This is topic Aliens - Uncut Theatrical on eBay now. in forum 16mm films for sale/trade/wanted at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002227

---

Posted by Can Sanalan (Member # 5988) on May 10, 2018, 06:57 AM:
 
For those who are interested:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/16MM-FEATURE-Aliens-1986-James-Cameron-Sci-Fi-Classic-LPP-Color-Mylar-Print/153016256117?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D201310 17132637%26meid%3Db8f7256688754525a13405a21e44299d%26pid%3D100033%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D7%26sd%3D153015075735%26itm%3D153016256117&_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042
 

---

Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on May 11, 2018, 04:06 AM:
 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/16MM-FEATURE-Aliens-1986-James-Cameron-Sci-Fi-Classic-LPP-Color-Mylar-Print/153016256117

US Link
 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 11, 2018, 12:02 PM:
 
The bids have now gone up to silly prices again for that copy.

I say that because the film looks faded and has some green tramline scratches on it.

Stupid price to pay for a damaged print.
 

---

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 11, 2018, 01:42 PM:
 
wow, yes i see the emulsion scratch.
 

---

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on May 12, 2018, 11:24 AM:
 
The description says, that there are emulsion lines; so it’s no surprise...
And I think that a scan cannot reflect the real colour.
There are Super-8-prints which are really blue...
 

---

Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on May 12, 2018, 11:27 AM:
 
The film is sold by the film phenon Louis Franchetti

These types of film stock being mylar tend to get scratches easy

I think the print is beautiful
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on May 12, 2018, 03:32 PM:
 
I've seen this print and the color is great. There isn't a faded frame to be found.

Doug
 

---

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on May 13, 2018, 02:05 AM:
 
The price seems about right to me especially nowadays prices seem to have skyrocketed. ALIENS was made in 1986 so there cannot be any fade. Probably just timing for the cool picture it is.

However, this looks like a push in from the hard matted 1:85 film. Here is a screen shot of my ALIENS super 8mm print which you can compare with one of the scans.


 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 13, 2018, 04:35 AM:
 
Okay chaps i accept that the apparent purply fade may be due to the screenshot scans. However it does not change the fact that the print is damaged with tramline scratching.

Also Mylar stock is not more prone to scratching anymore than the the other film stocks.
They are all equally vulnerable to such damage and wear.
 

---

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 13, 2018, 07:03 AM:
 
To be fair to the seller they started off with a low price of just under $50 reading the description so you cant argue with the listing price. What it goes for is up to the buyers and good luck to the seller;)
 

---

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on May 13, 2018, 10:35 AM:
 
I agree with Tom
 

---

Posted by Evan Samaras (Member # 5070) on May 13, 2018, 11:46 AM:
 
Film Stock is marked LPP with a Tri,Cir,Tri date code of 1986 which I guess would match the theatrical release. What is seen may be the scans or actual color lighting of the scene?

Having also watched this print, I don't recall the emulsion scratches being distracting, and they are not everlasting, as described. However, I guess everyone holds a different level of what is acceptable. Some have no issue with fade and/or scratches, while others cannot bare to sit through those flaws.
 

---

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 13, 2018, 01:03 PM:
 
i would imagine its very difficult to expect any 16mm, (or 8 for that matter), without any scratches at all on it,after all, this print is 32 years old now. I'd love to get this on 16 or 8mm but unfortunately, im one of the stubborn old farts that wont pay stupid prices for any film no matter how much i wanted it but for those who do, good on bidding for this one.
 

---

Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on May 14, 2018, 02:27 AM:
 
I think people are just being overly too fussy, if you want something mint and perfect buy a blu ray player and a video projector. I don't consider the print damaged if it has emulation scratches that word is too extreme.
 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 14, 2018, 06:06 AM:
 
Any print that is scratched whether emulsion or base side is a damaged copy.

No ifs or buts or exceptions to that fact !

I know because i am a professional projectionist with 49 years experience behind me.

Also these days there is a good chance that the Blu-Ray transfer may or will be of much greater image quality not only in terms of lack of visible damage but also colour rendition on definition and overall contrast and steadiness on screen that any existing 16mm or Super 8mm prints.
 

---

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 14, 2018, 06:45 AM:
 
Brian, i agree with you to a degree if the film is a few hundred dollars but when its near a grand you would want perfection. Or at least i would, so as you say, rather than pay for a damaged print i would indeed buy the Blu ray and project a perfect image for less than $15
 

---

Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on May 14, 2018, 07:23 PM:
 
I disagree ,Mylar stock is indeed prone to more scarching because its thinner then other stocks. Collectors prices 2000 is alot but for ebay im not surprised.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 14, 2018, 10:14 PM:
 
I'd say the mylar prone to scratching issue is only worth worrying about if you tolerate projectors that are liable to scratch ANY print. If they don't, you can relax unless something goes wrong!

Note the bluish colour on the 16mm prints reinforces that in this instance it's actually correct for the Super 8 prints to be somewhat bluish. I once saw a reel that wasn't quite right because the colour was too warm!

As I struck lucky when this was released and bought a copy that was fine in every respect, I'd be reluctant to 'upgrade' to 16mm even if I saw a more affordable copy, partly because as Larry has pointed out, you lose quite a bit of the edges of the picture. I recall that when I showed it to an audience at home, it felt like the first time that everyone was watching 'the film' as opposed to an 8mm version of the film.
 

---

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 16, 2018, 12:09 PM:
 
I have heard that some of the later stocks scratch easier, ployester LPP and this one here listed. Woulfld this not only become a problem if your projector is worn or has problems as Adrian said?
 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 20, 2018, 04:42 AM:
 
Nonsense ! Mylar stock regardless of how thick it is no more prone to scratching than any other stocks.

It's poor film handling and poor equipment cleanliness that is the cause of scratching.

We showed films on mylar stock for weeks even months and it left our site with no visible scratch damage evident after all those runs.

We did not even need to use Filmguard to "protect " our prints.


 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 20, 2018, 01:52 PM:
 
I see it sold for $2,000. Thats £ 1,484.29p UK.
Plus $ 97.65 postage.

WOW !!!

That amount paid for a damaged copy. Well shut my mouth !
 

---

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on May 20, 2018, 11:55 PM:
 
I totally agree with David regarding the myth that poly stocks scratch more easily - the poly base despite being thinner is the toughest stuff you can possibly put through a projector, to the point that when projecting poly a lost top loop on a single claw Super 8 machine can just as easily break the projector claw as damage the film perfs.

What is true is as poly stock is thinner it is possible with some lenses (not all) for both the base and emulsion side to almost be in focus at the same time - hence any base lines and emulsion scratches will show more clearly on screen than with a thicker acetate based stock.

As a side note in case anyone fancies owning a nearly complete (just reel one missing) 35mm feature print of Aliens feel free to drop me a PM message - or if you have reel one I'd be very interested in buying it to make mine complete.

Kevin
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 21, 2018, 04:43 AM:
 
Prints of ALIENS are liable to have had plenty of rental usage, so I suspect the leading bidders were thinking that they would have great difficulty finding a 16mm print in better condition.

Good point from Kevin - that I've never seen made elsewhere - about base scratching being potentially more in focus than on acetate stock. Some polyester prints are remarkably thin even in comparison to others, so a base scratch could sometimes be unusually close to the emulsion.
 

---

Posted by Brian Stearns (Member # 3792) on May 21, 2018, 11:27 AM:
 
poor film handling and poor equipment cleanliness cause of scratching goes for every type of film.

Its Nonsense to think all stocks are equal in regards to scratching.
 

---

Posted by David Baker (Member # 3259) on May 21, 2018, 12:31 PM:
 
Well then Brian , why not do " the scratch test " on two of your prints and take pics to prove the point you are making ?
I'd love to see the outcome , so this controversial thread can be put to rest .
 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 21, 2018, 04:41 PM:
 
Polyester ( Mylar ) stock is so tough despite being thinner than acetate stocks.

In fact its so tough that during a film wrap around the platter speed control feed module ( brain ) it has been known to pull feed guide rollers of of the wall and put the film projector mech rollers out of alignment.

I know this from personal experience as it has happened to me during a show disruption.

That bloody stock will not snap as it only stretches.

I stand by my original claims having ran all 35 mm and 70mm film stocks including nitrates since starting employment as a film projectionist in 1969.

The same applies to 8mm and 16mm that i have been collecting since 1966. I have simply not experienced that Poly stocks on these gauges are prone to scratching more easily than the acetates.

If they did i would not ever buy a print on poly stock as much as i dislike it.

I am sure other professional operators can support my claims.

Brian can you please give evidence to support your claims regarding the Poly stock scratching more easily than the other film stocks ? I am most interested in this as i have never experienced that.

Kevin and Adrian i agree with those points.

Cheers for your replies guys.
 

---

Posted by David C. Lucidi (Member # 4020) on May 22, 2018, 11:24 AM:
 
It's been discussed in detail over many years, with many posts, and many collectors sharing that mylar does, indeed, scratch easier than acetate. Well, to be correct, 'polyester' film. Mylar was the 3M brand name (and Estar was Kodak's).

Pop over on the 16mm forum, and do various searches on the topic. Not sure if this also applies to 8mm, or 35mm, but in the 16mm world, it has been discussed and many collectors would stand by that statement. There are even cases of other theatre projectionists posting on that forum attesting to it scratching easier as well. One of the projectionists stated that the reason was "Polyester film does tend to scratch easier than acetate film, because the emulsion does not bind as well to the base".

Are that many collectors (and projectionists) wrong? These are guys who spend their lives buying and projecting prints for their personal collection, and share their combined experiences on a forum. That personal combined experience carries considerable weight, including those who also had 4-5 decades of projectionist experience.

And to comment on another point, to claim "Any print that is scratched whether emulsion or base side is a damaged copy" is a drastic stretch of the word 'damaged'. Few prints in 16mm exist without SOME form of an occasional emulsion scratch. Continuous scratch down the middle for 10 mins? Yes, that's damaged. One that appears for 5-10 seconds or less, esp. off to the side? No, that's called USED. Like Brian Stearns said, if you want perfect, go digital. Meanwhile, good luck trying to find a mint 16mm print that was a very hot title, without SOME sort of wear on it. Yes, scratch-free popular title prints in polyester do exist (my copy of Toy Story is one of them) but they certainly are the exception, not the norm in 16mm features. Something with only a few abstract emulsion lines that only last a few seconds would not be considered damaged by the vast majority of 16mm collectors.

And considering that the print was started at $49.99, I would think that the price reflected condition, even tho many watched it at Cinesea on a 9ft screen and didn't have any complaints. The crazy price it sold for was due to someone's desire, but is no reflection on the seller.
 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 22, 2018, 06:48 PM:
 
David that is most interesting what you state there but i still have to disagree with you.

A scratched print is classified as a damaged print here in the UK. No matter how much scratching there may be whether on the base or emulsions side of the copy.

It may be the case that here in the UK our projection standards are a bit more strict and rigorous and the criteria not so lax as it may be in the USA. I don't know that for sure though.

These are standards that have been enforced by The British Kinematograph , Sound and Television Society ( B.K.S.T.S.) and they trained all projectionists to that standard and cover all aspects of projection and film handling.

It took me 3 and a half years to train and obtain my Projectionist Certificate. You could not be employed at one time here in the UK as a projectionist or Chief projectionist in any projection box ( booth ) without one .

The Projectionist Certificate was jointly recognised by not only the Cinema operators such as Rank and the ABC circuit and the Independents but the official Trade Union for Cinema,TV and Theatre employees too. National Association for Television, Theatre and Kinema Employees. ( N.A.T.T.K.E )

However back to my point it cleary states in the B.KS.T.S. Motion Picture Presentation Manual which was our training manual and bible here in the UK that a scratched print is a damaged print.

The main cause of film scratching is caused by lack of keeping all parts of the projector scrupulously clean. Scratching is caused by some extraneous matter coming up against the film on its passage through the projector.

Of course scratching can also be caused in other ways such as careless lacing up, worn projector parts or bad manual film rewinding on the bench , etc .

We had to report any scratched film we received immediately to the Film Renter so that the previous user could be traced and to make sure that what has caused the scratching is found and removed before further damage to other films was done.

Of course if we scratched a print we had to report such damage and give the reasons how and why in a written report.

Film scratching was taken very seriously by the film renters and any projectionist who repeatedly caused such damage for whatever reasons to a print would be sacked and blacklisted from being employed in any projection box in the UK.

Here is a list of what is classified as scratched film damage and its causes :

SCRATCHING :

(A ) May be on either surface and can be broken down into various types.

Continuous straight scratches on either side of the print - typical projector scratches caused by a fault on the machine or dirt or the film coming into contact with something else while running.

Cinch scratches - Short lengthwise scratches usually caused by attempting to tighten the reel by pulling on the outside layer.

Cross Abrasions - The scratches resulting from contact of the entire film surface with the spool flange. Such scratches usually run diagonally across the film from one edge to the other

Random Short Horizontal Scratches - On either surface usually caused by contact of the film with a dirty floor or rewind bench.

So you can clearly see its all down to careful machine maintenance, lacing up and scrupulous cleanliness of the projector and the projection working area.

There is no real reasons other than these why your print may not remain as clean and pristine as digital presentations on screen.

I have in all my decades as a projectionist and collector known of any other causes of film scratching. So be it Nitrate , Acetates , or Polyesters or Mylars they are all just as vulnerable to scratching equally no matter how many runs they might have had.

If the print is scratched in anyway it is considered DAMAGED full stop.


 

---

Posted by David C. Lucidi (Member # 4020) on May 22, 2018, 07:34 PM:
 
No one is debating what causes scratches. What is being debated is whether polyester scratches easier than acetate. There are many that joke that just breathing on polyester will scratch it -- an exaggeration of course. But the point being that given the same set of circumstances where acetate may only get a minuscule scratch that wouldn't even show up upon projection, polyester would leave a long emulsion scratch. Many 16mm collectors would agree with that statement.

You can continuously remind us all of your years experience as a theatre projectionist (35mm and possibly 70mm, I assume). However it doesn't coincide with the topic at hand (which I was clear to specify) -- 16mm polyester. As I already stated in my previous post, "Not sure if this also applies to 8mm, or 35mm, but in the 16mm world, it has been discussed and many collectors would stand by that statement."

Furthermore, this forum (and the other 16mm forums) consist of people buying and selling film for personal use. Few, if any collectors would consider a few seconds worth of hairline scratches (emulsion or base) 'damaged'. The length, location, duration and frequency would determine if the print is considered 'like new', 'some wear', 'worn', 'damaged', etc.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on May 23, 2018, 01:21 AM:
 
The thinner base of Mylar / Estar / Polyester prints may well catch out less film-friendly projectors in the gate area - remember the distance between the flat picture area of the film frame and the metal gate itself is determined by the raised projector gate edges - these are then opened up further when the film is in the gate so the thinner the film the less clearance between the film frame and gate parts. Hence a worn or perhaps less than flat gate would in theory damage a Mylar / Estar / Polyester print more easily than a thicker Acetate based print?

My background in film is as a long term private collector since my late teens so 40+ years - the largest proportion of my Super 8 films are Derann / Red Fox & Kempski features (about 250) and hundreds of shorts all on these Mylar stocks and, even with regular projection, showing no more usage wear and certainly no damage compared to my Acetate prints.

16mm wise only 10% of my collection (again in the hundreds features and shorts) is on these stocks and they show no more wear than my Acetate prints either.

Finally 35mm being newer to me (just a few years) comprising of about 50 / 50 acetate vs modern stocks and again with no wear difference.

How can 16mm be considered a special guage regarding Mylar print wear as the stocks all start the same then are slit to size - specifically Super 8 slit two prints side by side from 16mm stock? Same thickness / emulsion coverage and adhesion, just a different film width.

Have I been exceptionally lucky not to have many badly worn prints? Perhaps some 16mm only collectors have just been less fortunate and found the types of films they like have been run into the ground in previous rental usage, it is difficult to say for certain.

Maybe the 'breath on Poly and it will scratch' mantra was originally started by dealers with shed loads of acetate to sell?

Back to the original thread (Aliens 16mm for sale) I would expect any popular genre (Sci fi, Star Wars / Disney etc) to have just as many bids from non film collectors as film collectors who sadly may well buy the print never to project it but just to add to their existing mountain of cinema memorabilia and 'stuff'. I just hope it went to a real film collector to be projected and enjoyed.

Kevin
 

---

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 23, 2018, 03:31 AM:
 
Whether its the DOMESTIC collectors market or not a scratched print on any gauge is a damaged print regardless of what private collectors criteria might be or think it should be.

If any amateurs private 16mm or any other gauge collectors want to go against the standards and criteria described as film damage by such highly professional bodies such as Technical Advisory Committee of the British Kinematograph , Sound and Television Society then they can do so.

However they are clearly deluded and wrong to do so.

This Polyester / Mylar stock scratching easier than acetates is just a MYTH in my experience.

Our Poly/Mylar prints left our site after weeks or months with no visible scratches evident.

They were ran 4 times a day, 7 days a week , you do the maths for the number of runs per week.

No scratching , no film protection used whatever.

Kevin is correct that most of the 16mm prints for are mostly ex rental stocks or even misused TV copies. The scratch damage on them is the result of poor film handling or worn projectors.

Also my own collection comprises of both types of film stocks on 8mm / 16mm / and 35mm and i have to report that non of my poly 8mm prints bought new show no evidence of scratching any more than my acetates purchased new.

Bottom line film scratching DAMAGE of all types is the end result of particles dirt , grit , dust , and/or negligence by the projectionist. Whether on the machine or the film bench or even during film cleaning and lubing of the print.

So my point is that if you buy a scratched print you are buying a DAMAGED PRINT. There can be no argument or ifs or buts about that FACT regardless of what some ( but not ME one of the FEW ) private film collectors regard as acceptable for them.

It is indeed most unfortunate that most prints i have purchased second hand ( used ) over the decades since 1966 ( pre poly stock era ) on any film gauge have clear evidence of this avoidable print damage. Sometimes i have been lucky though and i do mean sometimes. So it follows have a lot of damaged prints in my collection and so do many others.

However i would never have bought the above 16mm Aliens copy for that amount of cash. It makes me cringe at the thought of someone paying that kind of money for a damaged print unless of course it was an absolutely rare film ( which it is not ) on any movie format be it film disc or even video tape.

But hey -ho its their cash and if they want to blow it on a damaged film print or other stuff such as scratched vinyl LP records or tapes with oxide flaking that's their business.

So i will contribute no more to this topic as the reasons should be obvious.

I think these days in the film forums collecting scene its becoming a case of Inexperienced newcomers Vs Experienced oldies and Amateurs Vs Pros when it comes to advice and opinions. hahahahaha !

My how things have changed.




[ May 23, 2018, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: David Hardy ]
 

---

Posted by David C. Lucidi (Member # 4020) on May 23, 2018, 05:58 AM:
 

quote:

---

The thinner base of Mylar / Estar / Polyester prints may well catch out less film-friendly projectors in the gate area - remember the distance between the flat picture area of the film frame and the metal gate itself is determined by the raised projector gate edges - these are then opened up further when the film is in the gate so the thinner the film the less clearance between the film frame and gate parts. Hence a worn or perhaps less than flat gate would in theory damage a Mylar / Estar / Polyester print more easily than a thicker Acetate based print?

---

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2