Jump to content

Can an interpositive be made from an internegative?


Seth Baldwin

Recommended Posts

Just to confirm, is 2242 intermediate film able to meet IP aims from an IN?

I ask because of course the traditional pipeline is camera negative > IP > IN > print. And since the camera negative has a different gamma to the intermediate film, and that was used to create an IP, would that mean the intermediate film is unable to create an IP from an IN? Where such a pipeline would be camera negative > IP > IN > IP. Or can one move from IP to IN to IP without issue.

Edited by Seth Baldwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

All film -- unless it is reversal, i.e. "reversed" in density during processing -- is "negative" in that it creates density where it gets exposure. So you get a negative image if making a copy of a source that is positive and a positive image when the source is negative. The intermediate dupe stock ends up with a similar low gamma to camera negative stock so that a print made from OCN or a dupe negative looks similar in contrast.

It may be that since duplication increases contrast, the IP has a bit lower gamma and once copied to an IN, the gamma increases to match OCN, or maybe it's just designed not to add any contrast to the OCN through both generations. It's not a perfect copy of course. Robert would know more than me...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2242 is designed to have a contrast of 1.0 in all three color records when processed in ECN-2 chemistry.  The film's low grain, high sharpness and consistent contrast allow for printing of multiple IP to IN stages, and it is scrutinized in manufacturing like no other product with extremely tight specifications, even in this day where the majority is used for digital output.   In the days of film editing and optical printing of special effects, I remember hearing of 2242 and its acetate counterpart being used in 6 stages with 3 IPs and 3 IN's.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

In the days of optical printing, movies, even if they were contact-printed through all generations, often had optical effects that went through an IP/IN step, and that shot was then cut into the OCN, which went through an IP/IN step.

Because Douglas Trumbull did not have a 65mm-to-35mm reduction printer, he finished his visual effects like on "Close Encounters", "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", and "Blade Runner", to a 65mm dupe negative - meaning his 65mm negative photography had to be duped, though he tried various tricks to avoid the IP/IN steps in an optical printer, like photographing matte paintings onto IP stock.  Anyway, he finished with a 65mm dupe which had to be farmed out to be optically-reduced through an IP to a 35mm dupe negative, which was then cut into the movie's OCN, which then went through an IP/IN step for release prints.

It's no wonder that even though many people miss the days of photographing physical miniatures for VFX, no one misses optical printing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

It's no wonder that even though many people miss the days of photographing physical miniatures for VFX, no one misses optical printing.

I understand what you are saying here, but I do miss it.  So much, I bought a Producers Services 2101 with wet gate shuttles just to sit in my basement, restore and tinker around with it. 

One could make the same argument for Steenbecks, Moviolas and even Mitchells, but the machinery and the dying skill set of operation still holds an allure for some of us...

PS OPT PRN.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

Noiiice!

i have Harry Walton’s Aerial optical printer at Cinelab that did work on RoboCop amongst others.

i recently got a request for a possible Techniscope to 4-Perf anamorphic optical blowup. I am kind of psyched to try out the process. Harry walked me through the basic setup to do it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Robert Houllahan said:

Noiiice!

i have Harry Walton’s Aerial optical printer at Cinelab that did work on RoboCop amongst others.

i recently got a request for a possible Techniscope to 4-Perf anamorphic optical blowup. I am kind of psyched to try out the process. Harry walked me through the basic setup to do it.

Like to see a picture of that!

Mine was at Monaco in SF and did a large portion of their Super 16 and Regular 16 to 35 blow-ups on features of the 90's. 

It probably also did the Zapruder Film reconstruction in the 90's, but the prior owner is unsure if it was mine or another he sold did that actual job.

I DO have a R8 wetgate... might be...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
14 minutes ago, Frank Wylie said:

Sweet! 

Is that a John Monseaux build?  Certainly looks like one...

I am sure he had something to do with it.

This was also converted to computer control by Rennie Johnson, I sort of wish it was in it's original config but the PC control works fine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Mine is bone-stock, which I do prefer, but I have nothing against the converted type.  I also got the schematics and manuals for mine, which will come in handy I am sure.

Does make for interesting problems in my basement as 220 3 phase is not a standard feature of most homes!  I'll look into a phase converter; maybe that will work.  It's not like you are welding or turning a large blank of steel on a lathe...

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...