Print or Dupe

[David Pringle]

Can someone enlighten me on the difference between a print and a dupe. How to identify and what are the processes involved. Thanks

[Alan Paterson]

A print is usually of good quality and has been made from a high quality master like a CRI (Colour Reversal Intermediate) or from a neg. A Dupe is usually of inferior quality (colours not so good and soft image) and has been made by copying a print. If I ever received a dupe I usually sent it back unless the seller had specifically said it was a dupe (but then I wouldn't have bought it in the first place). Hope this helps.

[Kenneth Horan]

It can get a bit confusing since collector’s terms do not have the same definitions as professional film laboratory terms. In 16mm film collector jargon, an “original print” is a 16mm positive print made from a 16mm negative which was optically reduced from a 35mm fine grain which was made from a 35mm printing negative or possibly even the original edited camera negative. A “dupe” is a 16mm positive print made from a 16mm negative which was made from a 16mm print. A “reversal dupe” is a 16mm reversal print (using reversal stock) made from a 16mm positive print. A “reduction”, in collector’s jargon, is a 16mm positive print made from a 16mm negative which was optically reduced from a 35mm projection print. A “print down” is a 16mm print optically reduced directly from a 35mm printing negative or possibly even the edited camera negative. The best quality will usually be an “original print” or a “print down” but I have seen “dupes” which when done properly can look as good as an “original print”. Usually the less generations, the better the quality, but lab work plays an important part too.

[David Pringle]

Thanks for the info. Other than the appearance of the projected image, colour, sharpness etc, is there a way to tell if it's a print or dupe?
I have acquired a lot of films that I want to sell. I can describe the physical condition, lines, splices, and physical damage, it would be good to state print or dupe.

I have films with countdowns that have been spliced on before the titles, others where the countdown has lab info and exposure flashing at the head, and leads into the titles with no splice. Some show info on original reel numbers starting at 1 at the head and 4 at the end of a 1600ft spool of film.

I assume there was a fair amount of illegal copying of films for the 16mm market. Would these have been exclusively dupes? I have some titles that have come from Kit Parker and Twyman. Would these outfits deal in prints or dupes?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

The answer is that you cannot tell it as soon as the quality is at least „okay“ (image and sound).
However, a bad quality is only an indicator as some labs sold bad prints at heavily reduced prices instead of throwing them away.
When the film is on reversal print stock, then this is also another indication but no proof. E.g. many S8-prints officially and legally sold by mundus films here in Germany are on reversal print stock.

[Ken Finch]

It is almost impossible to answer your question David. So much depends on when and where you obtained your films from. All I can tell you is that in the U K.prior to the advent of video most 16mm feature films were only available for hire from the libraries of various film distributers. So today the films available are from ex libraries of various kinds which included sponsored libraries, e.g, Petroleum films bureau, or television companies and County educational film libraries. I used to use a number of different libraries from the 1960s until the advent of VHS and feature films were always on 1600ft spools and count downs were only at the very beginning of each spool.

[Ugo Grassi]

....

Hello Alan, there is an answer for you in the messages part of the forum