60min or so film on super 8 on my 12ft screen
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 08:52 AM:
I thought David Watson already had done?
Keith W will show you how it's done David. He is the master of S8.
Posted by Simon McConway (Member # 219) on March 08, 2017, 09:53 AM:
You'll be there Andrew?
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 10:38 AM:
You never know Simon.
Either way Simon, it matters not whether I'm there or not, only that you all enjoy yourselves!😊😊
Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 08, 2017, 11:29 AM:
Not being a fan of the movie, I did not realise that this is the only existence of the original 77 film. Come to think of it, I didn't realise that there WAS an original '77 version.
Has Lucas ever tried to interfere with circulation of these prints?
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 08, 2017, 11:38 AM:
I've wondered about that myself Micheal.
The 1977 version has been shrouded in mystery for years. It's in the "Cineavision" anamorphic format instead of the normal scope format.
Now, there was an official 400ft Cineavsion digest, (which is the same edit as the Ken Films STAR WARS part 2 digest, in scope, not Cineavision ... my guess being that they simply reprinted the Cinevision digest but came in a little bit on the image), but,
... being that this feature print (printed on L.P.P. film stock! YAY!), was in the Cineavision super 8 film process, and no one but Cineavision actually used the pocess, the print was no doubt an "underground' printing. Curious thought as L.P.P. film stock dodn't become available until 1982.
It should be noted that there was also a Cineavision feature print of "Empire Strikes Back" but sadly, it was not printed on L.P.P. but instead, Kodak SP and has started to brwon these days.
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 08, 2017, 11:39 AM:
Alan is that because "the sand" has sunk just like the Titanic ?
If my memory is correct I can recall seeing a fair amount of
film grain on the original 35mm cinema release prints we had of
'Star Wars' in 1977.
'The Empire Strikes Back' had a fair bit of sideweave on some
scenes when we first showed it.
So things have never been that rosey from day one regarding
Does anyone have a 1977 original print of Star Wars on 35mm ?
I can bet you its starting to fade.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 08, 2017, 12:56 PM:
Not necessarily. I've seen just this last year, a 35MM print of STAR WARS that was offered on ebay, (forget how much it went for) and it was low fade. I forget the film stock but it really looked great.
Poeple for get that low fade film stock existed before the early 80's, and not just on Kodachrome, of course.
Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on March 08, 2017, 01:26 PM:
In Europe, some of the original release prints of STAR WARS were actually Technicolor IB prints. Some of those are still around, and they look fantastic.
The nice thing about the IB process is that it somewhat de-emphasized filmgrain
See for yourself:
Although the article states that there was just one IB Tech print made, that is off course hard to believe as no one would go through the trouble of creating the expensive color separations just for one print. In fact there are reports of other IB Tech prints of STAR WARS
Posted by Oemer Yalinkilic (Member # 86) on March 08, 2017, 01:42 PM:
Here is a clip from my -ib print.
Of course, they are lot of IB´s around. I heard from 3 other IB prints.
Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on March 08, 2017, 01:57 PM:
Hi Oemer, off course I knew you had one, but did not dare to 'out' you here Glad you share this nice clip.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 01:59 PM:
Did not dare??
Why what's the big secret??
What does it matter who has what?
Share and share alike is my favourite motto.
Posted by Oemer Yalinkilic (Member # 86) on March 08, 2017, 02:11 PM:
Of course, I have not a problem to say what I have, but Alexander is right, they are lot of collectors they don´t want make public his collection.
It can be also a problem to screen Star Wars in public.
This clip is from a private screening in theater, but maybe George Lucas or Disney see it different.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 08, 2017, 02:36 PM:
It does make you laugh a bit why this title is so tightly kept etc, its 40 years old!!!! who cares where its shown now, there a shed load of sequels and prequels a TV series, it made Mr Lucas one very wealthy bloke, he should relax a bit now and let Disney do the business.
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 08, 2017, 02:52 PM:
I can tell you now that there is no way we showed an IB TECH
copy on 35mm at our site.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 03:02 PM:
So ok then Oemer, accepting what you're saying,..then please explain to me, like I'm a five year old,..why on earth it is that SOME collectors don't like to admit what they have?
What on earth is the issue??
What on earth are they afraid of????
As I say, who cares whatever anyone else is fortunate enough to have???
But it's still nice to share the treasure and allow others to see JUST how good these things are or can be!
Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on March 08, 2017, 03:18 PM:
The thing with 35mm prints, unlike 16mm or super 8 prints is that they were never 'for sale'. 35mm prints were always the property of the producer or studio.
So, all surviving 35mm prints residing in private collections, got there in an 'unorthodox' way... Thats is why 35mm collecting was always a 'hush hush' affair.
Off course nowadays many industry people acknowledge the importance of private collectors when it comes to rescuing or restoring titles in peril.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 03:36 PM:
Right, I get all that Alexander, and of course I have heard that said many many times, to the point where I think to myself, if these don't belong to you, why have them in the first place if you have to hide the fact?
We aren't talking 35mm here, we are talking Super 8mm often or 16mm.
So then what's the excuse??
Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on March 08, 2017, 03:39 PM:
I was referring to Oemers 35mm print of STAR WARS. And off course there is no reason to be secretive about ones super 8 or 16mm collection.
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 08, 2017, 03:44 PM:
Going to pop it on Blu Ray tonight on LCD.
Has anyone done a comparative viewing with the 8mm or Blu Ray on a high spec LCD projector ?
Be interesting to hear how both compare.
PS obviously the BR is the tinkered version.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 03:46 PM:
I have what you ask for on Blu Ray Mark, but I'm only running film tonight. I will gather some images from the Blu Ray soon if this is a worthwhile as an exercise?
Obviously Blu Ray will beat 35mm let alone Super 8mm hands down just for image quality and clarity of image every day of the week on a decent HD HOME CINEMA dedicated projector.
It means nothing to those who want the film.
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on March 08, 2017, 04:20 PM:
16mm great gauge everything in black and white or faded colour and nothing after 1980. If you do get a non fade print or something recent like before 1980 upto 1985 you pop one of your kidneys in the post to pay for the bugger.
Added to the fact you will have arms like Popeye and a double hernia to look forward to really can't beat it.
35mm I think I would have to be single or recently divorced / widowed not get out much and have understanding neighbours as I play the Odeon plus have cement floors or live in a bungalow.
Titanic not much sand there . Dodgy rivets metal fatigue and a big ice cube😀😀
Posted by David Guest (Member # 2791) on March 08, 2017, 04:21 PM:
yes kieth did project at blackpool on super 8 about 6ft picture and about 10ft from the screen still waiting for offers to project on Friday night for 60mins
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 08, 2017, 04:26 PM:
Keith's your man David,either that or David W again.
I'm sure Simon can also add to the mix with his Fumeo.
Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 09, 2017, 11:33 AM:
Aren't most 16mm prints iffy too. For rental only not that many were legally for sale.
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 09, 2017, 12:40 PM:
Yes David most 16mm feature prints were never for sale to the public. They were licenced for hire only.
Some were sold however to private collectors via the back door
when they were meant to be destroyed because of wear or the licence had expired.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on March 09, 2017, 04:12 PM:
when Derann first started selling them on there lists they were told by one of the major movie company's, stop selling them or lose all your 8mm rights, it was a number of years before they started selling them again. The first time around they were exceptionally cheap. That was my first dabs at 16. Freebie & the Bean, £30, Sweeney 2 £55, they had very good colours to, two films i wish i hadn't sold.
Posted by David Guest (Member # 2791) on March 09, 2017, 04:20 PM:
I remember a bout about 20 years deran sold a full wall of 16mm features they had about 400 piled up 30.00 each or 4 for 100 .I remember buying about 300 pounds worth and my father to I still have couple they were all good titles I think they came from a hire company
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on March 09, 2017, 04:28 PM:
But as you say Tom, they were risking their legitimate Super 8mm license, and to that end, it does make you wonder why they ever bothered, especially as they were clearly not making much from any at these prices.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 09, 2017, 04:50 PM:
This article is the best way to describe the above situation (owning 35mm films):
The Corvette may have been transfered many times form one hand to another, perhaps has gone through 5 owners.
The 3rd, 4th, and 5th owner may have paid a sum of money to the previous owner.
But the question is what happen between the 1st owner to 2nd owner? Did the 2nd owner bought it or stole it? If the 2nd owner bought it from the 1st owner, than that was a legit Corvette. But if the 2nd owner stole it then 3rd, 4th, or 5th owner may got in trouble.
The 1st owner can come to the 5th owner and claimed it back without need to pay anything.
And that is happening in the story of Corvette above.
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on March 12, 2017, 05:21 AM:
You have summed it all up nicely Winbert.
If someone steals or gives away any of my property without
my consent the property is still technically mine.
No matter how much hands it has passed through over time.
Posted by Gilbert Lambert (Member # 5403) on March 12, 2017, 09:26 AM:
Well ... If something is stolen from you, you need to file a complaint about the "item" stolen from you and a clear description plus a number of production if it contains one. A car has a chassis number etc, . I had a Peter Pan print in 16mm from Disney that was given by Disney to a very famous movie star. Many prints were produced and given to movie producers. It has to be proven that a movie print is stolen. Otherwise I think there's doubt. That is why suddenly eBay started to allow prints even in 35mm to be sold on their site. I remember the days when ebay closed accounts from people selling movie prints. Even selling trailers was problematic for several years. Today nobody seems to care anymore.
Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on March 12, 2017, 12:57 PM:
This print of star wars was relisted, and then sold for £880.00 with a buy it now price on the 10th march, so still a fantastic price but again the ebay bid bid bid fever can take over.
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 13, 2017, 01:50 AM:
Gilbert, we are talking 35MM here. 16MM is a different case, it was once sold so we could buy it. Universal 8 was selling both super 8mm and 16mm version. It was advertised in its catalog.
quote:If it is intended, film can also be indentified where, when and who print it. Every print will have the batch printing numbers, plus lab who done it. Even sometime slitting numbers.
a clear description plus a number of production if it contains one. A car has a chassis number etc,
quote:That is no wonder, Ebay is just looking for money. Some people even selling counterfeit (fake/copy) DVD in Ebay. Remmember Paul Foster was arrested for doing so?
That is why suddenly eBay started to allow prints even in 35mm to be sold on their site.
Read this post: http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003798
Posted by Ian O'Reilly (Member # 76) on March 13, 2017, 07:42 AM:
Hi yes I did realist Star Wars as a buy it now price as a second chance offer owing to the fact that I could not make contact with the winning bidder, however should he want to pay I can still send him another copy I have.
Just as good.
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC