Jump to content

shooting dialog scenes with loud silent cameras


Recommended Posts

Great! In my natice Germany Super 8mm really was dead by 1982 (and I still was very active filming in 1981 but it all died almost instantly and video was heavily forced into the market to replace fim, still with external VHS recorders and no editing facilities for some time to come) and even 16mm was being phased out in many a tv station at an accelerating pace because portable video cameras and the 3/4 in video cassette (U-Matic) format changed everything (the last 16mm productions were in the early 90s: mostly documetaries and crime dramas, now with way better telecine transfer and video editing). It was very hard to track down any Kodachrome 40 (even though I knew it was still available somewhere). I had the Beaulieu 6008S and it was really impossible where I lived to get the 200 ft sound cartridge, which I really loved, or even any cartridge. I moved to Portugal in 1985 and there it was impossible to get anything resembling film at the time. It had to be ordered from other countries (no EU back then) and sent back - each time through customs (I was there at a specialized office) never knowing if someone opens your processed reels to see if the content breaks any law - or stealing it, saying it was lost. No internet still to track down nearby film clubs which I heard existed and had it all figured out - but were unable to find.

 

Depends a lot on where you are located. I remember being in a shopping mall in Johannesburg, South Africa, during a band tour, in 1990. I spotted a shop with a lot of vintage film cameras in pristine conditions (Double standard 8mm, Super 8mm and 16mm from around the world, lots of lenses, metal and leather cases - at incredibly low prices). Our guide (a security guy) told us: you can't get anything like this through customs, trust me: you will lose it. Don't purchase anything! Crazy where some stuff you never thought even existed pops up....

 

Nowadays in the EU it's all pretty much open and custom/taxes free within member countries since long ago.

 

Yep: seen some young film groups actually using film (for the reasons you mentioned). Spotted these on YT, and in all cases they also use video (meaning they are not blindly defending one over the other - but rather knowing the pros and cons and appreciating the results of film when budgets allow). These are usually film students though - but I'm happy whenever I see young college-age people re-discovering film and using cameras like a converted Arriflex (SR2), often accompanied by a pro from back in the day - eager to learn from him/her everything. Seen two examples of young film groups already - here in Europe - doing just that.

 

Let's see if Kodak makes it. The names of well known film directors still using film and defending it - appearing in the ad campaign is a very good idea to connect this new camera to cinema. Bringing some references into it.

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Super8, as a mass market item, came to an end in the early 80s. I too was there. And it was an instant death. Video cameras became the thing.

 

But that didn't stop those with Super8 from continuing with it. It's never gone away. It's always been around in one form or another. The only thing that died was it's presence in the larger market place.

 

While Tyler might like to oppose "blokes in garages" to camera manufacturers, he should understand that the Logmar camera components were not built in a garage, but were built by companies such as Hasselblad, amongst many others. Cameras taken to the moon included cameras made by Hasselblad.

 

The reality is that most of the best design work done on the planet is actually done by people who may very well spend an inordinate amount of time in their garage, or in whatever other desired work space that might be. My preferred work space is typically a cafe, where I'll work out the most important parts of some project there, scribbling such down on a piece of paper.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we do agree 100% about the story of Super 8 (it seems to have been at about the exact same time everywhere in the world). As early as 1979 I heard about the idea to convert cinemas from film to video projection. Which finally came true around 2011 (the last year film prints were delivered to Europe from the major studios, and "digital" was the magic word.

Now 70mm film prints are shown of the new Tarantrino film - in selected theaters which still have a 70mm film projector (it remains to be seen if these copies are correctly letterboxed or cropped - I don't see those rare anamorphic lenses with the 1,25x factor being distributed and the image size to be fitted for the existing screen) and the young folks run to see them and put it on social media because they loved it. That's a good sign.

 

I think there are two interpretations of "blokes in their garage" (both metaphors):

1) people who just hastily slap together a concept and present it to the company - have the nerds figure out to make that stuff really work.

2) the old school clockwork precision craftsmen working with all kinds of machinery, magnifying optics and power tools, electronics - old and new. The guys who fully rebuilt, say, just about any 16mm Camera to a modernized crystal sync precision Super 16mm camera. Those are the Hasselblad and Logmar guys. These should have designed the Kodak camera. I heard the Logmar has some trouble at speeds other than 24 fts. Well the footage I've seen is the very best I have ever seen from the Super 8mm format. The idea taking it out of the cartridge through a 16mm-style sprocket drum and guide rollers into a precision film gate/pressure plate with pin registration is fantastic!. That solves about 60% of my issues with Super 8mm. The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: it's very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images).

 

Just my 2C

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we do agree 100% about the story of Super 8 worldwide.

I think there are two interpretations of "blokes in their garage" (both metaphors):

1) people who just hastily slap together a concept and present it to the company - have the nerd figure out to make that stuff really work.

2) the precision craftsmen working with all kinds of machinery and power tools, electronics - old and new. The guys who fully rebuilt just about any 16mm Camera to a modernized crystal sync precision Super 16mm camera. Those are the Hasselblad and Logmar guys. These should have designed the Kodak camera. I heard the Logmar has some trouble at speeds other than 24 fts. Well the footage I've seen is the very best I have ever seen from the Super 8mm format. The idea taking it out of the cartridge through a 16mm-like sprocket drum and guide roller into a presision film gate/pressure plate with pin registration. That solves about 70% of my issues with Super 8mm. The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images).

 

Just my 2C

 

Christian

 

Well, the suggested grain "problem" with Super8 isn't because it's cut from film stock designed for 35mm, as it would have the same "problem" no matter which way you made it. Available film stock will tend to be the best it's going to be at any moment in time, regardless of format. I mean Vision3 film stock is at the bleeding edge of film stock technology. If one is arguing that Super8 should be better than it is - well it's already massively better than it was. For it to be better than it currently is, we would have to wait for the future to arrive, for that. But when it arrives, would it help in any way? After all, one could just compare it with 16mm made from the same stock (or 35mm etc) and make exactly the same claim one is currently doing.

 

Now one can always achieve finer grain (such as that used in sound stock, intermediate stock or print stock) but there is a corresponding drop in ASA/ISO which makes it somewhat harder to sell as a general purpose camera stock. But one can certainly use it that way. Shooting with print stock, on a bright day, can give one interesting results. Indeed, shooting on sound stock can create some really interesting imagery - really fine grain with completely opaque blacks. Very contrasty but not without it's own awesome power.

 

Most of the grain issues in Super8 are not in the film itself, but in the transfer to video. The transfer introduces a low pass filter which aliases the grain, ie. making the grain far larger than it actually is. The only way to alleviate such grain aliasing is to perform higher definition transfer of Super8.

 

Degraining is only necessary if wanting to play the outcome in a low bandwidth context such as YouTube etc. But if wanting to do so, degrainers will work a lot better if the scan is higher definition. Doing HDR scans is also a massive help. Doesn't mean one needs to play the result at higher definition. After HDR toning, degraining, etc, one can pump it out to some suitable file format for a given bandwidth/display system.

 

The only real thing working against Super8 is the entrenched belief system that Super8 shouldn't have the potential that it does actually have. In other words, while one might spend a lot of time and care making a 35mm film, or even a 16mm film, including digital post work on such, the idea of applying the same attention to a Super8 film, suddenly becomes an obstacle, rather than an opportunity. The rules are reversed for some reason. And I guess that's fair enough - why not.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kodak camera is a good idea. It taps into the belief system that Super8 should be used in a care free (care less?) way.

 

And there's a lot going for that. Indeed one can use the same approach in 16mm. Apart from the timeout required to reload a 16mm camera, and it's relatively weightier mass, one can certainly work against such obstacles and handle the camera in the same way one might otherwise handle a Super8 camera. I certainly have. I'll bring to 16mm all the handheld techniques I've otherwise used with Super8, handicams, and camera phones. Not as easy as those alternatives but not all that hard.

 

It's doing the opposite with Super8 which seems to be the conceptual obstacle. To treat it in the same way one might otherwise treat 16mm seems to violate some peculiar law written in the history of film. But that's precisely the very thing that motivates my work - to violate such laws.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: it's very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images).

 

Just my 2C

 

Christian

 

There is just so much nonsense written about grain in Super 8

.

For starters it isn't a problem for some people because some people actually like grain.

 

There are also projects that embrace the extra grain in formats like 16mm and Super 8 because they are trying to reproduce the look of film stocks from a long time ago when they were grainier. For instance Ti Wests "The House Of The Devil" which tries to look like low budget horror movies shot on 35mm in the late 70's and early 80's.

 

HOWEVER the main reason people say stuff about Super 8 being so grainy is because they don't have much experience with the recent negative stocks. This is always really obvious to me. For instance Christian, you talk about 100ASA film but the 100ASA colour neg was only available in Vision 2 and even then as a special product from Pro8mm. It was never a Kodak product. The vision 3 stocks are a world less grainy than the Vision 2 stocks. There is very little grain in 50D at all and the 200T is also low grain. If you want proper grain from Vision 3 now then you need to be shooting the 500T.

 

Obviously it all also depends a bit on your tolerance for grain too.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge (GK-film pressure plate?). I bite my nails even thinking about a 20 year old looking for the first time at the scanned footage - full of vertical jitter and focus pumping (applying digital image stabilization - since you have vertical headroom with Max8 - might help just a little bit but it's basically just damage control).

 

I hope this will not be just an expensive hardware/video(=scanned film) version of instagram filters.... Let's wait and see.

 

Christian

 

 

A 20 year old might like the jitter and not have the same issues and associations with it that you have.

For instance I really miss the mild jitter you used to get on film titles when they were shot on film.

Not everyone has the same issues with various "flaws" see anamorphic lenses for the same story.

 

Such jitter is something that makes Super 8 very different from video and if people are looking for something different from video they might like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now 70mm film prints are shown of the new Tarantrino film - in selected theaters which still have a 70mm film projector (it remains to be seen if these copies are correctly letterboxed or cropped - I don't see those rare anamorphic lenses with the 1,25x factor being distributed and the image size to be fitted for the existing screen) and the young folks run to see them and put it on social media because they loved it. That's a good sign.

What?

An entire warehouseful of projectors and 1.25x lenses was refurbished for "Hateful 8".

http://www.blsi.com/news_thehatefuleight.php

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

An entire warehouseful of projectors and 1.25x lenses was refurbished for "Hateful 8".

http://www.blsi.com/news_thehatefuleight.php

Great! But I somehow doubt that the few 70mm projections of "Hateful 8" here in Europe (heard about one in Karlsruhe, Germany - it simply said: "on 70mm film") are made with the complete Ultra Panavision 70 format. The article (thanks for the link BTW!) clearly states "nationwide" (US-wide). Perhaps some of these machines went overseas at the same time. Cinemas tend to not bother the audience with full tech detail in their posters and pamphlets/programmes and existing theater screens are only so wide (all mechanics nowadays are usually meant for 1:1.66, 1:1.85 and 2.35:1 ratio max) so even with the 1.25x anamorphic lenses there are only two choices: don't crop and you will get a thin stripe within the 35mm CinemaScope/Panavision dimensions, or crop the sides to fit into the image height. I read about the problem in an article (because all local cinemas nearby where I live just show this movie in digital - not interested).

Well if some of these machines actually were shipped to overseas (together with maintenance guys and specialized projectionists etc. - just imagine the cost and logistics involved either sending over an American team or assembling a local team!) and installed: awesome! I never read or heard about any of this outside the US. It's already great seeing this effort being made on such a grand scale anyway. I might be wrong about the above. I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it.

 

Thanks again,

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A 20 year old might like the jitter and not have the same issues and associations with it that you have.

 

Just to get this 100% clear: I'm not a purist or elitist or a snob. Not at all. I just do what every single serious film enthusiast (including Super 8mm) does: trying to get the best out of an existing format and minimizing undesired artifacts. Super 8mm vertical jitter is unpredictable because of the Cartridge design. Many people do something about it (or at least try). These are not purists or elitists, but hands-on people who actually do something about issues.

Vinyl collectors don't collect vinyl because of the crackles and pops or surface noise. They collect it because it's vinyl, because of the equipment, the look and feel - and the unique silky sound - and most collectors prefer high quality editions in mint condition.

As soon as anything "retro" comes into the equation, it will be a passing trend, because eventually people will get tired of it. I like some light image floating and grain on certain older movies but frankly: the vertical jitter and focus pumping on a lot of Super 8mm scans (or projection) simply are too much and distracting. Super 8mm enthusiasts wouldn't talk about it and do something about it all the time if they loved it.

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hey Christian,

 

The Hateful Eight was screened in 70mm all over Europe and it coming to Barcelona soon: http://in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm...time to get a plane ticket! :)

 

The film can't be presented without the anamorphic lenses, so they are shipped with the film. Most theaters in the states did nothing to the top and bottom screen matte. The difference between 2.40:1 and 2.75:1 isn't that huge, there would simply be bar top and bottom of the screen.

 

From my understanding, no machines were shipped to Europe. There are quite a few "art houses" in Europe, so the projection equipment does exist. The European premiere was at a theater in France, they had to build a projection booth IN THE THEATER to house the equipment. So in that case, there was a team from America involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian Schonberger, on 08 Mar 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

 

I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it.

 

Thanks again,

Christian

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/10/the-hateful-eight-review-quentin-tarantino-mark-kermode

http://www.odeon.co.uk/film/2016/hateful-eight-70mm-ultrapanavision/

http://in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm

 

Looks like Barcelona's your nearest and you haven't missed it

http://www.phenomena-experience.com/evento/182/los-odiosos-ocho.html

Much cheaper than here, it was £25!

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K. thanks for the information. Link doesn't work :-(

 

Yep, the screening I heard of in Germany was also at an "art house" where a 70mm projector still exists from back in the day. Good to know the prints come with the anamorphic lens (in the age of the digital intermediate, it wouldn't be hard to make an "unsqueezed", or Panavision 35mm type (needs 2x lens) print. After all most screenings are digital.

 

Thanks again for the details and information.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a short doco on the behind the scenes work at my local cinema, in preparation for a screening of the Hateful Eight:

 

 

And Tarrantino, Jackson and Russel even made an impromptu visit to the cinema a few days after the premiere, shocking the audience. Unfortunately I missed it. Was just the luck of the draw really. A friend texted from the cinema saying he was there. I almost thought of running down the road to the cinema to see them - but was otherwise engaged in some work I needed to get done.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/quentin-tarantino-shocks-fans-in-melbourne-20160119-gm8moz.html

 

We're lucky here in Australia. Tarrantino likes our movies. And we like his.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Christian Schonberger, on 08 Mar 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

 

I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it.

 

Thanks again,

Christian

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/10/the-hateful-eight-review-quentin-tarantino-mark-kermode

http://www.odeon.co.uk/film/2016/hateful-eight-70mm-ultrapanavision/

http://in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm

 

Looks like Barcelona's your nearest and you haven't missed it

http://www.phenomena-experience.com/evento/182/los-odiosos-ocho.html

Much cheaper than here, it was £25!

 

Mark,

 

Thanks a lot for the links!

Barcelona still is quite far away from me and would be very expensive (I would need to book a hotel for the night etc). In Germany it was one of those rare screenings in the original language. So there's hope it will be the same in Spain (even though the main language in Barcelona is Catalan, not Castilian(=Spanish) - you know that of course). But I'm afraid I can't make it.

 

Anyway: good to hear (which I was unable to clearly get out of any article) these are true 1:1.25x anamorphic 70mm prints with the correct lenses supplied and in the original language (subtitles probably not even printed-in because of logistics). Great to know those old 70mm projectors are being fired up again all over the globe! Love Tarantino's "take no prisoners" - "I make it happen: big time!" approach. He does make it all happen: Morricone and true Ultra Panavision camera 65. Way to go!

 

Thanks anyway,

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a short doco on the behind the scenes work at my local cinema, in preparation for a screening of the Hateful Eight:

 

 

Great!!! Love the cast of "The Hateful Eight" and I'm a huge Tarantino fan. Kurt Russell in an ensemble cast, Ennio Morricone, exciting "one of us is not what they seem to be"-story, etc. ...... yep, more than just a huge nod to Carpenter's "The Thing" - a classic! Tarantino really knows what he is doing. He doesn't play it safe. He delivers. Need to catch this on BluRay as soon as it comes out. It's already out of my local multiplexes. "Carol" is now everywhere here. Fine with me: shows that Super 16mm still (and with the new Kodak Vision 3 film stocks and latest scanning technology - more than ever) is a very serious camera format for the big screen.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Anyway: good to hear (which I was unable to clearly get out of any article) these are true 1:1.25x anamorphic 70mm prints with the correct lenses supplied and in the original language (subtitles probably not even printed-in because of logistics). Great to know those old 70mm projectors are being fired up again all over the globe! Love Tarantino's "take no prisoners" - "I make it happen: big time!" approach. He does make it all happen: Morricone and true Ultra Panavision camera 65. Way to go!

From what I've heard, they are doing subtitles digitally and ALL of the 70mm screenings are subbed, not dubbed.

 

Quentin has set the stage for others to follow suit. Batman V Superman will be distributed in 70mm as well and rumors are that a few more big tent pole films will also be distributed in 70 this year as well. As long as the equipment is being used, as long as projectionists are busy showing films, we'll be in good shape.

 

I'll say this much, Panavision and Arri have long-term rentals on their 70mm cameras right now and Fotokem is more busy with 70mm then they have been in quite sometime. So there are MULTIPLE shoots working in large format, from Nolan's "Dunkirk" to PT Anderson's next film which is shrouded in secrecy.

 

70mm is clearly making a comeback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Carol" is now everywhere here. Fine with me: shows that Super 16mm still (and with the new Kodak Vision 3 film stocks and latest scanning technology - more than ever) is a very serious camera format for the big screen.

Super 16 has made a HUGE comeback. Mostly because camera prices have dropped substantially and people like myself can pickup complete packages for a few grand and shoot. This is the first time in the history of 16mm where professional cameras are SO affordable, only because people are so taken by digital technology.

 

I've always said, if you remove film from the equation, there will be an eventual backlash and I think we're seeing that right now. More and more younger filmmakers are shooting on film exclusively and there is a movement to force theaters to project on film. Once there is some infrastructure built back up again, I can see more and more 35mm screenings as well, it's just right now, the popcorn operator struggles to run a film projector. So some theaters will need outside assistance. It will take a popular movie to be released only in 35mm, for things to change. I have a feeling Nolan's new movie maybe just that film as he's hinted about making 5/70, 15/70, and 4/35 prints ONLY. We'll see if Warner Brothers is OK with THAT decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super 16 has made a HUGE comeback. Mostly because camera prices have dropped substantially and people like myself can pickup complete packages for a few grand and shoot. This is the first time in the history of 16mm where professional cameras are SO affordable, only because people are so taken by digital technology.

 

I've always said, if you remove film from the equation, there will be an eventual backlash and I think we're seeing that right now. More and more younger filmmakers are shooting on film exclusively and there is a movement to force theaters to project on film. Once there is some infrastructure built back up again, I can see more and more 35mm screenings as well, it's just right now, the popcorn operator struggles to run a film projector. So some theaters will need outside assistance. It will take a popular movie to be released only in 35mm, for things to change. I have a feeling Nolan's new movie maybe just that film as he's hinted about making 5/70, 15/70, and 4/35 prints ONLY. We'll see if Warner Brothers is OK with THAT decision.

That is great news! Well the lower costs (Super 16mm camera(s) and gear - either purchase or rental) and availability - don't apply here in Europe as much as they do in the US. BUT it's over there where everything starts. I firmly believe that Nolan will do something like this (35mm prints only) - since the time is just right, after Tarantino he is (to my knowledge) the next director to exclusively use film (mostly Panavision and IMAX with a natural look - Batman trilogy, Inception... - as far as I know) and after Tarantino paving the way for a whole new generation, it is very likely. Next to follow (hopefully) please: Martin Scorsese :-)

 

P.S. The very best theatrical screening of a 35mm print I ever watched was "Master and Commander", back in 2003 in "The Grove", L.A. I was blown away by the image and sound quality. Here in Europe at the time many film projectors simply weren't bright enough (probably to save money) and often had poor lenses (distracting chromatic aberration on the sides and corners) and even unattended projections drifting out of focus (I remember a few (!) times running out of a multiplex screening complaining - politely - to an employee - it took them forever to follow me, look at the screen and finally admit that this was in fact completely out of focus - while I had to explain: "Are you aware that as we speak I don't see the movie I paid for?" - The answer was a fake polite: "You may go back, I will send someone" (who came and re-focused after I had lost about 15 minutes or more). I didn't demand my money back because it would have probably taken hours to find the manager. I wasn't angry about the underpaid guy I was talking to - nor the manager who only makes money from the popcorn and soda drinks and cuts corners everywhere. I was furious at a well attended screening, completely out of focus - without anyone complaining but me: I had nothing to lose, I didn't watch the movie anyway, just a blur (audience members probably were too lazy to do something about it). Welcome to Europe! :-/

 

Thanks for the insight,

That's really great news - now (film companies!!!): let's make sure some of the old, skilled projectionists teach the young folks how these machines work and how the prints must be treated! At least in countries where people actually care.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Film projection hit it's peak in the late 90's. I remember seeing some amazing film projection in my youth and when I moved to california, the projection here has been stellar as well. Unfortunately, we've been digital here for quite sometime, around 10 years or so. Theaters had a little logo "digital" for those particular presentations and they ran film for all the other one's. So I'd always go to the film presentations. Here in the states, 35mm film prints died because the person who owned BOTH the big labs, was looking at the numbers and saw that film wasn't making him much profit, so he decided to close the doors on all of it. In fact, only 17% of Deluxe's business was film prints. Technicolor was the other big film printing company and they stopped because they didn't want to renew the lease on their property. So they pulled the plug and the printing equipment was destroyed, ripped apart by machines and thrown into dumpsters. So 35mm projection in the US died in December 2013 when those labs went belly up. That was pretty much the last time I saw a standard released 35mm film as well.

 

Without those high speed duplicating machines, there is no way of doing a mass release of 35mm prints anymore. The financial burden of striking thousands of prints, now rests on the theaters, who have to spend millions updating/servicing digital projectors. This is why movies cost more then they ever have and why cinema as a whole is dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the great insight!

Last movie I watched on a 35mm print was (oh the irony!) "Super 8" back in summer 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany, where I grew up. It was one last farewell to the projectionist as I turned back and watched through the window (as usual) to see someone carefully threading film into a machine (only possible in small and medium sized movie theaters of course).

 

Did they really physically destroy all those continuous contact printers to strike the release prints? Darn!

 

History repeating itself! They did the same with vinyl records in the late 1980s to push the audio CD (looong obsolete - vinyl is not and slowly coming back - in fact I am in a band project and we plan to release our album on vinyl only - who makes money with CD's? No one. It's all online - we put the album on all platforms we can think of. So at least people can listen to it for free without breaking the law!).

The CD (especially in jazz and pop music) was "pimped" (please allow me to use that word - just making a point) in two ways:

 

1) re-heated, thin, wobbly contaminated vinyl (dust, air trapped, trace amounts of paper labels etc). and stamps which were long worn out beyond the recommended number of copies. Making it all too easy for the digital pushers to point out the supposed bad quality. A win-win situation for the record companies at the time.

 

2) The CD was sold upon facts that have been long since proven to be 100% false and misleading (I refer to articles in top notch music sound engineering mags such as "EQ"). Compatability problems (many CD's won't play on certain players), no RAM buffer, very sensitive to scratches and damage in certain places (won't play) - and most of all: the resolution (44.1 Khz, 16 bit - the "pixels" of sound, a standard established as early as 1978!) is simply too low (not even talking about early CD players that simply dropped data through a micro chip deciding which is the least sigificant bit and another one deciding which is the most significant (LSB and MSB micro chips - get the idea?) or just had 15 bit converters - no one talked about that at the time!) - that's why pop music sounds so crunchy and over compressed these days: imitating analog and trying to squeeze-in as much information as possible. Mp3 (the "Jpeg" of sound) is even worse.....

 

At least a lot of old vinyl record cutting machines have been rescued from warehouses and are being rebuilt with the latest technology by the old master craftsmen and by young apprentices. Vinyl is also the most durable (when not played) storage format - much more so than digital data and analog tape, the latter will eventually de-magnetize and fall apart. As we speak all existing vinyl pressing companies (that I know of) are unable to cope with demand and still waiting for the market to stabilize before they further expand. Fingers crossed!

 

Back to film: Hopefully someone will come up with the idea of building some kind of "reverse scanner" so no print neg is needed to strike 35mm prints. Perhaps like camera units from the old days of optical step printing (as used also for rendering of first generation CGI). Get your sweet 35mm Fries Mitchell cameras, Mr. Nolan!!!! That would be good for a limited number of prints. For higher number some sort of continuous high speed printing must be used. Sure some sort of "reverse scanner" would be the solution to ensure speed and no print negs being needed. Just me thinking aloud (not claiming to be an expert!!!).... Tons of research and studying throughout all my life - but not a full "hands on" expert by a long shot. Music and sound in general is my gig!

 

Yes: I am of the exact same opinion: cinema as a whole is dying (like music as a whole, for many of the exact same reasons).

 

We are also kind of cornered regarding the choice of film stock. Kodak's reversal stocks are gone, Fuji: gone. Well, let's see how it goes.

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Back to film: Hopefully someone will come up with the idea of building some kind of "reverse scanner" so no original neg is needed to strike 35mm prints. Perhaps like camera units from the old days of optical step printing (as used also for rendering of first generation CGI). Get your sweet 35mm Fries Mitchell cameras, Mr. Nolan!!!! That would be good for a limited number of prints. For higher number some sort of continuous high speed printing must be used. Sure some sort of "reverse scanner" would be the solution to ensure speed and no print negs being needed. Just me thinking aloud.... Tons of research and studying through all my life - but not a "hands on" expert by a long shot. Music and sound in general is my gig!

 

 

 

 

Lucky for your hopes, these exist. Arrilaser, Cinevator, and Lasergraphics Producer all do exactly this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I know we are getting off topic, but I like the conversation a lot. Thanks for all the great information.

 

Now this might be against "house rules" so please if it does: it is 100% unintended and I highly appreciate bringing it to my attention as opposed to receiving warning points :-)

 

I came across this offer on Ebay, but I can't see any images. I contacted the seller and received a reply, but it seemed rather evasive, just referring to the photos I am unable to see. I do NOT wish to discredit the valuable reputation of anyone. I simply see a lot of red flags. Not sure if it's on daylight spools, not sure if it's single perf. Exp date? Seller's history.

 

My purpose posting this here is not only for myself. It is also for fellow film enthusiasts who might have come across the same Ebay item for sale.

 

Here is the offer (the sought after Kodak Ektachrome 100D in 16mm):

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-100D-Ektachrome-100ft-16mm-Rolls-/191808982653?hash=item2ca8b4ce7d:g:SFYAAOSwqYBWncbb

 

If anyone wishes to contact me directly for an honest opinion (to avoid putting anyone's reputation into question - in public):

 

c_schonberger@yahoo.com

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Christian

Edited by Christian Schonberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things.

 

Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...