| 8MM FORUM WORLDWIDE https://www.8mmforumworldwide.com/ |
|
| About Original Prints https://www.8mmforumworldwide.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1486 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Dan Lail [ Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | About Original Prints |
I found this info at Early Bird Films: Original Print An Original Print is a film print that was printed from the official negative release of the film. Technically the vast majority of films were not originally printed in 16mm; therefore most 16mm prints are official reductions from the original 35mm film negative. Therefore, the film printing techniques and original negative condition can vary and resulting prints can have near 35mm quality of detail and film grain or be less than spectacular. Dupe Print A dupe print is an unofficial print that has been copied from a 16mm source. Dupe prints tend to have less contrast detail than originals, lower sound output from the soundtrack, and more pronounced film grain. Along with lower sound output, the film sound in dupe prints often has a hiss distortion in the optical track. All this said, in rare cases dupe prints are all that remain of some titles, and often dupe prints that are carefully printed can look nearly like an original or even as good as a lesser printed original. Reduction Print Reduction Prints are a source of confusion for 16mm film collectors, and I don�t claim to be an expert in identifying them. Simply put, Reductions are 16mm dupe films printed down from 35mm source prints. By the exact definition all 16mm films that were originally shot on 35mm (i.e. 99.9% of them) are reductions. In 16mm collector terminology though, a reduction is an unauthorized dupe from a 35mm positive print source rather than the original 35mm negative. Reductions can look and sound almost as good as original prints and they can have more severe contrast and distorted sound. It all depends on the printing techniques. Early Bird Film : http://www.earlybirdfilms.com/quality_standards.php |
|
| Author: | Bill Phelps [ Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: About Original Prints |
Interesting....although are there concrete ways you can idenify these just by looking at the films on rewinds? These descriptions do blend together as far as saying the different versions can look when projected. I could have something that I thought was original but may not be. Bill 
|
|
| Author: | Mike O'Regan [ Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: About Original Prints |
Quote: An Original Print is a film print that was printed from the official negative release of the film. If the 16mm print was printed directly from the 35mm negative it would be known as a Printdown. An original is, technically, printed from a 16mm negative which is derived from the original 35 negative or a fine-grain interpositive. Bill, there are some ways to tell the difference. One way is the examination of printed in splices. A splice which goes across pic and track indicates a dupe. However, there could of course be a splice which does not go across the track but which got printed into a dupe. Therefore, this can't be an absolute indicator of an original. Incidentally, the word "dupe" printed into a lab leader would most likely indicate a dupe negative - not a dupe print. Other giveaways such as the wrong title printed into a leader - such as The Ape Man for King Kong (I'm just making these up for the sake of illustration) - would indicate a dupe, in an effort to avoid detection in the old days. EMKA leader indicating most likely an original MCA television print. |
|
| Author: | Bill Brandenstein [ Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: About Original Prints |
I'm pretty sure an old B-western I came across a year or two ago was a printdown. Unfortunately it was severely afflicted with vinegar and getting it to project flat was a problem, and the end had water damage. Since then trying to improve on the problems were a failure and now there are a number of tears. So it's beyond salvage. Tis pity. You see, the B&W contrast and exposure was stunningly perfect, and the sharpness (when focus was steady) was better than just about anything else I've ever seen, including good originals, with unusually fine grain. Considering this was based on 1940s technology, that's pretty amazing. It would take a good Blu-ray to top that. Thanks for the clarification, guys, because "printdown" makes sense and I know that a "reduction" can mean more than one thing. |
|
| Author: | Ed Pendykoski [ Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: About Original Prints |
Thanks for the info guys. still a bit new to this side of film collecting and this clears up some question and will help me with my next purchase. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|