regarding reversal film

[RAJENDRA BISWAS]

i shoot on e6 film and its great to see lot of detail compared to aprint film sometimes.know iknow it depends on lens lighting etc.. but if e6 film is for projecting slides than why is it not a standard motion picture film for porjectingo n screens..arent e6 films hold more detail than anegative...?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

limited dynamic range/latitude as well as the fact that you still need to print it to make mass releases, which is why you'd want more information off of a neg in order to go through the steps to making your release prints (IP/IN for example).

[Adrian Sierkowski]

limited dynamic range/latitude as well as the fact that you still need to print it to make mass releases, which is why you'd want more information off of a neg in order to go through the steps to making your release prints (IP/IN for example).

[Mark Dunn]

A projected slide is the camera original. If you could project a copy you would find it much less satisfactory. A cinema print is usually at least three generations away from that. In reversal I imagine it would be very difficult to control the contrast.

In addition E6 is a very expensive process. All intermediates would also have to be reversal, at greater cost. There is also only one 100 ISO stock available, as against many different ECN stocks.

[RAJENDRA BISWAS]

A projected slide is the camera original. If you could project a copy you would find it much less satisfactory. A cinema print is usually at least three generations away from that. In reversal I imagine it would be very difficult to control the contrast.

In addition E6 is a very expensive process. All intermediates would also have to be reversal, at greater cost. There is also only one 100 ISO stock available, as against many different ECN stocks.

 

 

you mean cinema negative is different from print negative

[Charles MacDonald]

you mean cinema negative is different from print negative

YES!

 

Same principle but a different animal. Different Gamma, Perforations, Processing, markings...

[RAJENDRA BISWAS]

YES!

 

Same principle but a different animal. Different Gamma, Perforations, Processing, markings...

 

 

so would you say e6 = negative in filmmaking respect to image quality

[Charles MacDonald]

so would you say e6 = negative in filmmaking respect to image quality

The Goal is for the Movie print after going through all the steps. (Negative, Interpositive, printing negative and release print) (or in modern workflow negative scan, computer edit, laser write to film duplicating negative, release print) to look almost as good as an E-6 slide right out of the camera. :rolleyes:

 

Only at the Camera lens, and again at the projector lens is anything happening that is similar to what happens to stills.

[Hal Smith]

A projected slide is the camera original. If you could project a copy you would find it much less satisfactory. A cinema print is usually at least three generations away from that. In reversal I imagine it would be very difficult to control the contrast.

In addition E6 is a very expensive process. All intermediates would also have to be reversal, at greater cost. There is also only one 100 ISO stock available, as against many different ECN stocks.

 

There was a very successful E6 workflow for years at the National Geographic. To my knowledge, until they started going digital all that beautiful photography was shot on slide films. So they obviously had a pretty good way of getting E6 to the printed page. If it can get to the printed page that well there should be a way of getting it to film distribution prints and keeping its best qualities.

[Charles MacDonald]

There was a very successful E6 workflow for years at the National Geographic. To my knowledge, until they started going digital all that beautiful photography was shot on slide films. So they obviously had a pretty good way of getting E6 to the printed page. If it can get to the printed page that well there should be a way of getting it to film distribution prints and keeping its best qualities.

 

Actually, I think NG favoured Kodachrome. IT had the best sharpness and saturated colour of any film they could send out to the folks in the field.

 

The printed page requires half-tone colour separations so the work-flows are totally different from either regular photofinishing or Motion Pictures. In the old days they would have been using colour separation filters, dot screens, and lith film, these fays some expensive scanners and page layout software. (the digital camera output just replaces the scanners)

[RAJENDRA BISWAS]

if e6 can be projected on screen why not for motion pictures....

[Simon Wyss]

There are movie stocks on the market that are meant to be developed after the E-6 process. E-6 has evolved from the older E-4 and the still older A-2 process of Agfa. There is the historical fact of forcedly published patents such as with Agfacolor in 1945. Eastmancolor derives from Agfacolor (1950).

 

Motion-picture colour film of today is hardly comparable to these systems. Chemistry has been changed, too. An E-6 process film will not stand up to properly treated colour negative and positive after ECN-ECP, an ISO speed value given for both sides.

[David Venhaus]

if e6 can be projected on screen why not for motion pictures....

Kodak 5285/7285 is an E6 film. Some years ago Fuji also had Velvia (also E6) available as a motion picture stock. It's mentioned by the previous posters why it wouldn't be particularly suitable for most workflows for making regular motion pictures.

[John Sprung]

There is the historical fact of forcedly published patents such as with Agfacolor in 1945. Eastmancolor derives from Agfacolor (1950).

 

There's more to it than that. Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowski at Kodak had a single strip multi-layer process before 1939, and Leonard T. Troland of Technicolor applied for an omnibus patent on single layer color in 1931, which was finally granted in 1941. From all that came the Monopack reversal intended as a source for Technicolor separations, and the ancestor of ECO. All patents are published when they're granted. What happened with the Agfa single strip negative technology is that the patents were placed in public domain by the Public Domain Act of 1945 in the U.S. and the Enemy Property Act of 1945 in the U.K. Kodak added the colored coupler idea and many other improvements down through the years to get us to the negative/IP/IN/print system we have today.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[RAJENDRA BISWAS]

waht i find in e6 is that it is sensitive to indor light...

 

found a e6 filmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgVrYCy0JjI

[Simon Wyss]

Thank you, John, you give it in exactness better than I do.

[Nicholas Rapak]

There is a person over at the Analog Photography Users Group (APUG), a still film forum, that was once a film engineer for Kodak. He once explained the technical advantages to a neg/pos (and repeat) system, as opposed to a pos/pos. One of the things that I remember was that he said that negatives hold far more information than a positive. I am not exactly sure why, but it is.

[Jim Carlile]

Was Technicolor reversal?

[Simon Wyss]

One of the things that I remember was that he said that negatives hold far more information than a positive.

That's correct but no more for black and white. A sharp negative has been exposed behind a lens, and everything after the negative actually should deal with that lens' geometry. That is why a good contact positive correctly projected outperforms any positive derived from data out of the same negative. But I am leaving the reversal issue.

[Mark Dunn]

Was Technicolor reversal?

No. Three mono camera negatives, effectively separations, were later printed to three strips of dye transfer stock which were later combined onto a positive colour print.

[Antti Näyhä]

Just to add that there was a different product called Technicolor Monopack, which was reversal.

[Dominic Case]

Was Technicolor reversal?

 

No. Three mono camera negatives, effectively separations, were later printed to three strips of dye transfer stock which were later combined onto a positive colour print.

The significant difference with Technicolor printing was that it wasn't a photographic process. The three dye transfer strips carried yellow, magenta and cyan dyes which were transferred by contact onto clear film base. More like printing newspapers.

 

So the dyes chosen were a lot more stable and fade-resistant (as well as being more true in colour).

 

After Kodak Eastmancolor negative captured the camera original business in the early 1950s, Technicolor continued making prints using the dye transfer process, even from Eastman negatives, unitl the early 1970s.

[Jim Carlile]

Is there any truth to the story that the original Technicolor monopack was just modified Kodachrome?

[Dominic Case]

In the 1940 Technicolor Annual Report (on the Widescreen Museum website" Hertbert T Kalmus reported:

 

"Your company's research engineers have also been engaged in cooperation with Eastman Kodak Company on a process of photography employing a single negative or monopack instead of the three strips, and on which three emulsions are superimposed on a single support. "

Lassie Come Home (1943) apparently used this stock: but it was a very unwieldy process to make prints: according to Martin Hart here, Technicolor had to "slide each of the three Kodachrome emulsions off the original base and place them on individual blank stocks for the production of matrices. "

[Keneu Luca]

I found this on vimeo.

Color 16mm reversal test footage. Very recent:

http://vimeo.com/9362699