Oh, of course ...

#1 by Vidar Olavesen , Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:39 pm

Wenn Sie hier auf Links zu eBay klicken und einen Kauf tätigen, kann dies dazu führen, dass diese Website eine Provision erhält.

Now that I have no money, Alien pops up on eBay. Just my luck I suppose. Tried with 200GBP, reserve is higher

Oh, well, hope one pops up if I get a tax refund


 
Vidar Olavesen
Posts: 5.707
Points: 12.975
Date registered 08.02.2015
home: Sarpsborg, Norway
ThankYou 350


RE: Oh, of course ...

#2 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:42 pm

Do you have a link for this film please Vidar?


Andrew Woodcock

RE: Oh, of course ...

#3 by Vidar Olavesen , Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:29 pm

Wenn Sie hier auf Links zu eBay klicken und einen Kauf tätigen, kann dies dazu führen, dass diese Website eine Provision erhält.

Doesn't work from my phone, but here it is

Werbung: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/super-8-mm-fea...AAOSwuAVWy0z%7E

The following contents have been linked to this post::

 
Vidar Olavesen
Posts: 5.707
Points: 12.975
Date registered 08.02.2015
home: Sarpsborg, Norway
ThankYou 350


RE: Oh, of course ...

#4 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:28 am

Thanks Vidar. Now at £240 and reserve still not met! Will have to wait and see on this one as there are already nearly two dozen bids.

It can be very disheartening at times this hobby of ours for the best that is out there.
I fully understand your frustrations Vidar and share many of them myself, but unfortunately, it really is a case of showing the colour of our money for these type of prints now.

As I said not so long ago, as a present day player, you're either in or out. There are no grey areas now for the most desirable prints on Super 8mm anymore.


Andrew Woodcock

RE: Oh, of course ...

#5 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:02 am

Let us not lose sight however here, that just like Star Wars, this is only 4x 600ft of Film.
Even at the brand new price as was, this works out at £320.

Once a film like this touches close to that amount, I'd personally want screen shots in the abundance I post them!
Also I'd need some assurances regarding the condition of the stripe.

That's perhaps just me being what I am, a fussy collector, but I don't believe it's too much to ask if you're spending this kind of money with no guarantee of an easy and successful return if this film falls far short of expectations.

I do hope for all concerned here this film has a both a realistic reserve and accurate description for all those involved in its sale.



Andrew Woodcock
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:07 am | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#6 by Douglas Warren ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:25 am

Andrew,
Excellent points all around.I too would want plentiful screenshots and a thorough description before laying a large amount of money on the table for an expensive print. And returns would indeed be a must with a large outlay of cash if not satisfied. I don't consider that being fussy at all Andrew,just good sound common sense.



Douglas Warren

RE: Oh, of course ...

#7 by Del Phillipson ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:26 am

Must admit, looking at the screen shots and there aren't many I would like to see a hell of a lot more for the money plus more details about the condition and sound quality. Bet his reserve is around the £500.00 mark.



Del Phillipson

RE: Oh, of course ...

#8 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:01 am

If it is Del, that is far beyond my own personal valuation of this film, as good as it is.

Films up to around the £200 Mark, I except one or two imperfections on them. I'd want an almost mint print in original boxes and leads and tails in tact at that price personally.

Even then, £500 for someone in my position, is an awful lot of money to spend on one two hour film!



Andrew Woodcock
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:03 am | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#9 by David Hardy ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:34 pm

As far as I am concerned its already over priced at £ 250.00. As much as I like this film I don't
like it that much to pay this amount for a Super 8mm copy.
However if that was a good ( no fade ... no scratches ) print on 16mm I might be one of the
bidders.


David Hardy

RE: Oh, of course ...

#10 by Del Phillipson ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:40 pm

Totally agree Andrew, you have to be able to justify paying any decent amount out for super 8 these days and the print does have to be right. I have my own personal ceiling that I won't go above and that is a personal thing, good luck to whoever buys it though, I do hope it's a nice print. I can 100% confirm it won't be me



Del Phillipson

RE: Oh, of course ...

#11 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:53 pm

The Super 8mm prints David, without starting a guage battle debate here, will always fetch a lot more than the 16mm in a like for like scenario.
ie both low fade scope etc etc.
There is far more demand to begin with.



Andrew Woodcock
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:55 pm | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#12 by Hugh Thompson Scott ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:33 pm

I think if it was a choice between a print on 16mm or super 8, I'd go for the 16mm print everytime, a more reliable gauge,
better definition as well. I'm not concerned with hi-fi sound, just as long as the track is audible. Super 8 prints, even though
Derann prints, are a close second to films of equal filmstock, especially IB Tech. I have previously stated that these films are
not going to lose value, in fact £200-300.00 isn't a lot by todays standards, taking inflation into account, note how much the new releases
are from Germany, and in many cases printed on a very poor acetate stock, the choice is always in the buyers hands, as for more screengrabs, that is always a help, but any issues like a spool scratched to pieces, PayPal & ebay cover the buyer automatically for refund. Indeed, the buyer now is far safer than when films were bought on spec, no screen shots then, no PayPal cover, just trust.



Hugh Thompson Scott

RE: Oh, of course ...

#13 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:10 pm

Prices don't reflect this though Hugh, whether that is due to popularity of guage or other reasons. Occasionally I see very very expensive 16mm prints on I.B. Tech, but not for the most part. Also there appears to be even greater admissions of damage to 16mm films advertised than even 8mm ones can suffer from. Either that or 16mm sellers are just more honest?

For me personally,I really don't like all the messing around bickering with sellers if a print turns out to be less than expected in terms of it's quality.
You will always always be accused of causing the damage yourself with your own machine. Of course proving any of this is impossible, but you simply know that this is not true and so the hassles continue.

I much rather buy from trusted sources who i have dealt with frequently in the past if at all possible.

It is hobby above most that really does heavily rely on a little honesty and integrity where sales are concerned.



Andrew Woodcock
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:19 pm | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#14 by Hugh Thompson Scott ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:27 pm

Hi Andrew, on 16mm, I haven't had any bad experiences yet regarding damage, so far, apart from the missing last reel of a feature,
which the seller gave refund anyway, but the projectors for S/8, on the whole left a lot to be desired. The projectors used for 16mm,
which has been going for twice as long, prints are on the whole in better condition than a lot of super 8, indeed many years ago I bought
some prints from a hire library that was closing down, there was not one print that didn't have marks, similarly, ex library 16mm prints
are virtually as new. The point I'm making though is that I myself wouldn't be prepared to pay over £500.00 for a print on any 8mm gauge, but would consider it for 16mm.



Hugh Thompson Scott

RE: Oh, of course ...

#15 by Vidar Olavesen , Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:56 pm

One plus for the Super 8 is the Stereo sound though. I'd be very happy with a 16mm Alien in mono, for sure. But they look more rare (at least with good colour) than the Super 8


 
Vidar Olavesen
Posts: 5.707
Points: 12.975
Date registered 08.02.2015
home: Sarpsborg, Norway
ThankYou 350


RE: Oh, of course ...

#16 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:06 pm

That reply really surprises me there Hugh! I asked about "kind" 16mm projectors over on the other forum no so long ago and pretty much every response I got back suggested most can and will scratch film at some point for one reason or another. Similarly, i do keep seeing ads on e bay that speak of a little scratch here and an emulsion line there on 16mm.

Don't get me wrong, I know Super 8mm projectors can be awful but the better ones such as your own, do a fabulous job of keeping our prints as good as ever possible with a running plastic medium traveling past metal and plastic.

There also appears to be tons of 16mm film with sprocket damage from what I read. I find this incredibly difficult to understand given the size of the sprockets. I would guess they would have to be more robust than those on 8?

In contrast, I have witnessed very little sprocket damage from any of the films I have purchased since being back in the hobby on 8mm



Andrew Woodcock
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:06 pm | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#17 by Hugh Thompson Scott ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:32 pm

I can only speak from my own experiences Andrew, the 16mm machines I own are a handful of Elfs a Terta 16mm and a couple
of Bell & Howells, I favour the B& H over the Elf machines, as they are very kind to film, especially if the stock is warped, the three
claw is certainly kinder to older stock, which the Elf machines aren't. Over all the prints I've purchased on 16mm, very few are marked,
granted my taste is not mainstream, but maybe that is a plus. As for the other forums, they herald the flagship of Elmo the GS1200
as the epitome of 8mm projectors, which it certainly is not, that particular machine was trouble from day one, every other complaint
on the subject of projector troubles is an Elmo GS, so much for reliability, problems also abound for Elmo 16mm, the rubber rollers being
one. I still have more faith in the bigger gauge than S/8, even with a Fumeo.



Hugh Thompson Scott

RE: Oh, of course ...

#18 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:58 pm

Fair enough Hugh thanks. Obviously I have none nor any experience with 16mm, so it is uplifting to my ears to hear contradictory tales of what so far I had heard!

If I was to go into 16mm I always fancied the Bauer P8 T400 myself. They appear a very nicely manufactured and refined machine to my eyes.


Andrew Woodcock

RE: Oh, of course ...

#19 by David Hardy ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:59 pm

Ooooppppsssss !!! Me and my big mouth.
Give me a good 16mm print any time.
In all my years of collecting I have always found that a GOOD 16mm print blows a GOOD Super 8mm print
into the weeds anytime. Given the same title and master material.
In terms of definition and colour saturation 16mm wins every time. I find this even with monochrome films.
Super 8mm to me always seems a bit flat with lack of depth.
Sadly the problem of more wear and tear on 16mm prints stems from the fact that most of them have seen
better days because they are ex-library hire prints.
So I still think that Super 8mm prices are way over the top regardless of popularity or demand.
As for Stereo sound on Super 8mm stripe. Nah !!! Forget it I don't need it so can live without it
So therefore it could never swing me into buying a print for that reason. I like MONO .


David Hardy

RE: Oh, of course ...

#20 by Andrew Woodcock ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:04 pm

Yes fair enough David, good points raised there thanks!

Horses for courses of course as with anything in life.

All of this leaves me baffled even more now by the lack of interest on all the forums then regarding 16mm films and equipment?
Always a fraction of the number of posts relating to Super 8mm???



Andrew Woodcock
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:10 pm | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#21 by David Hardy ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:17 pm

Andrew I guess many collectors feel that 16mm is to bulky and heavy for average domestic use.
Well in a way I suppose they are right and I can well understand the reasons for sticking to 8mm.
Mind you I have seen some crap 16mm stuff in my time.



David Hardy
Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:19 pm | Top

RE: Oh, of course ...

#22 by Paul Browning , Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:28 pm

Were there any commercial cinema's ( open to the paying public) that projected 16mm ??. I ask this because i imagined only 35mm guage was ever good enough for the size of screen
and sound quality ??. If this is not the case, then this suggests to me that a top draw 16mm print was still not good enough to show to the paying public. I 've not been to the "picture's" in years, but i always thought the print i was watching was 35mm ( lets exclude 70mm for now), could i be wrong ?.


Paul Browning  
Paul Browning
Posts: 1.264
Points: 2.304
Date registered 09.13.2015
ThankYou 181


RE: Oh, of course ...

#23 by Douglas Warren ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:45 pm

Andrew,
I don't think it's a case of lack of interest in 16 mm as that gauge has forums that cater to the gauge exclusively. Growing up I always felt (at least here in the States) that 8 / Super-8 was perceived as more of a mass market product purchased at department (or camera) stores,whereas 16 mm films were geared more for institutional use (i.e. schools) and for hire screenings. That in no way demeans 8 mm film but just my thoughts on the two gauges growing up. But does the gauge really matter as long as we enjoy the end product? I think not and like so many consumer products it all boils down to individual tastes and what the wallet can afford.



Mats Abelli likes this
Douglas Warren

RE: Oh, of course ...

#24 by Hugh Thompson Scott ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:12 pm

In answer to Paul's enquiry, yes there was the Rosehill Theatre near us that screened 16mm prints, the Civic Hall in my home town
of Whitehaven used to screen 16mm prints, I think one of the last screenings was "Leopard In The Snow". That apart from private clubs and cinemas in London that used 16mm. When I first got into the hobby, the hire fee for a 16mm print was equivalent to two to three
weeks ages, which showed how important the gauge was, no video then. This was when the releases on 8mm were meagre to say the least.



Paul Browning sais Thank You!
Hugh Thompson Scott

RE: Oh, of course ...

#25 by Hugh Thompson Scott ( deleted ) , Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:55 pm

I meant to add that there were scores of TV channels all over the globe that used 16mm for their broadcasting, the USA and South Africa
spring to mind, also the 16mm film gauge was the "video" of its day in SA, just about every home had a 16mm projector, as there was a
plethora of 16mm hire.



Vidar Olavesen likes this
Hugh Thompson Scott

   

Sidney Powell responds after Trump campaign says she is not part of legal team:
Hugh Son Of Kong

disconnected Reel-Chat Members online 2
Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor