|
Post by Brad Phipps on Mar 10, 2012 20:31:47 GMT
A Land of Fear was my favourite installment of that serial. £200.00??? Tell him he's dreaming.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 10, 2012 20:35:06 GMT
I'm relatively new here - how often do Who prints turn up on eBay? There's been eight or nine in the last ten years.
|
|
|
Post by GarySayers on Mar 10, 2012 20:35:28 GMT
£200 is the current bid with nearly a week to go!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Exley on Mar 10, 2012 21:18:41 GMT
Notice a few of the edges visible in the photos have "Kodak Safety Film" on them (big deal!) but what's the "3X 85166" visible on one shot - the emulsion batch number? I am ignorant of such things (and would probably have assumed 3X was shorthand for Tri-X!), but if it is, then we could tell the earliest date the print was made... or shall I get my coat?
Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Mar 10, 2012 21:50:33 GMT
@brad Phips -- he's not dreaming at all. I suspect it will go quite a bit higher before all is said and done. jim keddie - Actually, the Kodak is more interesting, next to it should be the date code of the stock - but unfortunately the shots don't show it... Just had a look at my print and the Kodak lettering matches exactly on the stock where "Land of Fear" which indicates to me that they're both copies of the same print... The other numbers are probably negative markers for footage counts or something -- not very interesting. 3x has nothing to do with TriX. The date code on my print is 1963
|
|
|
Post by John F Brayshaw on Mar 10, 2012 22:30:43 GMT
Well hopefully he will pull up a few gems and someone can get them and share them....
|
|
|
Post by John Andersen on Mar 10, 2012 23:10:15 GMT
I've just compared it to the print I have -- identical handwriting which means that it's a suppressed field copy (i.e. from the same neg). ... I'm also suspicious that this print is a dupe - but it's hard to tell for sure... I have some questions about this field copy. Did it come from an original print that somehow made it out of the BBC in the 70s and has just become a redundant find, or is it a copy of the print recovered from Cypress in 1984? After hearing about somebody making illegal 16mm copies of existing Hartnell and Troughton episodes and putting them out there for people to find, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of how many episodes really made it out of the BBC and other archives from the 70s. Is this Reign of Terror episode one of those prints?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Roberts on Mar 10, 2012 23:15:54 GMT
'TU' indicates a film recording made specifically by BBC Enterprises for overseas sale at some point after transmission. If it was just 'T' it would mean that the film recording had been made as the episode was actually being transmitted, which is something we see a lot of in the later FRs, particularly of the Pertwee stories.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Mar 10, 2012 23:16:54 GMT
John - the print I have was legitimately made by the BBC for Ian Levine from the print in the archives.
No idea where the print on ebay came from...
As for the dupes - they were not "put [...] out there for people to find" -- they were made by someone who was selling them to collectors....
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Mar 10, 2012 23:23:41 GMT
Steve R : most of the prints I've got have 16/4ENT (405 line source) or 16/6ENT (625 line source) on them (including all the pertwees I have). The only ones with 16/4TU that I've seen are the Reign prints... Do you know what the difference is ?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Roberts on Mar 10, 2012 23:27:27 GMT
No - I was only going by Roger Wilmut's book on 'Hancock' which says:
T = transmission (pre-recorded, or PASB) INT = internal use (e.g. producer checking live programme) OI = outside interest (e.g. request from cast member) TU = made for BBC Television Enterprises to sell abroad.
But now you mention it, I'm used to seeing 4ENT rather than 4T. So I'm unsure now. Perhaps Andrew Martin would know?
|
|
|
Post by Alex Taylor on Mar 10, 2012 23:32:21 GMT
I notice that the print appears to have two audio channels recorded on it. Was this simply how 16mm prints were made at the time?
|
|
|
Post by John Andersen on Mar 10, 2012 23:35:49 GMT
John - the print I have was legitimately made by the BBC for Ian Levine from the print in the archives. No idea where the print on ebay came from... As for the dupes - they were not "put [...] out there for people to find" -- they were made by someone who was selling them to collectors.... I am not inferring that you did anything illegal to get your print. When you said they were from the same negative, I was wondering if there might have been another print of that first episode that was different from the one that was returned from Cypress in 1984. Even redundant finds could lead to new discoveries, even though the chances are small.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Mar 10, 2012 23:36:46 GMT
@ Alex - that's a standard variable area track - it looks like it has two channels, but it doesn't, I believe it's done that way to have a stronger signal.
@ Steve - I always surmised that "ENT" stood for enterprises, but who knows... As you say, Andrew would probably know..
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Mar 10, 2012 23:40:26 GMT
John - the print I have was legitimately made by the BBC for Ian Levine from the print in the archives. No idea where the print on ebay came from... As for the dupes - they were not "put [...] out there for people to find" -- they were made by someone who was selling them to collectors.... I am not inferring that you did anything illegal to get your print. When you said they were from the same negative, I was wondering if there might have been another print of that first episode that was different from the one that was returned from Cypress in 1984. Even redundant finds could lead to new discoveries, even though the chances are small. I don't think that a particular find has any bearing on any other potential finds (unless of course the prints are in the same collection)... The reason I say these are from the same neg (as the original source) is that the writing (16/4TU/23217) is identical on the two prints, and it's hand-written.. If they were from different, negs, it wouldn't match ...
|
|