Gautam Valluri

It's mostly DI. A lot of films that are partially shot on digital cameras like the Alexa also get printed onto 35mm/70mm for projection prints. These are mostly done on Arrilaser, and it costs a lot of money. These are of course done for very few films that are intended for a cinephile audience. Tarantino has been doing 70mm and 35mm prints from a 4K DI for his past few films and for 'The Hateful Eight' did everything photochemically timed I believe. PTA and Nolan do photochemical 70mm and 35mm prints regularly. As for Super16, the format was originally designed to be blown-up to 35mm or telecined to Beta SP tapes. Most Super16 originated films these days go through a DI towards a 2K DCP and the rare ones that do end up on 35mm. Super16, optically blown up to 35mm can look very good if it was handled by a competent colour timer and lab.

Hello Everyone, I'm going to watch Dune tomorrow (the trailer looks fantastic) and I came upon this article in THR that says that Greg Fraser shot the film on the Alexa LF (Arriraw 4.5K) and then printed it onto 35mm and rescanned it to a 4K DI. Edit: here's the link to the article (forgot to include): https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/dune-cinematographer-denis-villeneuve-movie-1235011592/ My impression of Digitally captured images printed onto film and then scanned back has so far been unimpressive and generally seems like an unnecessarily complicated process. I mean why not just shoot on 35mm film directly? Especially with a 165 million dollar budget? Now if someone as highly regarded as Fraser is doing it, there must be good reason. Anyone knows why? Thanks, Gautam

Thanks Frank, I think I got it now

This is excellent stuff Jacob. I'm sorry I didn't understand which Ektachrome print film were you referring to? Did you mean the Ektachrome E100 made for still cameras with KS perforations?

Hello everyone, I was watching this interview with the great Robby Müller on how he shot Jim Jarmusch's "Down by Law" and he mentions using Double-X and Plus-X stocks and then developing them to a "lower" gamma of 0.6 I understand what gamma means and I have some fair experience developing 7222 and some reversal by hand. I'm unable to understand how one develops a film for a lower gamma, like in this case 0.6 I'd appreciate any help. Here is a link to the video for all of you to enjoy: Thanks, Gautam

Do you mean you contact printed Tri-X as a negative onto positive sound stock or Tri-X as reversal onto sound negative stock? And what sound film did you print onto? Thanks, Gautam

Hi @Jarin Blaschke, would it be possible to share the results of these tests? Thanks, Gautam

Yes I've heard this effect being referred to as 'Step-printing' effect. I did this in a 16mm project a couple of years ago. I basically took a 24 fps shot and then printed it 3-4 times while skipping a few frames in an Oxberry optical printer. Not quite as expressive as Wong Kar-Wai but it was fun to do it. Here is a link to vimeo, the effect starts around the 3:04 mark:

Hello Everyone, I tried to find some information on Miguel Gomes's film Tabu (2012) but I couldn't find anything on the forums here. In my research I've found that the film is shot half in 35mm (modern day sections) and half in 16mm (silent colonial-Africa sections). I suspect it was shot on Double-X but the lack of pronounced grain even in the 16mm sections of the films makes me wonder if it were something else, like Tri-X or even Plus-X if it was around when the film was made. I would really love to know more about the specs (cameras, stocks, whether it was DI or photochemically-timed) and the lighting techniques used. I'd appreciate it very much if anyone has any info to share about this magnificent film. Such mastery from Rui Poças! Much thanks,

Thank you David, I was hoping you would respond. I did not consider the lighting aspect and how attitudes have changed towards the format. It's very interesting to know!

Hello Cinematographers, Ignoring the sound part, are there any advantages to going the full photochemical route with a Super16 project and finishing it on 35mm as opposed to a DI and DCP? Does anyone else think that digitally colour graded films originating on Super16 look "muddy", in low-light, night shots and under-lit faces. Like Carol, Black Swan and mother! compared to Super16 > 35 optical blowups that are photochemically timed like The Squid and the Whale, Beeswax and Leaving Las Vegas? I don't know how else to describe it than "muddy". I'm attaching a still from mother! as an example. I'd appreciate any thoughts. Best,

Well Tyler, my reasoning was that since the film never had a wide release, the negatives are in a very good condition (except for a slight magenta-shift due to age). It hardly requires any real restoration work and I imagined striking a 5/70mm projection print would bring out the originally-intended image to screen at long last. Also, I remember reading a thread here criticising Ken Branagh's decision to shoot "Murder on the Orient Express" on 65mm and then have it go through a 4K DI before printing to 5/70mm release. Does a laser out make provide a better image? And there's the great example of Jerome Deschamps restoration of Jacques Tati's Playtime (1967) done completely on 70mm.

Thank you David and Tyler. I managed to find YCM's phone number on the Kodak Lab Directory, will certainly contact them. I hope Robert Harris chimes in, I found a brief account of his work on Spartacus over on in70mm.com, it's fascinating.

Hello all, I'm currently working on a film restoration project for a French film archive. We have the Super Technirama negatives to a french film made in Brazil in the 1960s, that we're considering to blow up to a 70mm release print. To be precise, the film was shot on 8-perf/35mm horizontal VistaVision style with a 1.5x anamorphic squeeze. This was intended to be blown up to 5-perf/70mm release prints. This is the film: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353979/ We're not sure if the producer ever managed to make any 70mm release prints. We know that the film was shown originally in Brazil but that may be 35mm prints, we don't have any surviving copies of that. He had originally intended to release it on 70mm in France but he ran out of finances before he could. He had managed to get a visa d'exploitation in France though. I had approahced FotoKem in Los Angeles and they said they do not have the possibility to do a un-squeeze on the 8/35mm negative to print to a 5/65mm inter-negative. They've suggested a 4K digital interneg to 70mm filmout but I really don't see a point in that. Anybody here knows any labs and/or technicians, restoration experts who could do this? Basically we need to do a 1.5x un-squeeze from a 8/35mm to a 5/65mm. I feel like this is a longshot, as the archive will probably eventually just go with a 4K restoration DCP but if I can find a way to achieve a 70mm filmout and a price quote to present our financers, this could happen. Also, can anyone confirm if this is the first French film shot for an intended 70mm release? Jacques Tati's Playtime (1967) is the only french 70mm film I know and this film predates it by a good three years. Thanks in advance for responses! GV

Hi Guys, I'm planning to do a time-lapse on a spring wound Bolex H16. I will be shooting Kodak 500T 7219, around twilight on a busy street in London with lots of street lights, neon sigs etc. I will be using only a tripod and will not be able to use any additional lights. I do not have an interval meter so I will have to do the time-lapse manually using the single-frame option. I plan to expose every 3-4 seconds. The lens will be the prime lens that comes with the Bolex (sorry, I need to check the focal length on this one and come back to you guys). My questions: 1. What can I do to get a decent exposure? 2. How do I get a proper light reading? 3. What else do I need to keep in mind regarding time-lapsing by hand, the 7219 stock and shooting on london streets in general? Any pointers will be much appreciated. G