35mm prints

Mike Williamson · October 1, 2004

At what point does it make sense to create an interpositive and internegative rather than making prints directly from the original camera negative? What's the magic number of prints where an IN/IP becomes necessary to avoid damaging the negative?

The situation I have in mind is a low-budget indie film with the goal of screening 35mm prints at festivals (ever hopeful that the project will then find a distributor). I assume it would be possible to make several prints from the camera negative and deal with making IN/IP and duplication as that arises. Does this sound right?

I'm also curious about what the various stages are for making a 35mm print from a Super16 negative. In this situation, is it necessary to make an internegative and an interpositive, or is it preferrable to blow-up directly to 35mm positive print? Does anyone have a cost estimate for a blow-up? As above, the goal would be to take a few 35mm prints to festivals. I've scanned the archives briefly but didn't find any numbers on the cost of a blow-up, but perhaps I've missed something. Thanks in advance, any additional thoughts on S16 blow-ups versus shooting 35mm (in a low budget context) are welcome.

Dirk DeJonghe · October 1, 2004

There are economic and safety reasons to make an IP/DN. Making prints from the original negative exposes it to wear and tear and the risk of a printing accident (splice coming half loose, tearing the film lengthwise for example).

Running a polyester DN with no splices is a lot safer than running an original negative with hundreds of splices. Most labs will charge more for printing original negs versus DN. Also, if the DN gets damaged, it is fairly easy to make a new section or even a whole new reel.

Making more than about 10 prints from an original 35mm negative is to be avoided, the breakeven point for a IP/DN is about 8-10 prints. At least make an IP as safety master when printing from the original.

For Super16 the situation is similar. Direct blow-ups are good quality if properly done, and many short films only have blow-ups made.

The breakeven point between direct blow up /IP-DN is about 8 prints because blow-up is more expensive than contact printing.

As an absolute minimum a contact S16 IP could be made as safety, it's better than nothing and less expensive than a proper blow-up 35mm IP.

We usually make a S16 answer print to finalise the grading, then the direct blow up or the fully graded 35mm IP.

Going to a large 35mm printing lab is not necessarily the best choice for S16 blow-up work.

Mitch Gross · October 2, 2004

I gave a detailed post just this week about the steps in the lab and their relative costs. Do a search for my recent posts and I'm sure you'll find it.

Mike Williamson · October 2, 2004

Found it. I've been digging in the 35mm Only forum. Many thanks, Mitch. Dirk, thank you as well.

John Pytlak RIP · October 8, 2004

Found it. I've been digging in the 35mm Only forum. Many thanks, Mitch. Dirk, thank you as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also check out the ACVL Manual and information on the Kodak website:

http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...0.1.4.9.6&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/.../h2/index.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/

I agree that release printing from a duplicate negative is certainly recommended as you approach a dozen or more prints. There are cases where hundreds of prints were made from the original cut negative, but they risk excessive wear and damage to the negative. Once you have your approved answer print, make your IP.

Mike Williamson · October 8, 2004

Thanks John, I'll take a look at the links.

Speaking of making too many prints off of the negative, I watched the extras on the restored "Rear Window" DVD. The producers talk about how the camera negative was used again and again for duping the prints for the various re-releases, totally astounding to me. Apparently they would put a coat of lacquer on the negative and run it until the lacquer wore off, slap on another coat of lacquer and start again, obviously doing major damage to the negative. So I won't be doing that anytime soon...

Webster Colcord · October 28, 2004

For my short film projects, in 35 and 16, I've tried to avoid running more than 5 prints off the original neg, excluding one or two answer prints. One other advantage of making the IP/IN is that the IP is timed, and low contrast (correct me if I'm wrong) so it's ideal for doing your final telecine from (plus there's no A-B rolls).

I recently had some 16 blown up to 35, and shudder to think what the total cost for a feature would be. Seems like I've heard it over and over again that the cost of the blowup to 35 negated any savings from shooting in Super 16.

I've heard it explained that some features make an IP off the camera neg right away, and actually conform the IP, then make multiple internegs for final release prints from that conformed IP. So the camera neg is only run twice- for workprints and IP's. Have I got this wrong? It was many years ago that I heard this.

Dominic Case · October 29, 2004

Seems like I've heard it over and over again that the cost of the blowup to 35 negated any savings from shooting in Super 16.

Not so.

While IP and IN are expensive elements, you would have to do them anyway - unless you are making a very small number of prints from the original neg. So the only true additional cost is for the blow-up surcharge for whichever stage you blow up. Compare that - not just with the saving in stock cost - but also the processing, not to mention cheaper camera hire, faster set-up time etc.

In 35mm (or S16) if you plan only to print from the original neg, for goodness' sake make an IP as soon as you approve the answer print. It's your only protection against damage to the original, and as someone else pointed out, it's the best thing to make a video master from. No need to spend $ on a dupe neg until later, and then only if you have to.

Webster Colcord · October 29, 2004

Not so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dominic,

Like any wannabe indie movie mogul, I'm an opportunist when it comes to getting production discounts. Does my filmmaker "spider sense" detect possible discount optical rates in Australia? If so, I may be sending some 16 to your lab for blow-up. This is the rate I currently get (not including processing and stock, I think) in US dollars:

16 neg to 16 IP to 35neg, $1.44/ft.

16 neg to 35 IP, $1.56/ft. (with b roll, add .30/ft.)

If you don't want to give a quote on the forum, you could email me at wcolcord@aol.com

Mitch Gross · October 30, 2004

I've run these numbers countless times, and have posted the breakdowns repeatedly on this forum. Please do a search in the archives and you'll find plenty of information and pricing. It is still always cheaper to shoot in S-16 and blowup to 35 then shoot in 35 and print to 35mm. There are crazy ways to twist the comparisons to shift the numbers, but in a straightforward head to toe comparison of normal shooting then Super-16 is cheaper. Always.

Mike Williamson · November 2, 2004

When I checked the archives recently for Mitch's post on this topic, I found one very detailed breakdown under the subject heading "Film - Film Transfer", which I guess was somebody's newfangled word for printing. Thanks again for your patience, Mitch.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...wtopic=2515&hl=