Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is a bandsaw print?

This is topic What is a bandsaw print? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001947

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 03-31-2003, 01:41 PM:

I recently saw an auction on E-Bay for a bandsaw print of a feature length theatrical film. What is a bandsaw print and where do they come from?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-31-2003, 02:01 PM:

One method of destroying old prints is they are wound on a core and then the roll of film is cut through with a bandsaw

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 03-31-2003, 02:07 PM:

You can read all about this on the 16mm forums. Basically it's a film (16mm most always) that's been sawed in half by a depot and tossed, then someone gets ahold of it and tries to sell it.

The buyer has to splice it back together. That's about a splice every second or so, yikes!! People who buy these say they look good on screen, I find that very hard to believe; not only would the view see a splice every second, there would be noticible audio issues from frames lost. [puke]

Seems like a lost cause to me; unless the film is free and something you really really want.

Danny

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-31-2003, 06:30 PM:

Paramount would take Reel 1's, from the prints they were destroying on the lot. NFS depots would take the heads & tails from each print. That they were destroying from Columbia/Tri-Star
Pictures in the early 90's.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 03-31-2003, 11:11 PM:

A ban*aw print is a print that h*en destroyed by placing it on a core and cutting thr*it with a bandsaw. Then, someone scoops the thousands *eces of film out of a film depot dumpster and painstakingly splices the wh*ng back together again, cutting out the damag*rames. This results in a loss of one or two fr*every few seconds at the start of the reel, increasing in speed to about one frame ev* second by the end of the reel. In general, th*icture is usually not strongly affected by the missing frames (although if the splic* done with non-clear tape the image will notica*darken as each splice goes by,) but the sound is drastically affect* missing and garbled words. Such a print may be useful for repla*amaged footage in another print, but is generally unwatchable (or rather unlisten* its own right. Cav*mptor

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-02-2003, 01:00 AM:

WTF is with the asterisks?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-02-2003, 01:01 AM:

You're going to feel silly after you read this.

He is simulating what a bandsaw print is like with all of the splices (a frame missing here and there).

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-02-2003, 01:02 AM:

That's where the bandsaw cut his post.

--jhawk

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-02-2003, 01:19 AM:

When we adopt Matthew Bailey's idea of reading/recording our posts, John can go ahead and cut out blocks of samples. But by his description, it should LOOK OK! [Smile]

AND, it doesn't look like they cut too straight with the bandsaw. The splices are all over the map!

Posted by Douglas Curry (Member # 1485) on 04-03-2003, 09:51 AM:

i wonder if DTS would still function on a 35mm band-sawed print?

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 04-03-2003, 11:16 AM:

quote:
i wonder if DTS would still function on a 35mm band-sawed print?

Yes. 'skips' and all. The same should be true for SRD and SDDS too.

-Aaron

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-03-2003, 12:35 PM:

What if you get TWO bandsawed prints, find the best parts of each and swap footage to come up with a "clean" print, and then ultrasonically splice it all back together? Throw in the DTS discs and you just might have a decent print.

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-03-2003, 01:45 PM:

You know, there IS a reason distributors demand that used prints get chopped up and recycled. They do OWN the prints.

It's kind of like finding a torn up check in the garbage, pasting it together, and trying to cash it. [Roll Eyes]

http://www.fpchollywood.com/fscsalvage.html

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 04-03-2003, 03:43 PM:

John, ................wrote

(It's kind of like finding a torn up check in the garbage,        pasting it together, and trying to cash it. )

"Lets take a look at this analogy and see if it holds up, OK."

What if I didn't actually cash the pasted up check, and just kept it , in a scrapbook and occasionally showed it to a few friends,.....other people like me who collect torn up and re-pasted together checks. (Kind of like collecting autographs of famous people) What would be wrong with that?
The check has no reel value, except what it is worth to me as a collector of torn up checks.
And if I did take this check to a reel bank, after a close inspection by the teller (Ms. Wiggins), I doubt that they would even cash it, with out identification showing that I am the owner of the check.
(We are talking about a check that was cut into, lets say 50 pieces, so it is really obvious that someone was trying to destroy this check)

"point number two."

(You know, there IS a reason distributors demand that           used prints get chopped up and recycled.
           They do OWN the prints.)

So now I take the print out of the dumpster that has been bandsaw cut up and I decide to make a splice every time the reel makes one revolution, ...that will take quite a while I'd say, (Maybe 20 hours) and I will loose some frames on every splice, maybe 1 or 2 out of 24 per sec. And the sound will suffer a little as well.Then I project it, only because I love to watch a reflected projected 35mm film image and not a directly viewed crt image.
Now lets state the facts.
I don't own the film, (Never said that I did) and I don't plan on selling the film on E-Bay, and I don't charge my friends money to watch the film, and If the studio wants the film back, I will gladly mail it back to them so they can cut it up again, since it is their film to do with what they want. I will even pay the postage and insure it. Now, all I own is the bragging rights to this film, so I go to work and tell my boss that I watched "Shallow Hal" on 35mm at home last night, and he is supposed to be impressed, but he isn't cuz he doesn't know the difference between 16mm, 35mm or 70mm. and a Blockbuster video rental. (He doesn't have a DVD player yet) So again, whats it really worth to me.
Maybe I should be arrested by the "film pirate police" and put in a jail that doesn't have a theater as punishment, but I don't think so What do you think, Mr. Valenti?. [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-03-2003, 04:12 PM:

Another analogy:

Someone goes through your garbage, and pastes together photos of your family, old home videos, and copies of your tax forms and bank statements. They keep them just because they like to take them out and look at them occasionally, and share them with some close friends. Wouldn't you feel uneasy?

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 04-03-2003, 04:21 PM:

No, because just like Pigvomit, i'm not that interesting, no one would want to! [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-03-2003, 07:43 PM:

John, your analogy is pretty weak. Collectors who get films after their video release and run them privately to their families or perhaps an occasional friend in their own home are doing no one any harm at all. In fact, they have proven over history to be performing a service on many occasions where the studio lost their negatives and all copies and the film would have been lost forever if it had not been for collectors.

The studios should be worried about all of the video piracy going on. Collectors are not the threat. This isn't rocket science here. I am surprised to see such a closed minded attitude from you on this. You have been around long enough to know that the only real threat from a print existing outside of studio control post-video is unauthorized (and unpaid) repertory screenings, of which in today's world a theater could set up a portable DLP projector and show a DVD or HD tape and the general audience wouldn't care.

As far as feeling uneasy about someone looking at a picture of my family, did I just publicly release pictures to video stores where the whole world can look at those pictures? Need I continue?

This entire topic boils down to a matter of quality. How would you like it if you were told you could no longer get movies on DVD because the quality was too high, but you could freely continue to collect VHS copies? Now upgrade that a notch to 35mm film vs. DVDs. It's the same damn thing.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-03-2003, 07:53 PM:

I agree that analogy is really lame. While in most places it is illegal to go through someone's trash, the fact remains if you discard, throw away anything, you lose all ownership rights. It now becomes a "finders-keepers" issue. While I would not suggest illegally displaying copy-righted material, it is an interesting dilemma not only with films, but with tapes, books, etc…

I ALWAYS shred all my sensitive information before I put it in the trash.

>>> Phil

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 04-03-2003, 08:30 PM:

Phil......Is that why, I feel so cut up? He Haw!!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-03-2003, 08:32 PM:

Bob,
Even though you talk a lot of trash, I would NEVER put you there.. in the can so to speak! You're my friend! [Razz]

>>> Phil

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-04-2003, 01:27 AM:

I thought there was a Supreme Court ruling a while back regarding going through people's trash. I believe the police found something incriminating in an individual's refuse, and that individual claimed that it was his trash, and his private property.

Since the cans were at the street for pickup, they became "public domain", or so the court ruled. I will look for the exact case if I can find it...

I go through people's trash sometimes. Especially during move-out week here in the college town. Bank statements, photos, tax forms... none of that interests me. Lava lamps, textbooks, VCRs and stereo equipment? HELL YEAH! [thumbsup]

Going trash digging reminds me of just how wasteful our pathetic little society really is. Ain't it great to be alive and able to consume? [Frown]

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-04-2003, 09:23 AM:

In most cases, prints (even "bandsaw" ones) need help "falling off the back of a truck". If money or favors are exchanged to obtain scrapped prints, it's not likely innocent "finders keepers" or "dumpster diving", but rather a case of stolen goods.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 04-04-2003, 10:09 AM:

I would like to commend John on his opinion and the stand he has taken on this subject. He works "IN" the industry and is not an outsider, which may bias his opinions but his ideas are just as valid as mine, and I appreciate this forum as a place wher we can all "agree to disagree".
It is not my intention to prove him wrong on an issue, or to prove that I am right, I am only looking for an intelligent discussion.
Our freedom of speech in the country is something we should never take lightly, right now there is a Freedom war raging over this very subject. Thanks again John, .....just as there are two sides to every door, there are two sides to every discusiion. [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-04-2003, 10:20 AM:

Don --- Thank you. [Smile]

I know from personal experience that any prints returned to my department at Kodak for evaluation MUST be returned to the distributor, or certified as DESTROYED. The distributors are very protective of their property, even if it is to be scrapped.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-04-2003, 04:21 PM:

I knew you would say that John. If the studios wouldn't make 20 gazillion prints of each movie and then junk 19 gazillion of them 4 weeks after their release, having to pay for "certified destruction" wouldn't be the issue that it is. This will never change though, because in general Hollywood only knows how to make crappy movies and the studios know if they don't get their money back the first weekend that word will spread and the project will be a loss. Case in point is today's release of "What a Girl Flaunts". [Wink]

Still though, I maintain that these film collectors out there are not doing anyone any harm. The purpose of certified destruction is to keep prints out of pirate's hands before the video release date. I'll bet if someone pulled out a calculator that they would find the cost of paying for this kind of destruction vs. holding onto the prints in secured depots until the video release is a foolish move.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-04-2003, 10:24 PM:

What I have never understood is why the studios perceive a difference between private home use of 35mm or 16mm film and private home use of DVD or videotape. It seems to me that the end result of both is the same (people watch the movie at home) and the only difference is the format. If piracy were the primary concern, then DVD/videotape should scare the studios more, as those formats can be easily copied using readily-available equipment.

If the studios would simply sell of their old prints at reasonable prices to private collectors who agree that the prints will be used "for home use only" (or something to that effect), everyone would benefit. The collectors would get legitimate prints and the studios would get some extra cash, rather than having to pay for their prints to be bandsawed or shredded/recycled. Further, there would be a paper trail to allow tracking of suspected violations. Obviously, this wouldn't happen until after the video release of any given title.

I should emphasize here that I absolutely do not condone piracy and I believe strongly in the right of a copyright holder to control the distribution of his copyright work (during the term of copyright protection). I've had the pleasure of meeting a number of film collectors and none (that I know) would disagree with this point of view. They simply enjoy watching their favorite films in a high-quality, long-lasting format. Many of them are happy to loan out their prints for studio-approved screenings (with license fees paid) and provide material for restoration and preservation purposes (often because such material was carelessly junked by former "owners.")

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-07-2003, 09:03 AM:

Certainly distributors have the option of selling used prints to collectors. But they also have the option of prosecuting those that deal in prints that "fell off the truck". It's their property.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-07-2003, 01:40 PM:

John, you have now made the same comment (reworded) 4 times on this one thread. There comes a point when it just becomes annoying and rude. In this case especially since you are insinuating that anyone who has a film is a criminal.

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 04-07-2003, 02:22 PM:

I have never been impressed with the quality control of pirated copies of anything, in any format..... be it video tapes, vinyl records, CD's, DVD's, cassettes, etc. The high volume pirates are not collectors, they are not into film/video/audio exhibition of the highest quality, they are not perfectionists that tweak the record levels to get the best signal to the viewer/listener, they are primarily trying to make a "fast buck" off some ones elses legal property.
Show me one pirate that owns a time base corrector or even knows what it does. Pirates could only sell an original print/master copy once, and that is why that dont, there is no big money in it for them . I agree with John, that they, the pirates, should be arrested and prosecuted, because they are breaking the copyright law.
Now the collectors I know personally are the opposite of the pirates, in every respect.
I have known many collectors in every multimedia format for the last 30 years and they all complain about the industries lack of attention to (detail) quality. They,... like me, seek out : Real time mastered CD,s, (costs more) the direct to disk vinyl recordings, (harder to find, limited selection) the real time mastered video tapes, (limited release) 16mm and 35 mm LP, technicolor, etc. high quality prints, (sold from one collector to another). To call these collectors pirates is absurd. They have a passion for the media and are not driven by making lots of money from an inferior poorly copied product.

Another pet pieve of mine,!!!???why doesn''t the studios make available to the public for rent or purchase the edited versions of all the movies that they sell to the Major Airlines. Sure makes sense to me, there is a BIG market out there for films edited for language and R rated imagery.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-07-2003, 11:19 PM:

Don,

The studios have a legitimate interest in exercising their own creative control, and if they don't wish to promulgate editted versions of their film, that's certainly their right (as it is their right to promulgate those editted versions only in select markets). I think it's about pride and respect for art, and I do understand and agree with that decision.

It may seem inconsistent to turn around and show those editted versions on airplanes and over television, but that's beacuse those business interests are able to offer sufficient financial inducement. I don't think you're going to find a large lobby of consumers who can make the same business case for wanting editted films.

--jhawk

p.s.: I think the pirates with TBCs are the same ones who have telecines. [Wink]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-07-2003, 11:51 PM:

Brad & Scott: Right on target! I get tired of the implications too. It's like saying your guilty of rape when your dick was cut-off by Ms. Bobbitt.

I fully believe that if it wasn't for all the "stolen", etc., rhetoric, that the F*cking Idiot Jack(off) Valenti spews, he would be selling peanuts at Dodger Stadium where he belongs! And the industry would be better off! I'd say selling Hot Dogs, but I would never think of demeaning my friend Paul, the Weenie Man! [Big Grin]

Valenti is the most a arrogant, uniformed idiot I have ever met! He …Awww the hell with it!! I got my point across!!!! HAhahahahhaah [beer]

And John, I think we all get it by now. We know you MUST tow the "company" line… and we understand that. [thumbsup]

Jhawk: While I agree it's the copyright holder's prerogative to do with their property as they wish, it still REALLY bugs me when I see an "edited for content" of for whatever of the original film. I think Bravo is the worst sinner of this! [thumbsdown]

Also, I have a TBC, professional VCRs, AND a telecine projection system… BUT I DO NOT pirate films... [Smile]

>>> Phil

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-08-2003, 06:10 AM:

Once, in film school, we had a visit from someone from a minor production company who explained various aspects of the business. I asked him about the storage of the completed film materials. His response was that the company will store the film until THEY decide it should no longer exist (when it doesn't make any money for them). I found this a very myopic attitude.

There's no argument that the copyright holder owns a given project, but we're not talking a SEARS portrait. A movie produced with the intention of public consumption inherently becomes a shared cultural possession. There's no argument that if there's money to be made from it, it should be through those who legally own the rights. I do take issue with their insistense to destroy 35mm prints because of some archaic fear of piracy. By the time those prints are to be discarded en masse, the video versions are out. If I can by and copy a $14.95 DVD with EXCELLENT quality, why in the world would I go through the effort of trying to transfer a print which may show some wear and tear?

Once a film leaves the theaters, those prints are of no value to the studios OR pirates. I just don't understand this fear that a print in private hands somehow hurts the studio financially. Conversely, it is more likely that someone watching that print may enjoy the movie enough to go out and buy a video of it.

Valenti should get with the times and understand where the real threats are. That threat is not the collector, who on occasion has provided priceless restoration footage, and worked with the AFI to recover "lost" films. The threat does not exist on film, but on video, and the studios are providing pirates with the PERFECT masters through legally purchased product.

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 04-08-2003, 12:27 PM:

I know some people will take offense at this, but oh well, it's just my take on things.

It seems to me that the studio heads who think that collectors pirate films have their heads in the sand. With DVD anyone can get the software and copy DVDs on their home computer. No one would bother to buy transfer a film to DVD,when they can just go to Blockbuster, rent a movie then copy the DVD to DVD and get all the "extras" with it.

These studio and Valenti types are really out of it; living in the past. I wonder if they even know how to use a computer!

Danny

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2003, 03:13 PM:

Like I've said elsewhere, I think it is quite amusing that Jacky-poo talked at ShoWest about how the industry hasn't grown this much since 1942 or something like that and the industry made 16 trillion gazillion dollars in profit last year. After that he went into his anti-piracy speech. Piracy will DESTROY the industry! OH NO! RUN AND HIDE!

Yes, copyright holders do indeed have thre right to say what happens with their products. But let's face it, they are absolute morons if they think they can actually control it. Once a movie is out on DVD, it's gonna be copied. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There is absolutely nothing that can be done and the studios take that risk and release their material anyway. Why? Because the majority of the people will not copy the intellectual property and the studios will still make lots and lots of profit. I wouldn't encourage piracy but in no means do I think the industry will collapse because of it.

And film collectors are about 1/1,000,000th of a threat (or less) than people who pirate.

When Jacky-poo thows out figures about how much money he supposedly lost to piracy, how does he know? Does he think that everyone who views a pirated video would have actually paid to see that movie? How does he know how much money people actually make off of pirating? What would he do with the extra money? If someone didn't buy a cheap pirated copy what makes him think they would buy the full copy?

I think there are more important things in the world to be concerned about rather than film collectors showing a few prints. Look at our economy. When someone makes a big deal about film collectors, I laugh at them because they are funny.

Posted by Tom Doyle (Member # 1474) on 04-16-2003, 11:14 PM:

Here's a small triumph for all the film collectors out there from a story in today's papers:

The Museum of Television & Radio announced Tuesday that a 16mm print of the 1954 jury room drama "Twelve Angry Men" has been located. It was thought that this thriller no longer existed, but a film copy of the kinoscope was found in the estate of a private collector.

Ok, I guess this isn't really earth-shattering to anyone in the film business. Everyone is probably much more familiar with the movie version that came out three years later. However, this story points out the same problem that the film industry had - they didn't save everything. Even more interesting is that this print was acquired *legally* - which may be true of many old film prints in the hands of collectors.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1050475120104300.xml