How were films shot on reversal stocks mass-printed?

[Deniz Zagra]

I'm not really experienced with the process, but as far as I know, the traditional way of making a release print from the original camera negative involves making a color master positive then a duplicate negative and finally a release print. The process seems pretty clear, but what about films that were shot on reversal stock like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which was shot on  Ektachrome 25T 7252. I'm pretty sure the process is long gone, since even when film was dominant not a lot of people shot reversal stocks, but it still sounds interesting. Can anyone explain the printing process? Was it widely available? Any advantages or disadvantages? Apparently, Jane de Bone overexposed the negative on Basic Instinct (1992), so that the final prints would still have good blacks. Since reversal stocks are contrasted in nature, would the same idea hold true? Thanks in advance.

[Giray Izcan]

You would get IN (internegative) which would be used for making release prints. 

Unlike negative stocks,  you would expose reversal at the box speed or underexpose it a bit.. 1/3 of a stop.

Edited April 16 by Giray Izcan

[Tyler Purcell]

Kodak use to make Kodachrome print stock for this purpose. You'd be able to make positive prints from your positive originals. This isn't necessarily how they'd make theatrical runs however, because you still need to add things like soundtrack and most of the time, that was done on 35mm for theatrical releases.  So the positive original, would be blown up to 35mm internegative, which would then be used to strike prints, on low budget films. Theoretically, one could still do that today, but I can't imagine it looking good with Ektachrome. 

Many people did shoot on reversal stocks, especially VFN (video news film) and other variants of Ektachrome, designed for high speed photography. I've been managing an archive of original Ektachrome camera rolls for over a dozen films that my friend (now passed) made back in the mid to late 70's and into the early 80's. They're all done using the same process of reversal to reversal. The quality of the prints is soft, but the colors are good. I can't imagine there being any real benefits compared to shooting negative and printing that way. 

Quite a lot of DP's overexpose negative, I for sure like that look as it adds contrast. For printing however, you really wanna keep the exposure consistent. Michael Ballhaus did this on Gangs of New York, shooting the film at the same stop and not doing any color correction and the prints look outstanding. I think it was a lot of work on set to match it all tho. I have also done a lot of printing of my own work and I find it to be hit or miss. If you light it perfectly, it can look really good, but for printing, I think it's imperative you nail the consistency of the exposure. You can't muck around if you want it to have any detail, especially in the blacks. 

[Robert Houllahan]

I am actually working on a project right now that is doing the exact workflow that TX Chainsaw did.

They shot 16mm color reversal and up shot it on and optical printer to an Internegative and then went on to make prints from that IN.

The job we are doing tests for now is shot on Ultra 16mm Ektachrome 100D and I am setting up to up shoot it on our Producers ACME optical printer to 35mm 2254 IN stock.

As far as printing lights go that is a bit of test and see how the stock and exposures resolve on the IN stock to print.

[Brian Drysdale]

Ektachrome 7225 was a lower contrast stock, as explained here:

 

[Robert Houllahan]

I am kinda excited to see what comes of 100D Ekta up printed to 2254 Vision3 IN stock which is most commonly used for Arrilaser recrdings and I bet has allot more range than the older IN stocks they used for Texas Chainsaw.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

16 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

As far as printing lights go that is a bit of test and see how the stock and exposures resolve on the IN stock to print.

Very cool! You're probably the last guy in the US willing to do that workflow! Super cool. 

[Jon O'Brien]

26 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You're probably the last guy in the US willing to do that workflow!

Please document the whole process you use Robert, in notes and video if you can, to pass on this knowledge to a new generation when it comes time for you to retire. It probably takes decades to acquire such knowledge from one's own experimentation and experience. It's better for a young person to learn from someone who's already trodden that path.

I do as much as I can to hand on my hard won knowledge.

Edited April 16 by Jon O'Brien

[Robert Houllahan]

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Very cool! You're probably the last guy in the US willing to do that workflow! Super cool. 

There are two, maybe three labs in the US which can and would possibly do this, and have the optical printer to do it with.

[charles pappas]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:30 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Kodak use to make Kodachrome print stock for this purpose. You'd be able to make positive prints from your positive originals. This isn't necessarily how they'd make theatrical runs however, because you still need to add things like soundtrack and most of the time, that was done on 35mm for theatrical releases.  So the positive original, would be blown up to 35mm internegative, which would then be used to strike prints, on low budget films. Theoretically, one could still do that today, but I can't imagine it looking good with Ektachrome. 

Many people did shoot on reversal stocks, especially VFN (video news film) and other variants of Ektachrome, designed for high speed photography. I've been managing an archive of original Ektachrome camera rolls for over a dozen films that my friend (now passed) made back in the mid to late 70's and into the early 80's. They're all done using the same process of reversal to reversal. The quality of the prints is soft, but the colors are good. I can't imagine there being any real benefits compared to shooting negative and printing that way. 

Quite a lot of DP's overexpose negative, I for sure like that look as it adds contrast. For printing however, you really wanna keep the exposure consistent. Michael Ballhaus did this on Gangs of New York, shooting the film at the same stop and not doing any color correction and the prints look outstanding. I think it was a lot of work on set to match it all tho. I have also done a lot of printing of my own work and I find it to be hit or miss. If you light it perfectly, it can look really good, but for printing, I think it's imperative you nail the consistency of the exposure. You can't muck around if you want it to have any detail, especially in the blacks. 

Yes, I think reversal to reversal "release" prints were fairly common way back when; I had two short films shown as part of two Architecture and Film series and had one such "release," print made of each film. I seem to recall there was also a specific film stock for that that wasn't Kodachrome.

The prints were priced as answer prints - about $1.25 or less per foot (more than one-light). There was informal break-even formula for the number of reversal release prints that could be made until it was cheaper to made an internegative. Maybe 5 to 10 prints - of course this was all for semi - amateurs.

On the first film the soundtrack was "electro-printed" onto the reversal release print so no separate soundtrack film had to be made. By the the time of the second film electro-printing was dead, I was told, and a soundtrack strip had to be made.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, charles pappas said:

Yes, I think reversal to reversal "release" prints were fairly common way back when; I had two short films shown as part of two Architecture and Film series and had one such "release," print made of each film. I seem to recall there was also a specific film stock for that that wasn't Kodachrome.

The print stock used a Kodachrome process, it wasn't "camera" stock tho, it was lower ISO and specially balanced for this positive to positive workflow. Depending on the age, it was kinda rare for 16mm to be used as "source" on educational films until the mid 1960's. Most of the time they still used 35mm since the workflow was easier to deal with. Remember, with 35mm you don't need A/B roll and blind splices. All the editing facilities were also 35mm. So the added cost of 35mm was worth it. You start to see this shift in the 1960's, especially into the 70's when cameras like the CP16R, 16BL, Eclair ACL and eventually Aaton, made shooting on 16mm much lighter, quieter and easier. People then developed editing solutions and by the mid/late 1970's, it was quite fashionable to shoot on positive stocks and do exactly the workflow you're describing. I have dozens of films (original camera elements and prints) from educational and documentary films made this way. The workflow was a lot easier. 
 

1 hour ago, charles pappas said:

The prints were priced as answer prints - about $1.25 or less per foot (more than one-light). There was informal break-even formula for the number of reversal release prints that could be made until it was cheaper to made an internegative. Maybe 5 to 10 prints - of course this was all for semi - amateurs.

Color timed prints were pennies per foot back then. Even today, I think $1.25/foot seems awfully high for a timed print if you already have the timing tape. The cost to time was not related to the actual print itself, it was a separate line item. The big thing was soundtrack and we found every single one of the 16mm films we had all the source elements for, had 35mm 3 stripe mag original soundtracks and no optical soundtrack. They would create the soundtrack on the prints from the magnetic 3 stripe on the fly, as you said using electro-printing process. Pretty nifty! 

 

[charles pappas]

9 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The print stock used a Kodachrome process, it wasn't "camera" stock tho, it was lower ISO and specially balanced for this positive to positive workflow. Depending on the age, it was kinda rare for 16mm to be used as "source" on educational films until the mid 1960's. Most of the time they still used 35mm since the workflow was easier to deal with. Remember, with 35mm you don't need A/B roll and blind splices. All the editing facilities were also 35mm. So the added cost of 35mm was worth it. You start to see this shift in the 1960's, especially into the 70's when cameras like the CP16R, 16BL, Eclair ACL and eventually Aaton, made shooting on 16mm much lighter, quieter and easier. People then developed editing solutions and by the mid/late 1970's, it was quite fashionable to shoot on positive stocks and do exactly the workflow you're describing. I have dozens of films (original camera elements and prints) from educational and documentary films made this way. The workflow was a lot easier. 
 

Color timed prints were pennies per foot back then. Even today, I think $1.25/foot seems awfully high for a timed print if you already have the timing tape. The cost to time was not related to the actual print itself, it was a separate line item. The big thing was soundtrack and we found every single one of the 16mm films we had all the source elements for, had 35mm 3 stripe mag original soundtracks and no optical soundtrack. They would create the soundtrack on the prints from the magnetic 3 stripe on the fly, as you said using electro-printing process. Pretty nifty! 

 

Yes, I used Bolex, Beaulieu  and CP-16. 4-gangs, A/b rolls, etc., as you refer to. Lenny Lipton et. al. stuff.

The $1.25 was for an answer print, which I used as a release print. Maybe the "Kodachromic," print stock cost more than normal print stock, hence the break-even formula for when to make an internegative.

At any rate it didn't matter to me because I was only making one print.

Considering it further, I guess the "electro-printing," was similar to the Auricon sound-on-film process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Dunn]

12 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I think $1.25/foot seems awfully high for a timed print if you already have the timing tape. The cost to time was not related to the actual print itself, it was a separate line item.

London prices in 1981 were about £0.25/ft for an A/B roll answer print. The contemporary exchange rate makes that about 60cents. Grading wasn't charged separately but there was quite a high minimum charge IIRC, so the fee was obviously built in.

Maybe quoting  a low footage rate made a lab appear more competitive.

 

Edited April 18 by Mark Dunn

[mark mervis]

One of the main reasons color reversal was used in professional 16mm was the dust problem. Although color negative was available in 35mm in the early 1950s, 16mm color negative camera film wasn't available until the early 1980s (7247 7291). What made this possible was continuous high-speed full submersion "liquid gate" contact printing. 7252, or ECO (Ektachrome Commercial Original), was a very slow-speed film with incredibly low contrast, the log-C of its day. Unlike all other Ektachrome camera films, it was not designed to be directly projected like the Ektachrome EF, MF, and VNF. It was designed to be printed on a higher contrast print stock, allowing you room to print up or down a few stops. 

 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

??? The first long modern color movie (35mm color prints from 35mm color negatives) was shot in 1941.

And Kodak claims that 16mm color negatives have been available since 1968 (7254):

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/chronology-of-film/

And yes, it’s for cameras:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145371937297

[mark mervis]

The question was, " How were films shot on reversal stocks mass-printed?" I was trying to answer the unasked question, "Why" was 16mm reversal used instead of color negative film?

I stand corrected. In 1968, there was a 16mm color negative film. Release printing on 16mm negative print stock generated from reversal camera originals was the most common. Just because something was available does not mean it fell into wide use. 

[Gautam Valluri]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:25 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

I am kinda excited to see what comes of 100D Ekta up printed to 2254 Vision3 IN stock which is most commonly used for Arrilaser recrdings and I bet has allot more range than the older IN stocks they used for Texas Chainsaw.

 

Robert, it would be amazing to see some results if possible (with permission from the filmmakers of course). Or once there is a trailer ready for the film, please link us if possible.

Edit: I did refilm some 35mm Ekta 100D slides onto 5213 200T on an Oxberry optical printer for a short sequence in an experimental project a few years back. Results were interesting.

Edited April 23 by Gautam Valluri
Adding more precision