How does one print Ektachrome onto projection film?

[Owen A. Davies]

I'll keep this brief because I believe I have asked a similar question to this one before a few months ago and I simply cannot find the chat. Kodak 2383/3383 is a negative film. When a fully developed VISION3 negative is printed onto projection film, the two negative stocks in combination yield a positive projection print once the 2383 is fully developed. If someone were to shoot a film on lets say Kodak 5294 Ektachrome 100D 35mm, how would they then go about printing that developed positive onto print film? Would they have to essentially double-print the film in order to yield an eventual positive projection print? Are films that are shot on Ektachrome so rarely projected that this scenario is simply not all that common of an issue? Thank you in advance for the insight!

[Dirk DeJonghe]

The old way to print Ektachrome was to use either reversal print film or flashed internegative film and make a positive print from this. There was even Ektachrome Commercial 7252 with special low contrast that could be printed on internegative without flashing. This was how it worked in the 70's and 80's.

Reversal print film has not been made for decades. Internegative film is no longer available but can be replaced by flashing camera  stock and pull processing. 

The only viable option from Ektachrome is to do a digital scan and filmout.

On the other hand, do you really want to project or have someone else project your priceless original Ektachrome?

It is much simpler to shoot negative and make a print. 

 

[Simon Wyss]

I find KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film 3242, ESTAR base, in the Kodak motion-picture products price catalog for the United States, effective February 1, 2024. On page 21 are listed 16 mm × 2000 ft rolls perforated both edges and one edge, $1028.60 each.

[Gautam Valluri]

14 hours ago, Owen A. Davies said:

Are films that are shot on Ektachrome so rarely projected that this scenario is simply not all that common of an issue?

Some examples of 16mm Ektachrome/ Reversal shot films that were widely projected were The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Indian film Duvidha. In both cases, the edited colour reversal film element was blown up to 35mm internegative for release prints.

@Christian Flemmhas told me he managed to make Ektachrome-to-Ektachrome dupes. He might be able to advise on this technique.

4 hours ago, Dirk DeJonghe said:

Internegative film is no longer available but can be replaced by flashing camera  stock and pull processing.

This is very interesting. Is it possible to see some results of this process?

 

14 hours ago, Owen A. Davies said:

If someone were to shoot a film on lets say Kodak 5294 Ektachrome 100D 35mm, how would they then go about printing that developed positive onto print film?

I would optically print the reversal image onto a 35mm internegative and make contact prints from that. Maybe flash the interneg to reduce contrast.

EDIT: Just remembered that I used this method for a sequence in one of my short films. I had shot a sequence of stills on several rolls of 5294 that I spliced together and loaded into an optical printer on the projection side. Then I refilmed them frame-by-frame onto 5213 stock. It turned out rather well actually. Didn't even have to flash the negative.

Edited October 15, 2024 by Gautam Valluri
Adding additional precision

[Tyler Purcell]

Unfortunately they stopped making reversal print stock years ago.

They had Ektachrome and Kodachrome variants, but they don't anymore. 

I guess if you timed Ektachrome, maybe it could be a substitute, but it would be very tricky to get right. 

[Dirk DeJonghe]

The last official version of Kodak Internegative film 3273 was in fact the 7203 cast on polyester base without the remjet.

We pull processed it and preflashed in the printer before picture exposure. Since it is no longer manufactured, we now use 7203 in the exact same conditions with the disadvantage that only 122m max rolls are available.

We use the sensitometer tests to adjust flashing and processing to achieve a gamma of 0.50. 

The older internegative 7272 was in fact designed to be used with low contrast 7252 ECO reversal film, if 7242 or similar projection contrast Ektachromes were used as originals and mixed with ECO, we preflashed the 7242 in the camera before delivery to the customer shoot.

2273-3273-ti.pdf

[Robert Houllahan]

On 10/15/2024 at 4:24 AM, Simon Wyss said:

I find KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film 3242, ESTAR base, in the Kodak motion-picture products price catalog for the United States, effective February 1, 2024. On page 21 are listed 16 mm × 2000 ft rolls perforated both edges and one edge, $1028.60 each.

With a 6x can minimum order.

7203 50D is also an option to use as an IN as Dirk said.

I have someone right now who wants to try a Ultra 16mm 100D Ektachrome to 35mm optical blowup which I am working on getting our Producer's Service optical printer ACME shuttle U-16mm modded for.

 

[Ludwig Hagelstein]

The best way to do it would be to make a Scan of the Ektachrome, create a Negative via ARRILASER and then print from the neg. If you want to run the Ektachrome in a projector, that's of course the easiest way to project it 🙂

[Christian Flemm]

On 10/15/2024 at 2:52 PM, Gautam Valluri said:

Some examples of 16mm Ektachrome/ Reversal shot films that were widely projected were The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Indian film Duvidha. In both cases, the edited colour reversal film element was blown up to 35mm internegative for release prints.

@Christian Flemmhas told me he managed to make Ektachrome-to-Ektachrome dupes. He might be able to advise on this technique.

This is very interesting. Is it possible to see some results of this process?

 

I would optically print the reversal image onto a 35mm internegative and make contact prints from that. Maybe flash the interneg to reduce contrast.

EDIT: Just remembered that I used this method for a sequence in one of my short films. I had shot a sequence of stills on several rolls of 5294 that I spliced together and loaded into an optical printer on the projection side. Then I refilmed them frame-by-frame onto 5213 stock. It turned out rather well actually. Didn't even have to flash the negative.

Just to reply to Gautam, for a period of about a year I was involved in making reversal-to-reversal dupes from and to Ektachrome. I made several tests on a friend's Oxberry, and then again on my tabletop contact printer. The trick, I discovered, was to shoot at box speed and have the film pulled one stop in the developer. I made a control sample of this workflow with Andec processing, and subsequently tested with hand developing in the old 30m 16mm JOBO spiral in Tetenal chemistry. If you've nailed the exposure of the camera original, you can manage a near-perfect "one light" dupe, with minimal increase in contrast and saturation. It was in these instances where my contact printer did the trick.

With that said, for any camera material that is sufficiently under or over (but especially over) exposed, one would need to use an optical printer and find the correct aperture or lamp setting for each scene, which is truly painstaking work. From experience, I had very bad luck in trying to duplicate over-exposed material, given the nature of reversal film.

To be clear, I was only doing this to have multiple projection copies of my films, and to duplicate camera materials for editing in a way that is specific to my filmmaking practice. This was far more affordable than making an internegative and printing from that. I do think that mine is an impractical approach, and would advise others to instead:

• Digitize and "film out" onto 50D, then time and print the neg (for those willing to go the digital route)
• Contact print the camera original onto 50D with a step printer (after making tests), then time and print the neg.
• Go the @Ludwig Hagelstein route. I agree with him that it is the best option, but also far and away the most expensive. However, if one has the resources to shoot a film on 35mm Ektachrome, as the hypothetical filmmaker in Owen's initial question does, one might also have the resources to do this.

The most affordable option would actually be, I think, my method, which also happens to be the most time-intensive option. And one would need to be privileged with, in the end, access to an optical or contact printer. Otherwise, DIY-ing a film-out from a scan is probably one's best bet.

Best,

C

 

[David Mullen ASC]

When our film school dean passed away at CalArts, experimental filmmaker Ed Emshwiller, I had to go through his material being submitted for archiving in the library and catalog it.  One thing I discovered was that a lot of his late 1960s / early 1970s shorts were shot on 16mm Ektachrome and printed onto 16mm Kodachrome, which oddly enough meant that the print was more archival, color-wise, than the original.  I was told that this technique wasn't uncommon for underground 16mm filmmakers at the time who only needed a few prints. I have no idea how they color-timed the print though, it was probably just a one-light.

Today the most common solution would be to scan the original, then laser-record out a negative for printing.

Or to cross-process the Ektachrome into a negative so it could be printed.

[Ludwig Hagelstein]

2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

When our film school dean passed away at CalArts, experimental filmmaker Ed Emshwiller, I had to go through his material being submitted for archiving in the library and catalog it.  One thing I discovered was that a lot of his late 1960s / early 1970s shorts were shot on 16mm Ektachrome and printed onto 16mm Kodachrome, which oddly enough meant that the print was more archival, color-wise, than the original.  I was told that this technique wasn't uncommon for underground 16mm filmmakers at the time who only needed a few prints. I have no idea how they color-timed the print though, it was probably just a one-light.

Today the most common solution would be to scan the original, then laser-record out a negative for printing.

Or to cross-process the Ektachrome into a negative so it could be printed.

Cross Processed Ektachrome prints horrible - we tried it, and you get into the 40+ printer lights range easily, and even with these corrections, some scenes are next to impossible to print with a good result. Also, cross processed Ektachrome suffers from severe magenta toe fade if not treated with either formalin or run through E6 Pre Bleach to introduce FSB into the film. 

The easiest way to project Ektachrome, as said before, is to run it through a projector. If you're careful, and scan your original first, then the risk is somewhat limited. Although I totally see why that is not something one is prepared to do. Rest assured though, running 35mm 4-Perf Ektachrome trhough a 35mm projector is a unique experience. 

[David Mullen ASC]

I did a short film using 35mm Ektachrome for a scene that was supposed to be cross-processed... but the lab accidentally processed it normal -- so they offered to copy it onto Ektachrome again and cross-process that copy, which they did. Talk about two radically different-looking images!

[Gautam Valluri]

10 hours ago, Ludwig Hagelstein said:

lso, cross processed Ektachrome suffers from severe magenta toe fade if not treated with either formalin or run through E6 Pre Bleach to introduce FSB into the film. 

I remember when they shot the second season of Euphoria on cross processed 35mm Ektachrome, they said the resulting image had a strong green tint on it.

Also, does the cross processed ektachrome "negative" have the orange mask on it?

[Ludwig Hagelstein]

8 hours ago, Gautam Valluri said:

I remember when they shot the second season of Euphoria on cross processed 35mm Ektachrome, they said the resulting image had a strong green tint on it.

Also, does the cross processed ektachrome "negative" have the orange mask on it?

no - Ektachrome has no integral coupler mask - therefore the resulting negative has no coupler mask either. However, It's not exactly clear base too, but develops a strong tint.