New 8mm prints - why don't they 'pop'?

[Mike Newell]

Jurassic was available full feature for a time from Derann and Germany but had stripe issues. Could be film negative and Blu Ray were both used. Can’t see a convenient film negative knocking about after all this time

[Eberhard Nuffer]

Can anybody tell which of the "Cars" shorts is available now?

[David Baker]

Interesting conversation.
First, let me, once again, clarify something about JURASSIC PARK 600' digest: It was struck from a low-fade 35mm Fuji filmstock print.

Steve Osborne and I had a conversation on this color " POP " topic and here is his take on the subject -

" Hello, this is Steve Osborne from The Reel Image.

After reading the thread about colors not popping, I just have to comment in this matter.

#1 Just over a year ago I saw Jaws on 35mm on a very large screen in a nice theater. The print was like new.

The print looked just like Dave's print. Good but not saturated color and the contrast was the same as the S8 print. There were many overexposed scenes of the background sky, some slightly blending into the foreground just like the S8 print.

I have many S8 prints from Germany. Many have outstanding color, and some are a little muted just like they were filmed.

I see many films at the theater that have muted color.

#2 Someone put up a few screen shots of The Dark Knight from a cell phone and that was supposed to represent how the print really looks? I got out my trailer of The Dark Knight and showed on my 10ft screen.

St1200HD, with an F1.0 lens, two bladed shutter and my screen has a gain of 2.8. It looked outstanding in sharpness and contrast. Now there is not much color pop in the whole film as I can recall.

A lot in how a film looks is in the equipment that is being used and things like dirty lens rear elements that don't get cleaned often enough. Plus, a plain white matt screen should NOT be used for S8! You can buy fairly high gain white screens for a fairly low cost or of course paint with screen paint for a much brighter image.

#3 I was just at Costco doing some last-minute Christmas shopping. Looking at the vast array of TV's one and all next to each other. And much of them huge.

It was amazing the different images all of them had! Some had much brighter colors than others. Some had very different ranges of contrast etc.

So how can people compare the look of the org. film by looking at digital images from a TV or digital projector when the images from DVD that has been transferred and played with by the studios and then shown on TV or digital projection units that all have a different look to their image.

In closing... I have been a collector for 55 years and the prints coming out now have the sharpest images and contrast that is almost perfect compared to the org. film. I am always amazed when showing S8 prints at the awesome images they produce if you have good equipment, a high gain screen, and black masking of course!!

We are very lucky to have a lab, great stripping and people who work VERY hard to brings us the simply beautiful prints we have today.....Nuff said... Steve "






Yeah Steve,Nuff said.

[Mike Newell]

Interesting post with some relevant and irrelevant condescending points.

The screenshots from Jaws by Osi definitely look like some kind of lab fault possibly wet gating. I can’t comment on the cleanliness of Osi’s equipment but bet you it is spotless. Haven’t seen the Dark Knight shots so can’t comment. So the 600 digest for Jurassic Park came from a 35mm negative rather than digital source interesting .

I suppose more screenshots and reviews of these releases from impartial reviewers will give the collector a better prospective of what they are buying.

There does seem to be quite a white box market for shall we say less outstanding prints or those that failed to make the grade.

As you say, each collector has their own choices to make whether they wish to purchase depending on tastes and economics.

Your post is so reminiscent of the phone calls Uncle Derek used to make when a review of a film didn’t say everything was good splendid tickety woo like some more illustrious famous reviewers always did but then they got the dark side extras


A mere 42 years of collecting.

Nuff said.

[Lee Mannering]

Mike. If you've been at it 40 odd years you will be aware even Derann had piles of white box reject films for sale and new at that which as today those who are doing the work will come across the same thing.

Steve is quite correct in his thoughts.
For me some are blinded by well over saturated digital images graded by someone for disc release which has nothing to do with the magic of film.

Upping endless off screen digital images to accompany a review to my mind is a bit pointless as it is not the projected S8 movie you are seeing on a real projector and screen.

My personal thoughts only.
Have a good Christmas one and all and thank you to those of you who have supported the recent releases our small group of volunteers have miraculously brought to your home screens.

[Mike Newell]

Yes, Lee more than 40 years so I have seen all the comedy routines.

I think the word was white box special not reject. The latter word implies something totally different maybe a Freudian slip. It is surprising that one recent release was talked up as excellent, stunning truly and truly amazing only to appear on eBay after a short time later and be described as only acceptable.

I think supplying some screenshots with film reviews is a requirement in this age 21st Century and the only way to push or extend the hobby out to any new and existing collectors EBay sellers with any sense supply screenshots.

Would you buy any other product blind on trust. A new car just tell me it is excellent condition 😂and I’m happy. New clothes don’t show me what they look like I’m happy to part with my money.🤪

It does make you wonder why there so few collectors putting out reviews online.

[David Baker]

Mike, I ALREADY do that!!
Just take a gander at ALL the posts with screen shots I and others have posted on this forum of DAVE FILMS'.
Reducing costs for collectors? Just HOW? Do you even realize HOW MUCH it costs to produce one -30-minute digest?
Seeing as MANY Super 8mm collectors are stuck in the Twilight Zone with thinking they pay 50.00 for a 30-minute digest on new low fade color poly stock is totally off the wall. THIS IS NOT 1972!!
Including screen shots does not increase or decrease any sales AND showing them at film conventions does not garner sales either!
Oh sure, plenty of inquiries and statements of wanting to get a NEW release but very few really follow through and put their money where their mouth is.
In the past I have always showcased new releases here, first, but because of certain members revealing sensitive issues you now must be placed on my email notification monthly list of films for sale.
So here are some sales statistics on my releases, in the past 2 years: JURASSIC PARK - 30 prints sold, GODZILLA KING OF THE MONSTERS - 16 sold, CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF - 14 sold, JAWS - 15 sold, DRACULA - 3 sold, KING KONG VS GODZILLA - 6 sold
So with 1,520 Forum members I have sold 84 prints. Pretty pathetic. AND a few of the buyers ARE NOT on Film Forums and are from Facebook!
It's real obvious the same people are keeping this hobby afloat with new releases coming out and with just their help I plan to continue.

AND YES, that's right LEE, Steve and myself ARE hardcore cinephiles, as you describe and PROUD OF IT!

Oh, and here's a quote that Steve left for me to post for him - " about Mike Newel. Is he a real film collector or someone who just likes to complain?

He didn't really address the main topic of the thread. "

[Osi Osgood]

Mike, I do need to correct one thing you said, the lab "wet gate" marks screenshots were put up in my review by none other than Dave himself, just showing how honest he is about his prints and they're potential positives and negatives. My review was as impartial as you can get. I wasn't given JAWS for free, I paid full price like everyone else, and I am the first person to complain if a print is a load of crap, as, coming up with 300.00 some dollars is a lot of money for yours truly. For instance, I will never buy another acetate, yellowish film stock print, as it does affect overall color quality, and with these new prints, color quality and negative quality had to be top notch. Truthfully, Dave has achieved that. I like you Mike, but desiring perfection is just something that cannot be obtained on super 8, but we have come dang close to it. Oh, and belittling those that have done reviews on this forum or in the past and stating that, basically, they are on the "take" is to do your own self an injury, for you state things that you cannot possibly justify with facts. I can only say for myself, that anytime I have done reviews, whether on here or otherwise, I have always been as accurate and truthful as possible. Your comments really seem more an internal frustration, one suffering from "film release envy".

[Mike Newell]

Dave

I wasn’t alone asking for screenshots so they aren’t apparently visible.

Gander had to look that one up.

Why don’t new prints go pop. Another forum has already discussed and delivered the answer.

1972 sorry you must be at least a generation older than me so that one goes over my head.

Collectors have always asked for the impossible ask any dealer who have released films. and yes loads of them are full of 💩

Dealer / Collector there has to be a relationship not pay your money take your chance. You don’t want to advertise your wares anywhere. OMG Good Luck on that one. That goes against any normal successful business model.

Maybe that’s why you have only sold 84 prints.

Steve O he has been around for ages . I heard all about him from fellow collector friend TK who used to be on the phone for hours with him. That will give him a clue. He was to far away for me to ever deal with him.

Good Luck on your endeavours but I honest think you are making errors.

Mike

[Mike Newell]

Mike, I do need to correct one thing you said, the lab "wet gate" marks screenshots were put up in my review by none other than Dave himself, just showing how honest he is about his prints and they're potential positives and negatives. My review was as impartial as you can get. I wasn't given JAWS for free, I paid full price like everyone else, and I am the first person to complain if a print is a load of crap, as, coming up with 300.00 some dollars is a lot of money for yours truly. For instance, I will never another acetate, yellowish film stock print, as it does affect overall color quality, and with these new prints, color quality and negative quality had to be top notch. Truthfully, Dave has achieved that.

Osi

Your review was honest and correct. I never thought or implied you were given the print For free. Very few super 8 prints are ever perfect. Derann and others produced many many clunkers or destroyed negatives care of the labs The remark about wet gate was an observation it might be a lab fault it doesn’t really deflect from what is an achievement in terms of print quality in regards to Jaws.

I never ever accepted scratched, soft prints or pink prints thankfully It got to the point if I enquired about a certain print Derek or Mike would laugh and say you will return it.

However, I did buy and buy big. Ask any dealer.

[Douglas Meltzer]

Mike,

I agree that screenshots are key with new releases and a quick search using the films' titles will show that there are many screenshots on this site.

As for reviews, I strongly object to your aspersions. That's a pretty vile comment to make.

While a review thread is started by one person, Forum members who have purchased the same title also add their opinions to those threads. I took a quick look and saw at least three in the JP print review. I've also come across a number of short reviews in non-review threads, such as What 8mm films did I watch last night? and also in the topics where the release of the film was originally announced. Other points of view are out there, they are just spread around.

I did a review of the Godzilla 600 footer for The Reel Image. I'll see if I can reprint it here.

Back on topic: I think both the color and contrast in JP look fine, especially after projecting it on a large screen at CineSea.