8mm Forum: Mix of Stock on one Film

This is topic Mix of Stock on one Film in forum 16mm 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=5;t=001716

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 04, 2017, 02:50 PM:

I have recently been a bit baffled by some 16mm films i see for sale.
Often a pre title sequence may be Eastman stock but the rest of the film is Agfa, other films are first part, (or two) on Eastman the last on excellent Agfa.
Is there a reason this happens? I could understand if it's a mix of two film making up one but usually its one title with mixed stock. Surly these films were never supplied a reel at a time. (Remember some Derann 2 x 400 releases were like this when bought seperatly). [Confused]

Posted by Nigel Higgins (Member # 4312) on December 04, 2017, 05:11 PM:

This normaly happens when a section was damaged beyond repair and film libaries would obtain a new bit from another feature or reel and unfortunately sometimes the stock is different,i have only known this on 16mm films .

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on December 04, 2017, 05:22 PM:

Think of these films as the remnants of what were once thousands and thousands of reels of film with many multiples of each feature in circulation, when 16mm film hire was in its heyday Tom, and you will get a better idea of how these mix and matches happened.

Imagine working at a 16mm hire company in the 60's or 70's - you would have multiple prints of many films out for hire - as they were returned if there was damage or missing sections then one reel could be discarded and another put in to make the feature complete again. At that time fade would not have been an issue so Eastman, Agfa, Fuji reels etc. could and were mixed and sent out for hire.

Now roll forward 30 or 40 years - most of those prints are either in private collections or scrapped - missing footage from other prints may be inter-spliced (usually the first few minutes of a reel due to damage from mis-threading) and also reprinted titles or sections inserted filmed from digital sources - I myself completed one of my features this way recently as it previously had the start and end titles missing.

The sheer amount of 16mm that has been printed is vast, yet much 16mm has been lost due to fading, enforced disposal (by bandsaw etc) due to end of licences / hire companies closing, to the point where any opportunity to make a feature whole, even with mix and match stocks, is one to go for until a perfect print comes along.

Kevin.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 05, 2017, 01:21 AM:

Ahh. Kevin/ Nigel, that now makes perfect sense. Thanks. Funny, i do keep forgetting that these were generally rental prints,

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on December 05, 2017, 01:06 PM:

Tom...Such a thing did not only happen in the 16mm film libraries.

Many times in the past in the Cinemas I have made up an older 35mm print that consisted of the best condition reels of previous surviving copies.

The last one I remember like this was TAXI DRIVER the last 35mm print in the UK for exhibition in cinemas.

Also THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN and even BRAVEHEART .

[Smile]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on December 05, 2017, 02:51 PM:

It does make sense thats for sure. There must have been thousands of copies of some films.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 05, 2017, 07:02 PM:

I had cause to hire some 16mm prints from the former Filmbank library and I recall the invoices including a specific amount for insurance, so that the hirer would not be liable for at least a limited amount of damage. In earlier times when 16mm rental was in full swing and a distributor would not be willing to 'retire' a print, this would lead to a new section being printed in a lab and spliced in. I don't think any great effort was made to ensure that the stock was the same initially used to have.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2