Christian Appelt

windman wrote: I agree with you from an archival point of view, but when 2001 is shown a at film museum, when Warner Bros. has assured that they will supply the best possible prints (which they did not, like in the case of BARRY LYNDON), and when today's audience learn this is a 70mm screening of 2001, they will think it's just the way it was intended by Stanley Kubrick. :angry: This print is about as accurate as a 12 dollar note, and while it is not like a catastrophe where people get harmed, it is still a sad thing because the film cannot - at least today - be seen the way it was during its initial release and in many re-runs.

Funny you mention it - this is how I saw TROY two days ago. A certain flickering of the arc was visible through the trailers & commercials (shown in 1.66), but when the main feature started in 2.35 where the whole circle of illumination is needed, the top left quarter of the screen flickered really bad. I got the projectionist, and he said that they would change the xenon bulb the next day, but right now there was nothing they could do. I wrote to the manager abou this, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they squeezed a few more shows out of that dying bulb...that's entertainment! :(

Actually it is much more expensive to run a bulb until it blows up, because when a xenon lamp explodes, it will destroy the expensive mirror system and the interior of the lamp housing. Usually, either the flickering gets really bad or the lamp goes so dark that even penny-pinchers have to change it, or the lamp simply does not ignite any more. But indeed this is very bad presentation as it affects all the work the filmmakers and (hopefully) the lab did put into the release print. Many lamps are wrongly aligned so the image gets either a "hot spot" and dark edges or will look brighter on one side of the screen. You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it damn foolproof... :(

I believe that only three or four prints were struck from original negative, in Europe the BFI has one and Stanley Kubrick himself got another, IIRC. What I saw yesterday was definitely a dupe, the leaders said "IN #1", and I believe that somewhere in the duplication process, there has been slippage between films. Sometimes one can notice that fine details (the open structure of the space station, the "Bell" logo in the first reel or the outline font of HAL's name plate) are "pumping", at least I know no other way of producing such effects except lack of contact in printing. There is quite strong graininess in the whole film, not only in the obviously replacement dupe shots. The 70mm print itself was in very mechanical good condition, and when the aperture plate in the projector was readjusted, it could be seen that the perf holes were steady, the image including frame line was unsteady. At best, this 70mm print looked like good 35mm scope prints of the past, but the whole 70mm look that has been often decribed as "velvety" is definitely gone. Although an audience used to today's average release prints may think 2001 looks good that way, I think a new print (we are not talking about restoration work here!) should not be that far removed from the original prints, especially when you know how good modern duplication stocks can be). There are only few films that really need perfection in presentation, and this is one of them. But be glad you didn't see what Warner Bros. claims to be a good 35mm print of BARRY LYNDON... :blink:

A local multiplex theatre, the Frankfurt Cineplex, will try to play the last surviving (dubbed) vintage 70mm print of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in late summer. I hope to see the film again with slightly faded color, but sharp and steady... The Kubrick exhibition is quite successful, and the film retrospective is often playing to sold out theatre. Both 2001 screenings were sol out, so was BARRY LYNDON, and there was even great demand for lesser known films like KILLER'S KISS (one of my favourites). This shows that some of Kubrick's films are still exciting to modern audiences, and it is sad that they are seen mostly on DVD or TV. When SPARTACUS (restored 70mm version) was shown, there was an almost electrifying excitement in the theatre, forget the painted backdrops, forget the dramatic problems, people were absolutely fascinated by the great images and those fine actors. They laughed with Ustinov and Laughton, they cared about the gladiators, and there were tears when Jean Simmons met crucified Kirk Douglas at the end. This is a kind of movie experience that most modern films cannot create any more. AS for 2001, I hope that, as you said, one day someone will "restore the restoration"... :)

I enjoy seeing older films in theatres again, but sometimes the experience can be painful. Today, I saw one of the newly struck prints of "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY", and what a disappointment it was! I understand that there are good reasons for not making release prints direct off a 34 year old 65mm negative, and a certain loss of quality is inevitable in such a case. But these new prints are IMHO nothing but a sad distortion and watered-down version of what Kubrick intended and succeeded in giving to audiences back then. I have seen "2001" many times, both in 35mm scope and 70mm Super Panavision. Never have I seen a print with such bad steadiness - Kubrick's great long shots used to be rock-steady on the screen, almost like large format slide projection. Now the film looks like any average contemporary 35mm release print. Gone is the extreme sharpness that made you see every detail - all the finest structures of the under-construction "ferris-wheel" space station, the whole "clean" look of 2001 space technology is buried under grain. Density constantly fluctuates, in many shots there is no black left (HAL'S fisheye views), the DAWN OF MAN SEQUENCE look murky (although it always was softer because of front projection and more shallow focus). All scenes with bright light surfaces look somehow washed out, the delicate tones of the space station (where Dr. Floyd talks to the Russians) are gone. In many shot, rear-projected screens look washed out (when Floyd does the voice print test), and to make it even worse, and there are numerous badly duped shots (replacing damaged original neg) that look like mediocre Techniscope footage (eating scene at the end of the film). Especially with a filmmaker like Stanley Kubrick, "good enough" is not good enough. Old films have been reprinted and restored beautifully, and people like Bob Harris prove that it can be done with little loss of quality - the new prints of SPARTACUS are almost as good as the original prints. But I suppose selling DVDs is all "the powers that be" care about. Sometimes it seems that a film has to live on in your memory because it is not available in a decent form any more. PS: The print was projected properly and with extreme care. I have checked that projection had nothing to do with the faults I have listed.

Thanks for the correction! I will look up the article, it was printed in the German periodical KAMERAMANN some time ago. You are right, separations alone will not get a desaturation effect, IIRC they used an b&w interpositive too. As for time & cost, the article said that they compared film in/out and digital color grading at 2K resolution, and tests showed that the loss of detail in optical printing was smaller than 2K (better quality at 4K would certainly have been more expensive and time-consuming). But I will look it up...

In a recent article I read that the newest film from Volker Schloendorff (known for THE TIN DRUM and DEATH OF A SALESMAN) uses traditional optical printing to control the de-saturation shot-by-shot - for the complete feature film. They made b&w separations on an Oxberry printer and recombined them on dupe negative stock, so they could fine-tune the degree of color saturation like in the old Technicolor 3-strip days. Surprising to me was the fact that this technique gave - better image quality - faster turnaround time - better control during grading compared to the latest scanning/digital grading/film recording procedures at Arri Digital. As a side effect, they got a set of long-time archive color separations, which is a nice thing too...

When I shot animation with a Krasnojarsk, I exposed for 1/50 not for 1/30 second and got on-the-point printing lights in the rushes. I found it more practical to cover the eyepiece with some kind of dark cloth, like black felt, easier to take off for focusing and checking. Two more pieces of advice for shooting animation with a K-3: 1.Viewfinder accuracy can vary strongly between cameras, so shoot a short test with a test grid or animation field guide, then you will know how to interpret the viewfinder image. 2. Assuming you are using a standard Russian zoom lens, stop down to at least 5.6, especially when you are using diopter lenses.

No problems with wide screen, TV stations and DVD manufacturers in Germany will usually transmit/encode your film (video) as 16:9 anamorphic, no one cares about full frame. In theatres, they will project your 1.78 print in 1.85 format, except very few arthouse theatres that will show video originated film prints (depending on image quality) in 1.66 format because they feel that narrow top/bottom masking is the lesser evil than unsharp pictures.

It depends on the kind of feature you are shooting. Do you have to shoot a lot in cars, tight rooms and places like that? Or will it be outdoor and studio work? All three are fine machines. If weight & size don't matter, no preference from me. If they do matter: Moviecam Compact :)

Sam, check this print stock's properties: PF2 print stock data sheet You can download an English PDF (199k) there. I cannot answer your question re Gordon Willis/Woody Allen look because I got to see their films printed from other dupe negatives than you did. Filmotec / Orwo print stock looks IMHO very similar to older Agfa print stock, but of course it will also depend on the developing/printing work. I know that some labs with "old hands" in black&white technology tried to change the look by slight overexposure in printing and shortening in developing, but never tried this myself. Just shot a nice dense neg (not more than 1/2 stop over) and printed straight to Filmotec / Orwo PF2. Their stocks are moderately priced, so maybe some US filmmakers wanting to experiment should order some samples and try it out. BTW, I am in no way connected to Filmotec /Orwo, just tried many b&w stocks over the years (like Eastman, Ilford, Svema, Foma from the Czech republic), and Orwo still looks best to me and fits my budgets too. :)

GeorgeSelinsky wrote: That's not entirely correct because Filmotec is not the original ORWO company, which was a socialist production unit of the former German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany). Before the Berlin Wall came down, ORWO cine films were manufactured mainly for the Eastern Europe markets. Their color negative and color positive stock required different processing (not ECN/ECP compatible), so it never spread in Western countries. But ORWO black&white print stock was used widely in European labs because it was cheap and good, and when Agfa stopped producing b&w camera negative some years ago, ORWO b&w negative was a good alternative for filmmakers who did not like the look of Eastman stocks. When the huge ORWO company closed because of inability to adapt to Western business practice, a small team of specialists decided to start a new company called Filmotec. They knew that there still was a market for b&w cine film, and after improving the classic ORWO emulsions, they specialised on black&white. I will praise EKC for their vast range of fine product, but I feel, like many other cinematographers, that it is almost impossible by whatever means in developing/printing to get a classic b&w image with Plus-X and Double-X. It can be achived with newer ORWO stocks. If you ever come to Germany (maybe Berlin), you may want to take a look at the Wolfen Film&Industrial Museum. This is the original pre-WW2 AGFA film factory where tripack colour negative was invented, and many machines and samples of half a century of film manufacture are on display. Wolfen Film Museum (German site only)

Jarin, actually the Orwo/Filmotec arepanchromatic b&w stock, not orthochromatic. The link did not work? Please try this: www.filmotec.de and then click "english site". They make duplicate and positive print stocks too, which can be used for special looks like tinting, toning, forced development and so on.

Here's an article by Ed DiGiulio about the 20-1 zoom; this lens and other special made lenses are on display too. Special Lenses for Kubrick

Update on the Kubrick exhibition: the exhibition is open now, all equipment including Kubrick's favourite cameras, lenses and his custom-built front projector has been restored by Mr. Joe Dunton, BSC and is on display at the German Film Museum. All lenses, their origin, adaptations and use are commented by Joe Dunton (on video) in the exhibition, Mr. Kubrick's 65mm Mitchell BFC camera is set up on a fully funtional front projection rig that can be tried by the visitors. Many original costumes (e.g. from SPARTACUS, BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING. EYES WIDE SHUT), props, sketches, documents, photos from shooting all Kubrick films and even his still cameras from his LOOK photographer days can be seen. I will post the other locations and dates of the exhibition when they have been decided on.

Just saw another Oxberry camera, this time 35mm (plus recorder) on eBay: Oxberry camera

I tried a number of high speed b&w negative stocks, and this is the one I liked best: Look here for more data: N74 negative Just do a test and compare it with your other stocks, IMHO it's definitely superior to Eastman stock, Ilford I never tried because it was so expensive (in some European countries).

Jarin, depending on what kind of film you are doing, I would recommend doing a test with ORWO/FILMOTEC black&white stocks. I think they have a nice "vintage" look, are very fine-grained (especially the ASA400 stock) and not expensive. Look here for more data: Filmotec stocks

Stop down at least one and a half stops from wide open. Few anamorphic lenses give their best wide open. It's certainly a matter of personal taste, but I think that anamorphic shot with f4-5,6 looks most pleasant. Also remember that, as David has pointed out, anamorphic lenses give you a wider horizontal view angle that looks quite different from shooting wide angle spherical. DOP John Alonzo, who photographed CHINATOWN for Roman Polanski, said in an Interview (IIRC in the book MASTERS OF LIGHT) that he believes the 40mm anamorphic lens being closest to natural sight, actually about 42,43mm would be perfect. Even medium anamorphic lenses can make small rooms (bathrooms, elevators) look larger without the feeling of wide angle distortion, I like that rendering of space. But I guess it all depends on the kind of film you want to make.

Try a Montgolfiere the next time, but keep the fire burning steady...

I think there's a big difference between older Oxberry equipped with a classic shuttle movement and some film recorder cameras which are of simpler design. The transport mechanism in the 16mm model I mentioned has so few mechanical parts that I cannot imagine that service should be a problem. I suppose they kept it simple because it did not have to run anything but single frame while other animation cameras like Crass or Debrie can run at different frame rates. Anyway, I think I'll revive the thing and donate it to a some kid film workshop guys who borrow my Krasnojark 16mm once a year - animation through spring power...

For what reason is the enlargement and squeezing done at the second step? Wouldn't the image gain quality if the S-35 neg was blown up from camera neg to anamorphic 4-perf IP, then contact printed to IN, thereby preserving resolution and keeping grain down because of the larger image area?

35mm cameras from old film recorders are another option. They turn up sometimes on eBay, I bought a 16mm Oxberry for about 700 $, 35mm models have been on sale for as little as 180 $. They do not have a standard intermittent, which means they can shoot single frame ONLY. If that's OK for you and you don't mind building a little (very simple) control hardware for the stepping motors, this could be a solution. BTW, anybody in need of a 16mm Oxberry model? The animation project I bought it for switched to 35mm wide screen, so contact me if you want it. Great for building an animation stand or your own optical printer, the camera has a 400 ft magazine and might be converted to Super 16 because it works with stationary register pins. Price is US $ 300 with a Nikon lens, but shipping outside of Europe may not be cheap. $ 200 if you pick it up here in Frankfurt/Germany ;)

If you want to see a lot of Kubrick lenses, including the Kinoptik lens used for the ultra wide angle shot in CLOCKWORK, also Kubrick's Arriflex 35, Mitchell BNC and much more equipment like this (not to forget the Zeiss Planar 50mm f0.7 from BARRY LYNDON) - they will be on display at the German Film Museum, Frankfurt on the Main as a part of the exhibition STANLEY KUBRICK opening March 31, 2004. During the next two years this unique exhibition will travel, possibly also to England and Los Angeles. Here's more information: Stanley Kubrick exhibition