skyjedi2005 said:
I wonder what your friend paid for this print, probably thousands of dollars. I have seen screen grabs from the derann 8mm scope that looked in better shape.
Your print looks about on par in sharpness and colors with your super8mm project. Great Quality for a fan project. But not near gout quality as you have said previously.
Too bad the Film Telecine Labs would not touch this and if they did it would be expensive as hell. Still would a rank wetgate transfer get finer detail, i'm not sure.
To answer some of your questions...
- I don't think he paid anything for the print(s). I think he is borrowing them from a friend of his who has had them for a long time.
- The film IS scratched, particularly at the beginning, and as I warned everyone all along there's no way it was going to compete with the GOUT. I can't imagine anyone would seriously think that a Workprinter dub of a used 16mm could on any level approach a high-end transfer of a pristine 35mm film, which is what the GOUT is (despite the problems piled on later).
- A wetgate transfer would surely help with the scratches, but it's not going to improve the sharpness, color, or fading in the film. And reel 2 is even more faded.
- Despite its flaws, I do think it looks considerably better than the 8mm scans. A clean, new Derann print might be better, I don't know because I've never seen one. Rather I should clarify, a Derann print might look better projected - but scanned probably not. Live projections generally always look better than telecine grabs.
- I have not yet cleaned the film. Will do that before making the final scan. I may also clean the Swedish print and recapture the audio. But you know, there's only so much that can be coaxed out of an older 16mm film. If nothing else, hopefully this 11-minute preview is helping to keep expectations in check.
