None of those mentioned John surprise me at all that they may well be fading to one degree or another now.

If you'd have said you had a fading print of Terminator, Aliens, Die Hard, Commando, Mickeys Christmas Carol, A Grand Day Out or Master & Commander or Beauty & The Beast etc etc etc, (the list is endless)..my ears would have pricked up.

But you didn't John,. and as such you missed the essential era of Derann released feature and other shorter releases which are all on low fade stock from 85 onwards, with no fade whatsoever at this point in time.

The people you speak with regarding their reasons for collecting Super 8mm film are very different people than those I speak with from both your neck of the woods as well as from here in Europe John.

I hope you don't collect 35mm or 16mm film John if you are a complete stickler for the rules so far as copyright and private ownership rights are concerned.

This is a film enthusiasts forum let's not forget.

Not sure how that can be, Andrew — as a major example, the West Side Story extracts I cited had to be in the late 1990s/early 2000s as that’s when they were released — and yet they were exhibiting the signs of fade. (And I wasn’t even aware of the existence of Derann before that specific time frame, so anything I purchased from them was from the late 1990s on.)

Whether it’s Derann fade from the late 1990s on or collectors we personally know (and their motivations for collecting film) doesn’t make it any less correct.

And copyright law is copyright law, period. One can both be a film enthusiast and not engage in piracy.

All I can say John is show me any of the films I mentioned with fade or many of the others known to be certainly on Agfa or LPP stock, then you will convince me.
Look at my reviews here and I can show you all that I have from this era have no fade whatsoever,..not one of them!

Most collectors don't share your whiter than white concerns regarding copyright protection John.
You have never viewed or listened to a copied DVD / CD?
Ever used a VCR to record a film? Etc

It's kind of counter productive here to be overly concerned by such matters as a collector of real film.

I missed the golden era of Derann, but not the Golden era of Super 8, which was on it's last legs by 1985; VHS had put most of the distributors in Britain out of business. There wasn't one title you mentioned there Andrew that would have interested me. Regarding copyright; ownership of 16mm is not outside the law. Going right back to the 60s when I bought a reel to reel tape recorder; you were allowed to record BBC programmes as long as it was for your own personal enjoyment, and no money was changing hands. The same should apply to video and DVD recorders.

Piracy is copying a copyrighted work and then selling it without reimbursing the rights holder. It’s also piracy to strike and sell prints struck from a copyrighted work without obtaining a license/permission from the rights holder. That’s the major difference, Andrew. It’s the selling of unauthorized prints struck from copyrighted works that constitutes piracy, pure and simple. I work with copyright law on a daily basis, and the love of/obsession with the film collecting hobby does not supercede the simple tenets of copyright.

And while I respect your view of Derann and its prints, it does not supercede my own experience with Derann prints, Andrew.

I have enjoyed in my collection whatever was produced, most perfectly legitimately, some maybe not John.
Either way I'm pleased to have what I have, it goes nowhere else, only I get to see them in motion, no harm done.

Whatever I have in my collection has made the studio's millions many times over irrespective of the relatively tiny sales revenue ever generated from Super 8mm print sales in the later years once DVDs allowed and brought about these film releases.

#29

I understand Robert that none of the fore mentioned films would have ever possibly interested you, but these ARE some of the very titles that resurrected Derann in the halcyon revival days and the very days which represent some of the most sought after prints that they ever made, from a collectors perspective nowadays.

#31

Believe me, the studios are indeed paying attention to piracy of their product, no matter how small the resulting (illegal) revenue for the dealer engaged in the piracy. Case in point, Walt Disney was alerted and had a segment of the Super 8mm Captain America “digest” taken off of YouTube that a collector had posted there.

If the Super 8 collecting scene has to resort to piracy for “new releases,” then one has to indeed question the legitimacy of the hobby itself when it comes to these illegal releases. It’s why I purchase only prints specifically licensed for home use — given any “new releases” in this day and age are illegal. I’m amazed any existing labs would take a chance printing what are obviously prints struck from unauthorized, copyrighted source material (and not public domain).

This is a film forum for film enthusiasts John.

I don't post on you tube and the likes now just because there are so so many people out there now who are not really interested in collecting film in this era now, maybe they once were and did, but not any longer.

The underlying tone of many a character like this visiting our remaining forums is one of compete bitterness and resentment for those that still do have the bug very much in their veins and therefore continue to remain active within it.

This is not a pop at you John as believe me, there are now an incredible number of killjoy bah humbug type characters signed up to film forums that match this description that have absolutely no intention of ever really joining in nowadays with the fun and thrills left by participating in the hobby in any way shape or form, similar to those gained by the remaining genuine collectors out there.

Their sole intention is simply only ever to spoil it in any way they think they possibly can for those that do still enjoy participating in it.

Thanks Andrew, I’m fully aware this is a film forum, and I’m a film enthusiast and have been for nearly five decades. And you’ve mischaracterized my intent and motivations for joining this forum, Andrew. No “bitterness” or “resentment” (!?!?) here. With all due respect, you should only speak of that which you truly know of, hence, you should not speak for my or any one else’s intentions, motivations, etc., on this forum.

I don’t think a hobby has to or should resort to illegal means given the market no longer supports a particular product line, simple as that. That doesn’t make me a “killjoy” at all — it’s simply a matter of economic reality, and means that no one, and no hobby, is above the law.

Not sure why that’s so controversial?

But, most importantly, a Blessed Easter to all.

A peaceful happy Easter to you also John, and as said, these are general observations that I have noticed that are creeping in more and more these days across the forums.

There are many individuals I see who definitely outwardly appear bitter and resentful surrounding the whole hobby of film collecting despite being involved within it for decades in many many cases.

This is no figment of the imagination John, as a picture very soon builds up over the weeks, months and years, just what motivates some people to post anything at all on any of the forums.

These guys never post to tell of the excitement felt from receiving and screening their latest purchase. Nor do they post to speak of their kit or any issues surrounding any of it.

It generally is always along the lines of why it is no longer a joy or sensible decision to be a film collector nowadays and why the alternatives are so much better.
If that's the opinion of the film collector, why collect film or be part of a film forum any longer?
It makes no sense to me.

Cupboards full of films, all of which were mis- sold allegedly, just like their machines.

This thread has gone off topic now, it was originally Tom's review of his Jerry Lewis film.

Agreed Robert thanks. No more from me on this one. I've made my points.

Thanks Robert, and apologies if I somehow contributed to the thread going off-course. I was initially responding to and agreeing with Tom’s and your comments regarding print fade, which is a worthy subject.

Happy Easter to everyone!

No worries boys, I've gone a little off topic from time to time, especially on the other channel, (my hand was forced by an idiot)

I will take a look at some of the other columbia 400 footers later in the week to see how they have held up.
This one stands out for me simply because i bought i a couple of years ago from Barry at Indi 8 with the intention of replacing a scratched copy, i didn't expect it to have this good a colour so it was a bit of double good luck on this occasion. There is a little fade in there but considering this one must be around 35 years old it is pretty dam good.
Recently i purchased the other columbia Lewis comedy, Three on a couch, unfortunately it was a total duffer so i had to sell it on, colours had not held up very well at all.

Thanks John. I received some screenshots today from Hugh Scott; Spaghetti westerns, prints all made in the 70s, and the colour has held up. As you can see here from a few from a Marketing print he bought in 1975; so not all acetate from the 70s is faded. He sent me lots of other examples, but this will suffice.
I think Tom is keeping his films in ideal conditions. The biggest enemy to film is heat; any films with VS seem to have been imported, rather than ones made here.

Wow Hugh is very lucky to have these. My few dollars more was red so unfortunatly i had to move it on. These are vert good.

That's ironic Robert! 😊

I mentioned Hugh's films in relationship to Tom's well kept older prints only recently here.
I was saying that there must be something in the air where these guys live, or at least an ideal climate and temperature controlled environment.

Hugh I've noticed, has some wonderful older colour Super 8mm films that have absolutely no right at all to look the way they do still for colour. Yet they surfaced again and again when Hugh used to post screenshots here.
Often we see a similar set of timeless prints from Tom, where the stock may well be Eastman but the colours are amazing still!

well, i know Hugh uses a film cleaner of his own mix, i wouldn't mind betting that this mix slows down the fading process.
I wish i still had an empty can of 222 as i remember very well that on the read up it stated that it,(222), contained a chemical that was able to slow down colour fade.
i have also read claims from collectors who believe that 222 actually speeded up the fading. who will ever know?

either the mix or that nice cool climate Tom.

The only problem with the cool room and the fact its permanently dark is that i have noticed that a couple of the big 1200ft card boxes and a few of the white plain boxes have little bits of mould rings on them so i have to replace them. i would much prefer plastic cases but never seen them for 1200s. My T2 and Poltergeist films are both stored in 16mm plastic cans. The Elmo 1200 reels are superb but they are very cold when i check them. This is dispite the heating being on most nights with the rest of the house.
i keep everything checked and remove every film from its shelf to keep the big wooden shelves clean with furniture polish to prevent any build up.
Having said all that, this print of the big mouth has only been with us for just over two years so whoever had it before must have had good storage conditions to.

Where mould is concerned Tom, cool temperatures are not the enemy nor the culprit, just the humidity levels and condensation.

Cool is perfect if it is bone dry!

Differences in temperatures across each room and wall will cause condensation, just like we see each winter's morning on our windscreen.
Yet hardly ever in the summer months as the outside and inside temperatures are far more evenly matched.

A radiator from your central heating system of some form in your basement would probably help matters, it will never get too hot in a basement area of considerable size but would help reduce condensation and resulting mould as would a dehumidifier also.