Have I Been Duped?

[Tony Kelly]

Hi Everyone i know this subject may have come up before but i could not find anywhere saying how to spot a dupe apart from the obvious poor picture quality, so recently i bought Flash Gordon 4 x 600ft scope by Derann Films.
While watching it there seemed to be flicker and it happens all way through all 4 reels you can see it on the end credits too, im pretty sure its a dupe as a film by Derann would not look like this, the seller says maybe its just the age of the film he told me it was bought new from Derann, back in the day, is there anyone who knows how to work out if its really a dupe as at times the flicker does distract also the definition to me isnt clear enough it dont seem very sharp the image,i thought maybe my scope lens is the cause of the blurry image but nothing to do with this flicker, any ideas guys if its a dupe, if it is i think i should return it?
Speed of projector is fine all other films dont flicker so its def this film

[Dominique De Bast]

Could it be a rejected print sold at bargain price?

[Tony Kelly]

thats one theory by a friend they call it white box special in uk however the seller told me he bought it from new from Derann back when they were open 35 years ago, maybe he dont recall it was a long time ago.

[Larry Arpin]

It's hard to tell from your video but have you tried to view it on another projector? Does your projector have a 2 or 3 bladed shutter?

[Mike Newell]

It is likely a white box special.

[Tony Kelly]

It's hard to tell from your video but have you tried to view it on another projector? Does your projector have a 2 or 3 bladed shutter?

ive tried on another projector all other scope and non scope prints are fine, im going with it being white box special to be honest

[Rob Young]

Tony, faulty prints did slip through from the labs of course but then it was up to the buyer to return them. Derann were always so good to deal with when a print had to be returned.

Of course, as these were printed in pairs from the 16mm negative, there would be a twin print out there with the same fault.

Returned faulty prints or prints identified with faults from the lab were indeed often sold on as white box specials at reduced prices, and the fault clearly stated.

Maybe the original buyer didn't notice the fault or was prepared to accept it? Or perhaps I'm being too generous. Unusual for it to be on all 4 reels though.

Regarding the softness, how does it compare to other 'scope prints when projected without the anamorphic lens? If this was an earlier print from the late 80's then it would have been printed "wet gate", which disguised a lot of negative marks, but did produce a slightly softer image than later "dry gate" prints.

Does anyone else here have a print to compare. I admit it's a title I never owned.

Just another thought, but I don't suppose it could have been cleaned with a film treatment from that era which has dried badly or unevenly on the film, or damaged the base? I guess that would be a job for a magnifying glass and examining a few feet of the film.

EDIT: Film for the Collector #14 – Derann Vaults

Keith Wilton gave it a rave review in 1989, so if the sharpness is off, then something doesn't seem right.

[Edward Nicielnik]

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/116487603813 here it is

[Tony Kelly]

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/116487603813 here it is

thats it lol

[Tony Kelly]

Tony, faulty prints did slip through from the labs of course but then it was up to the buyer to return them. Derann were always so good to deal with when a print had to be returned.

Of course, as these were printed in pairs from the 16mm negative, there would be a twin print out there with the same fault.

Returned faulty prints or prints identified with faults from the lab were indeed often sold on as white box specials at reduced prices, and the fault clearly stated.

Maybe the original buyer didn't notice the fault or was prepared to accept it? Or perhaps I'm being too generous. Unusual for it to be on all 4 reels though.

Regarding the softness, how does it compare to other 'scope prints when projected without the anamorphic lens? If this was an earlier print from the late 80's then it would have been printed "wet gate", which disguised a lot of negative marks, but did produce a slightly softer image than later "dry gate" prints.

Does anyone else here have a print to compare. I admit it's a title I never owned.

Just another thought, but I don't suppose it could have been cleaned with a film treatment from that era which has dried badly or unevenly on the film, or damaged the base? I guess that would be a job for a magnifying glass and examining a few feet of the film.

EDIT: Film for the Collector #14 – Derann Vaults

Keith Wilton gave it a rave review in 1989, so if the sharpness is off, then something doesn't seem right.

you spot on but nothing was described in the listing about this so i am retuning it unless i am offered partial refund but question is how much cheaper should it be, i mean whats a flawed print worth?

[Tony Kelly]

I forgot to mention halfway through reel three was a sudden colour change as well actually colours improved quite a lot

[Rob Young]

The boxes in the listing aren't, well, white. Not to say they couldn't have been made later. Curious. I'm wondering if something has happened to the film over the years to produce the flickering effect? Not something I've ever seen though. Tony, is it worth examining the film to see if there is any residue from a previous film cleaner that could be removed? Or do you think the flicker is definitely "built in" to the print?

That's a lot of money for something you are not happy with though...

I think my personal feeling would be to return it and keep looking.

[Tony Kelly]

The boxes in the listing aren't, well, white. Not to say they couldn't have been made later. Curious. I'm wondering if something has happened to the film over the years to produce the flickering effect? Not something I've ever seen though. Tony, is it worth examining the film to see if there is any residue from a previous film cleaner that could be removed? Or do you think the flicker is definitely "built in" to the print?

That's a lot of money for something you are not happy with though...

I think my personal feeling would be to return it and keep looking.

I did examine it and even cleaned it with film guard didnt notice any residue before cleaning and after cleaning was exactly same, it was my first thought maybe its dirty or has film residue, it def seems to be a flaw, ive never seen a print do that before, the bigger you make the image the more you notice it of course.

[Rob Young]

Definitely not right then. What a shame. Don't give up; there'll be a good 'un out there for you somewhere.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Can you examine the film with a magnifier? Either the flicker is copied into the images (1-2 too bright images, then normal images, then again the too bright ones,…). Or maybe there’s something with the print that makes your projector flicker (warped film, damaged perforation holes,…).