Gautam Valluri

Our film lab network members have made some video tutorials for the Matipo: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7866728 There are a lot of resources on film printing on the filmlabs website as well (but mostly in french): https://www.filmlabs.org/technical-section/film-printing/

Stephen, here is a quick rundown of the how the Matipo at our lab works: https://www.l-abominable.org/en/tools/contact-printer/

Not Tyler but I'd like take a shot at this question. Photochemcial prints are dye-based and therefore the colours are subtractive (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black). Digital projection is light based RGB and therefore an additive colour space. This is also the reason that people often complain of "muddy blacks" in digital projection. The dyed, subtractive version of black is considered rich and desirable in general. This also means that once a celluloid-shot film goes through DI, the subtractive colours are brought into an additive colour space. Of course, the current colour grading tools are very capable of simulating the rich blacks of a photochemical print but eagle-eyed experts can still tell the difference.

Can't say for sure. One has to dig into the American Cinematographer Magazine archives to find the specific work flows for these films. I'd reckon the CGI sequences were filmed out onto whatever N or IN they were using back then and then spliced into the OCN (original camera negative)? Perhaps they even used optically printed mattes?

Very interesting approach. Dirk Dejonghe was saying here recently that he did something similar on Kaurismäki's "Fallen Leaves".

Robert, it would be amazing to see some results if possible (with permission from the filmmakers of course). Or once there is a trailer ready for the film, please link us if possible. Edit: I did refilm some 35mm Ekta 100D slides onto 5213 200T on an Oxberry optical printer for a short sequence in an experimental project a few years back. Results were interesting.

There is no technical benefit to doing a photochemical finish over a DI. Nolan, PTA et al rejected DI pretty early on when it was catching up in the early 2000s because they probably felt the look and the work flow is different to their preference. And It's true to an extent: for example, you cannot do power windows in photochemical so you accept it if there are parts of the image that are blown out as an inherent feature. It could also be because these guys want their films to look like the films they loved growing up. Both are big fans of Kubrick for example, who did a lot of photochemical experimentation. We've discussed his photochemical decisions on Eyes Wide Shut in depth here in the past. Having watched the film first on DVD in the 2000s and then finally seeing an old print of it a few years ago, I confirm the DVD took out all the deliberate artistic decisions that Kubrick made and just made it look like any other 90s drama. Choosing one over the other is also choosing their inherent limitations as much as the options they provide. For those who do DI, they have to choose things like the kind of scan (Scannity, Arriscan, Northlight etc), the resolution (2K, 3K, 4K etc), the endless options in grading and so on. They should also plan for this while shooting by aiming to get a flat image that gives them the most options to work with. In Photochemical you have to plan for certain things while capturing the image: ND filters, 85A / 85B filter (if shooting Tungsten stock in Daylight), colour temperature of lighting, contrast ratios...all these decisions have to be made beforehand as there's only so much you can correct in post. Again one is not better than the other, it comes down to what the artists working on these films do with their craft. I was blown away by the colour grading of The Grand Budapest Hotel, which went through a humble 2K DI but I was also blown away by the photochemical timing of Aki Kaurismäki's Le Havre which having seen on 35mm, also used colour brilliantly. I do my 16mm films via the photochemical finish but I work in experimental film and the independent film lab circuit, where my process is the point of my craft. However, for any commercial work I do, there's no other way but DI because the end-point is exclusively digital. Personally, I'm glad Nolan and PTA are still doing a photochemical finish at their level as its interesting to not have a DCP monopoly. My friends and I alway make an effort to watch their films on 35mm or 70mm even if we're not fans of their work and if it makes people go to the cinema, it is good for cinemas everywhere.

Sorry Alex, all gone. Best,

Very interesting! Have there been any tests done or is it still just theoretical at this point? This makes a lot of sense for the modern DI workflow.

I personally think the BW stocks are interesting exactly for their limited latitude. With 95% or more films going through the DI process, if anyone wanted more latitude in their BW stocks, they could just shoot Vision3 and colour grade to greyscale like "The White Ribbon" or "Good Night and Good Luck". Business-wise, having one BW negative stock and one BW reversal in 16mm/ Super 8 is a solid strategy to cater to such a small demand. Having a new BW stock might make sense if Kodak wants to replace Double-X with a cheaper, easier to manufacture stock. I only wish the ORWOs were more reliable in usage. I've heard fellow filmmakers claim the UN54 approaches the Plus-X realm but they wouldn't dare use it on a serious project due to its well-known camera transport issues.

It looks very unlikely. Kodak decided to hold onto Double-X and to a lesser extent Tri-X mostly as a single option for BW neg and reversal each. Double-X is faster speed stock than Plus-X and with its signature grain looks more obviously like "film" especially for the Super8 market. With the possibility of shooting Vision 3 stocks and then desaturating the colours in post coming close to the "Plus-X" kind-of image, I seriously doubt Kodak will invest in bringing it back. Ektachrome probably was brought back because of the Super 8 market, at least that's what I've understood. I think almost everyone here would be on board with seeing Plus-X back. It just doesn't look like its going to happen.

I would recommend using a spot meter to measure the light coming from the projector to see if you need to push the 500T by a stop or two. 1. If theres natural light coming in through the windows, you need to meter that and see if its too much for the pushed 500T. In which case you might want to use some curtains or gels to cover the light coming in through the windows (if doable) or simply close the windows. 2. For this you need to figure out what kind of a digital projector you are dealing with. Here are some threads from the forums that might help: If at all possible, I would simply go in with a 30m roll of 500T and shoot some tests, maybe even two rolls (one pushed and one normal processing) and see the results. But if tests are not possible, meter everything, eliminate possible problematic elements (the windows), figure out the math of the projector's refresh rate/ frame rate and prepare to accept any imperfect results.

Hello Everyone, I was just wondering if the lens size matters in 16mm? For example, how is an image shot with a 25mm Kern-Switar C-mount lens (which is tiny) differ from an image shot on a PL-mount 25mm Zeiss Superspeed MK III (which is considerably bigger)? Besides the obvious sharpness from the quality of glass, I'm wondering if it affects the FOV in anyway by having a lens with a larger diameter? Any thoughts, diagrams or examples would be welcome. Thanks!

Bumping this as I'm also looking for more info on the technical specs on this film. Such an extraordinary film, so relentlessly puts us in the perspective of the lead character!

Once you have a sample of only the camera noise, you can feed it as a noise 'profile' in software like Adobe Audition. It's usually under the "noise reduction" menu. Once the software has the profile, you can remove it from the entire sound recording by doing "Apply profile to entire file" option.