2 perf

Dominic Case · January 27, 2005

I'm just guessing at the $15,000 part

I think David's guess of $15,000 extra for a blow-up from 2 to 4 perf (compared with a contact IP or dupe) is a little over the mark, but there is certainly a higher charge for optical printing than contact.

Maybe I aught to learn what they're doing that's so valuable,

Dirk has explained the most siginficant difference - the likelihood of re-runs because of dust contamination in the wetgate process. It's no good saying the lab should absorb that cost because it's not the customer's fault: any manufacturing process has a failure rate that has to be factored into the cost - computer chips for example have a massive percentage failure rate. And it's no good saying that the lab could employ the sort of clean room techniques that are used in computer chip manufacture: of course they could, but installing that sort of equipment would bump the cost up a whole lot more still. Seriously more.

Another factor is the time taken. Contact printing - even duplication - is typically at 180 feet per minute or faster, and the light changes etc are fully automated. A full feature can be done in a couple of hours. As Dirk points out, an Oxberry or similar typically runs at a few frames per second: a 2,000ft spool might take several hours, and it must be fully supervised (i.e a technician's full time attention, not spent preparing the next reel or anything), as most optical printers are not fitted with automatic light changes (as George points out, they are mostly used for wipes or more complex optical effects and transitions, so light change automation isn't high on the agenda). Again, you could build machines that ran faster and were automated, but at a cost that would be reflected in the per-foot rate.

maybe I'll be driving a much better car in a year

I have to say, George, that of all the people providing services in the film industry, I don't see lab people driving better cars.

GeorgeSelinsky · January 27, 2005

I have to say, George, that of all the people providing services in the film industry, I don't see lab people driving better cars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks to Dom and Dirk for your answers, it's nice to have lab people on this forum!

I've had varying experiences with labs, sometimes I'd see how ridiculous some of their prices were - simply based on how one client could get away without getting charged a certain fee, while another who wouldn't know any better got it on his or her tab. The fact is that labs are a business and while I don't know how much the technician on the end makes (I'm sure most of them are not driving BMW's), the guys on top don't drive bad cars - that's for sure. Many of them have offices in prime city locales where real estate is not cheap, either.

I didn't know that there was such a serious dust issue with wetgate printing, in all the telecine transfers I've done with wetgate I guess I've been lucky not to have this problem. I also never imagined that it'd take a whole day to set up an optical printer to do a different format. In my experience with Oxberry's it didn't seem to be that complicated, swapping a movement and checking the optical alignment isn't as easy as switching lenses but didn't imagine it'd take a day. Also, why an automatic light changing system couldn't be adapted to an optical printer is strange. Given the large amount of 16-35 blowups and Super 35-Anamorphic films that are being done, one would think this would almost be an automatic development.

These days fewer people use optical printers for wipes and old fasioned "opticals", so it would make even more sense to reconsider the setup of optical machines. At the same time, people who used to shoot films in 16mm and T-scope back in the 60's and 70's had a much lower pricetag to pay for their work even when inflation is taken into account. There was one lab in the USA, from what I'm told, that used to do 16mm ECO blowups to a 35mm interneg for very little, and Technicolor Italy would give you dye sep blowups from 2 perf 35 - optical work heavily discounted. Now it's amazing that 4 perf 35mm can in some instances be the cheapest way to go.

I know I'm not a lab technician and I apologise if I come off sounding arrogant - that's not my intent. I know there's a lot to know and learn here and I'm grateful for the opportunity. It's just that I've had enough insider knowledge about how these businesses operate from people who've told me some behind the scenes stuff, and I know how some costs can get easily padded - the rationale being that people in this business have money to spend. At the same time it wouldn't be fair if I didn't point out that quite a few labs have been very nice and generous to indie filmmakers, willing to take chances with their films and so on...

I do think that there are ways to reduce the high price of optical work, but perhaps the market is happy sitting where it is. With the onset of digital intermediates, optical printing may be forced to become cheaper to compete, or simply be allowed to fade away.

- G.

Edited January 27, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

Dominic Case · January 27, 2005

in all the telecine transfers I've done with wetgate I guess I've been lucky not to have this problem

Often the speck of dirt is so small it wouldn't be seen on video - hence the lack of trouble you've had with telecine. Film is a better quality image, so it's more demanding.

Besides, if a speck of dust appears during a telecine run, you can simply run back to the shot where it appeared, blow it off the gate, and start again from that shot.

On film, as Dirk explained, you shoot complete rolls at a time. Then you process the roll: and you make a work print so you have something you can project safely and which will show up any dirt. If you find a speck landed on the gate half way through the reel (that's a day or so later), you have to do the entire reel again because normally the deal is for no splices in the negative. Even if you can get away with a splice, you still have to run half the negative through the wetgate before starting to expose the new section: and there is just the same risk of dirt again.

Also, why an automatic light changing system couldn't be adapted to an optical printer is strange.

I think you must have missed what I said before. Yes, of course it could be done. There would be a cost involved to develop and build the kit, which has to be set off against what it would earn for the lab. No manufacturer is going to make the thing on a commercial basis, it's simply not a big enough market in the world. So it would be a one-off in-house development (more cost still). For something that is rapidly being overtaken by Digital Intemediate processes anyway.

optical printing may be forced to become cheaper to compete

Again, the lab has to run as a business (or close down completely). Why would we want to reduce the prices of one service to compete with another? I put in a squillion dollars worth of digital equipment, then cut the price of a staple line of service (and therefore my revenue) in order to dissuade people from using my new service? I don't think so.

GeorgeSelinsky · January 27, 2005

I think you must have missed what I said before. Yes, of course it could be done. There would be a cost involved to develop and build the kit, which has to be set off against what it would earn for the lab. No manufacturer is going to make the thing on a commercial basis, it's simply not a big enough market in the world.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I copied that clearly...

From what I recall in my discussions with one optical equipment designer (who has designed systems for laboratories), there is a premade RGB light head that you can purchase (or at least there was when I talked to him). Basically we're talking about a light source here, not an entire camera system. I know it doesn't just fit like a puzzle piece from the contact printer to the optical head, but the cost of adapting it shouldn't, theoretically, be so astronomical, and the return is the benefit of automation versus having one person manually trim every change and sit there. I don't think it's a creatively enjoyable task for a technician to be tweaking the R, G, and B knob based on a cue sheet or tape. Might as well have him/her manually push the button for each frame.

I understand that a lab is a business and sometimes what's good for business is reducing overhead and passing a part of those savings onto customers, to encourage more business over the competition. Besides, with the current brand of digital intermediates looking more like glorified laser HDTV transfers and costing upwards of $100,000, I think that many filmmakers will still be interested in staying film to film all the way. It's a tried and true method. Furthermore, not all labs are going to have the bazillions required to invest in that gear anyway.

Once again, I apologize if it sounds like I'm being a know it all - I acknowlege that pro's are pro's for a reason. I just want to understand this process better and see what the real deal is, and I appreciate your contribution very much. By the way, if your facility quotes me a good 2 perf optical rate I'd actually be quite happy to entertain the idea :D

- G.

Edited January 27, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

Landon D. Parks · January 28, 2005

It's amazing more people dont shoot 2-perf today. I mean, if you dont have the money to shoot anamorphic in the first place, and all you will want is an 2.39:1 ratio, then why not just shoot 2-perf? It has an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 does'nt it?

Dirk DeJonghe · January 28, 2005

Why don't more people shoot 2 perf: very simple: there is hardly any infrastructure for that non-standard format.

Just providing 3perf facilities is a major undertaking, it took about 18 months before the first productions in 3Perf started to come in due to lack of cameras.

Currently two 35/3P S35 productions underway at the same time. Serious lack of information too, some DOP's were convinced that 3Perf could only be digitally postproduced, this is not true we do both optical and digital.

3 perf is probably 10 times more widespread than 2 perf and it is already having a hard time.

GeorgeSelinsky · January 28, 2005

Why don't more people shoot 2 perf: very simple: there is hardly any infrastructure for that non-standard format.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that this is very unfortunate. In a day and age when the bean counters are attacking film budgets with a vengeance, trying to push everyone to go HD, while at the same time Kodak filmstocks have gotten so grainless and sharp, and the aspect ratio of HDTV is closer to 2 perf than SDTV, 2 perf has perhaps the highest potential it ever had to be a standard working format. I think it pays to give it a stronger push. As always, this depends on both camera manufacturers/rental facilities and laboratories working as a team.

We see that Super 35, Super 16, and Vistavision still have adherents out there, and these are formats that need opticals to get to a print. 2 perf and 3 perf are no different, the big thing here is a difference in the movement.

- G.

Edited January 28, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

Bruce McNaughton · February 4, 2005

Hi all

We are the people who converted Movielabs 3 Arri BLs to 2 perf. We have done many since and as I write I have 4 cameras on the bench for conversion. These are Kinor 35H, Ultracam and two Konvas units 1M and 2M. There is another Kinor coming in and we just shipped one, converted.

So the format is gaining some popularity. The cheaper cameras (Russian) converted to 2 perf are widely favoured to assist with budget savings on small features. I think that this is the market for this format.

My personal favourite camera in 2 perf is the Arri BL but the Ultracam is also shaping up to be a nice unit (even though it is a brick)

For those who may be contemplating a conversion, they run out at around $USD 4,000- 5,000.

Cheers

Bruce

bruce@arandafilm.com.au

Lester Mclewis · November 25, 2005

I've been interested in 2 perf for awhile now but finding one is about impossable so I've decided to modify a konvas in the next few months. As for the optical blow up and di intermediate, I would bypass the optical blow up and convert it into a 4 perf squished image using LINUX(Cinelerra and Main actor). I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that both programs will alow you to edit in the regular 2:35:1 ratio and squish it when you render your tiffs(or whatever you preffer) out for film recording. Cinelerra is free and is resolution independant so if you have a 16k file(if one exist) you can edit it in cinelerra. Main actor cost about $200.00 and has a ton of proffesional features included. If you sell your film to a studio they will most likely pick up your DI cost(At your royalties expense) I checked with duart and they can transfer 2 perf on a spirit to a hard drive so you can dump your footage in the computer and go, unfortunatly they don't have set prices that I'm aware of and I think you have to get a quote on the transfer. I know linux is kind of shunned on in the motion picture world but it is super stable and very FAST not to mention some of the biggest studios use linux(Dreamworks, ILM) If you want to try it I sugest downloading Red Hat Fedora core 3 or 4 and cinelerra and giving them a try, Another cool program that might do a squish is Jashaka(Again Linux). Hope this helps! :)

Lester Mclewis · November 25, 2005

Hello me again, I forgot to mention that there are plenty of good and bad used Solitare film recorders on the market for under $10,000. You may have to have it serviced and get an animation head for it($6000 new at Oxberry) or you can find a used one pretty cheap($500-2000). These are CRT based film recorders but they are good enough for feature work. I believe the film "Polar Express" was bumped out to film using one of these machines, However I read that they bumped it out to 65/70mm(Yes a Solitare can do 65/70mmwith the right head) and then they reduced it to 35mm for duplication. I know a film recorder is big and bulky but the ability do DI's for the cost off film stock is a big plus in this game! Your supposed to use a special film when doing DI bump outs, But I'd be willing to bet you could experament with Negative film stock and have a direct negative without the interpos. I don't own one yet but I've got my eye on a couple for under $5000. The other option would be to build one using a High resolution crt Monitor and a Mitchell with an animation motor, or you could have a 144 degree shutter made for your 35mm camera and do a 35mm kinescope(This is only for transfering 29.97 out to 24p in realtime I wouldn't try running a 24p project out to a kinescope). Anyway here are a couple of options for getting your projects to 35mm cheaper than paying for it.

Paul Bruening · November 30, 2005

Hello Landon,

The costs of shooting 2-perf or 4-perf are only a consideration for very low budget productions. These factors are tiny compared to cast and crew payroll, studio and location costs and all the other thousands of things that eat money in a standard production.

Adam Frisch FSF · November 30, 2005

Why don't more people shoot 2 perf: very simple: there is hardly any infrastructure for that non-standard format.

Well, I did tests in like 1998 and ran 2-perf in the Spirit without a problem. So I don't really see why it should be such problem. Sure, an old 2-perf optical printer might be hard to get a hold of, but this really is a DI-format today.

John Pytlak RIP · November 30, 2005

Yes, for feature production, both 3-perf and 2-perf would likely use DI today.

Patrick Neary · November 30, 2005

Well, I did tests in like 1998 and ran 2-perf in the Spirit without a problem. So I don't really see why it should be such problem. Sure, an old 2-perf optical printer might be hard to get a hold of, but this really is a DI-format today.

I think the problem is that most 35 features (despite the attention DIs are getting) still finish through a traditional film route, correct? And (as far as I'm aware at this moment) none of the current Arri or Panavision camera systems most folks use are available as 2-perf. At this stage of the game, it seems like you'd have to be a bit of a renegade production, willing to put up with the current limitations of equipment availability, to shoot 2-perf, even though on paper it makes complete sense. Maybe Aaton's Penelope will help shift things in a 2-perf direction, it would sure be a great format to work with!

Christian Appelt · December 8, 2005

Maybe this is interesting to those of you contemplating about 2-perf, a vintage Eclair CM3 that can be switched from 4-perf to 2-perf pulldown and to 16mm as well:

eBay auction Techniscope CM3

I always thought there were separate models "16/35" and "T" for Techniscope, didn't know there was a Caméflex that could do all three of them...