From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:57:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <JIK.92Dec16010141@pit-manager.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>(I don't normally read this group, but I've scanned the last two weeks
>of traffic in it and read all of the FAQ postings I could find, and I
>couldn't find any mention of this topic, so I'm forced to ask about
>it.  Sorry if it's been discussed before.)
>
>For the past several weeks, the coupon leaflets in the Boston Sunday
>Globe have had in them an advertisement for a company calling itself
>"Signature Color."
>
>They claim to have come up with a new, better color film, by taking
>35MM motion picture film and adapting it for use in 35MM cameras.
>
>They offer to let people try this film for free -- by sending in a
>coupon and $1.99 for shipping and handling, you can get two
>20-exposure rolls of the film.
>
>OK, so I'm saying to myself, what's the catch?  Either (a) the film
>really is much better, so much so that they think people who try it
>will decide to buy more rather than buying other film, or (b) the film
>is different enough from normal 35MM film that it requires a special
>developing process that only Signature Color can provide (and, of
>course, if this is the case, I'm sure they charge an arm and a leg for
>it).

This is not the first place to try this.  Seattle Film Works has been
doing this for over 10 years.  They take tail ends of movie film and
respool it into 35mm.  In general, most people are disappointed.  I
tried SFW back in 1982, and got terrible results.  The ad said you
could get either slides or prints.  I went for slides.  They came back
with a yucky green cast.  The last frame or two on the roll got
exposed to light, either during loading into the 35mm cannisters or
during processing.  And finally, the slides came back numbered 10-33
instead of 1 to 24.  Anyway, you are interested in Signature, not
Seattle Film Works, so I'll stick to problems inherent in the system,
rather than ones specific to SFW.  The main problem is that the movie
studio has little interest in tail ends.  Who knows but what it got
tossed into the trunk of a car in the hot sun or sat around a long
time before they finally sold it.

Secondly, it is my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
that must movie film is actually tungsten balanced.

>The (b) possibility is strengthened by some of the fine print at the
>bottom of the coupon -- "Processing available at Signature Color with
>limited availability from other labs.  Process ECN-II."
>
>So, am I right?  Am I going to have to send the film back to them and
>pay a lot to get it developed?  If not, then what's the scam?  Is this
>really something for nothing, or is there a catch I'm missing?

Indeed, this stuff is NOT C-41.  So you can only get it processed at a
few places that do this.   Check the prices.  They are likely not all
that much below volume photofinisher prices.  Of course, they keep
giving you a "free" roll, which you can't quite bear to "waste" so you
use it and send it in, and you get another "free" roll, and so on.

Finally, even if you like their basic service then comes the problem of
reprints.  You have a picture that you like, and you go down to your
local photofinisher to get, say, Christmas cards made from it.  They
all come back wierd, since their machine doesn't have a channel for
the movie film.

I wouldn't bite.

  -- David Jacobson

This is my own opinion, and not that of my employer.
Newsgroups: rec.photo