Filip Plesha

Thanks for all the advice. I did manage to find a patent (patented by Technicolor) on a free patents web-site, which explains the printing stage (though not the creation of matrices) quite well.

Well, perhaps I should search on various patent sites. Something might come up Here is something I couldn't find an answer to. In the Haines book, it is mentioned that the "washback" step usually enhanced the color saturation, but it is not really explained how so. Since this was a process that affected only one matrix at a time, any change would only be done to one color channel, which is how one increases contrast and density, but saturation is something that involves inter-channel reactions (exclusion of channels), so I can't really understand what exactly increased the saturation. Contrast yes (which also increased saturation), but that's not an increase in saturation in regular photoshop jargon, which means increasing color contrast without affecting neutral contrast (or in other words simulating interimage effects) So,my question would be, was there really a method of increasing color saturation in dye transfer printing. Or did you simply have a saturated start, and could only reduce from there by using wider bandwidth filters on separations (in case of printing from color negs)

Hi I have long had an interest in technicolor 3-strip process and dye transfer printing, and have recently bought the book "technicolor movies: the history of dye transfer printing", which was a huge disappointment. Not because it is bad, but because my expectations were wrong. As the title states, it's a book about history, with just the most basic tech info aimed for the general reader. Are there any books out there that explain more the technical sides of the dye transfer technicolor process? The only thing I could find on amazon is this book: Glorious Technicolor: The Movies' Magic Rainbow. How does it compare? Anyone opened that one? What I'm looking for is something that would go more into detail of the process, for example, specs for the stocks used for the 3-strip process, changes in dyes over the years, explanation of various methods of control etc.

Here is a reverse question Has anyone ever (for whatever reason, not counting time lapse, stop motion etc.) used still film in a motion picture camera? l

I'm actually upgrading to a new scanner myself, because my old one can't scan 120 film. I need it only for having a nice collection to look at on my PC (so I don't have to drag out slides every time, and so I can experiment a little in PS before I order pro scans) I've been looking at the cheaper models (around $200), for that job, and found myself choosing between the new Canon 8800F and HP G4050 Canon actually outperforms the HP optically by visible margin , but Canon is more noisy (as all Canon flatbeds I've seen have this signiture Canon noise) and has poorer dynamic range. HP is a bit soft, but makes everything look SO sweet. It has a way of making colors on slides look full and warm without oversaturating. You could probably match the two in photoshop, but HP makes it look great out of the box, and seems to be more linear, while Canon crushes shadows. Here is what I mean, you can pretty much figure out which one is which from above description HP makes it look like the film has purer dyes. The neg is the same , but the Canon seems to lack color fidelity, and dynamic range in my opinion. So I'm going for the fuzzier HP since I won't print from it. I think paying 400 dollars for a flatbed is that boarder price where it just isn't worth it anymore, and it's better to go either to a lower price, or to a dedicated scanner (like a cheap minolta, unless you need 120)

Hi I've noticed something really weird while watching some old trailers on DVD There seem to be some kind of strange edge effects in some old trailers, which seem to be printed in IB process, but perhaps it's not related to the printing stage. Take a look at this: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2640/59380581nn8.jpg both of these trailers seem to be telecined from old prints. And both have these edge effects, which are too strange for video edge enhancement. First , because, they don't seem to be symetrical which is kind of strange, and that are rarely white, but always seem to have some kind of color cast. Furthermore, they seem to be everywhere. I've actually played all my pre 70's DVD's and looked for trailers, and the worse the print was (older and more generations from the original), the more the edge effects seem to be present. But that's not all, I've found them also in a movie transfer too, so it can't be a print effect. Here is a couple of frames from the movie Horror of Dracula: http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8163/38171725nq1.jpg first frame shows how the whole movie looks like, no trace of over-the-top EE, but then when the character drives a spike through the vampires heart, the movie switches to a dupe, obviously, the contrast jumps, the image appears lower in res and the grain is worse, and the color starts jumping all over the place (in dark areas there are local shifts in color balance) and again there are the edge effects. Just like in those old trailers. The movie switches back to a normal negative (or positive), and it's gone. Also, I've watched a couple of old movies where there were dupes for each transition, and it seems every time there is a transition, the image jumps to a dupe element, and besides the color shifts, again there are halos around edges Now, I know that film naturally produces edge effects due to developer diffusion, causing mackie lines in the part of MTF space where the curve is above 100% (usually up to 10-15 cycles per mm ) But this seems a bit too much. And I'm pretty sure they didn't use unsharp masking for making duplicates which would probably be too complicated to do in an optical printer. And, it's too ever-present and consistent with various producers and transfer houses to be simple EE, because I seem to spot it everywhere, and it seems to be stronger to one side of the frame than the other. Which is something that isn't consistent with digital EE. So is it something inherent to old dupe stock? Or some kind of process tweak like high-acutance developers or something. Any ideas?

Thanks for the links, but I was more interested in the process of making the final sound tape , and not how film soundtracks worked. How many tape generations does a typical movie soundtrack pass through etc.

Hi there I've been trying to find out (out of curiosity) what kind of cameras exist for recording 65mm 8-perf and 10-perf negatives. Now, I did find that fries makes (or did make) 865 model, for 8-perf work But this is probably the only such camera I've heard about. IWERKS used this format, so I assume they had to use some kind of cameras, but which manufacturer and model, was it this Fries? And in history, were there any other such cameras, or even modifications of 5-perf models (if that's possible) And, what about 10-perf, are there any cameras that shoot in this format? thank you

Greetings I'm interested to find out something about a typical number of generations that a movie sound went through when most of the gear was analog. I'd imagine a typical production chain would be, first, recording various sounds (ADR, Foley, or live dialog) to a full track mono tape, or stereo. Music directly to a multitrack tape. Mixing all the effects unto another multitrack. Then mixing everything together to another tape generation for stereo or mono. But this is all just a guess. What would be the actual typical case of sound recording in say, 70's in terms of tape formats used for various stuff, and what brands were most popular for tape machines in US. (I assume Ampex and 3m) And in the end, when I'm looking at a DVD of an old movie from 60's and 70's, what kind of tape am I actually hearing in the soundtrack (if it isn't a digital remix). Is that the original stereo mixdown, or some kind of safety copy

You think they used such a thing in a theater? Or did I misunderstand your post

Hi there Reaching back in memories into the time of optical soundtracks, I remember usually visiting two theaters, one of them had a very soft and dark sound that was always breathing, and another theater (also mono), which had a very crisp sound, but not detailed (like digital soundtracks), but simply felt somehow "sharpened". It reminded me of those exciters they sometimes use on radio stations. It seemed like every little pop and crack was exaggerated So I'm wondering, was there any kind of harmonic excitation or similar technique used in optical playback systems which was suppose to bring life to an otherwise blurry sound? If not, what exactly was I hearing, is it some kind of artefact of optical recording of sound? thanks

That looks way too soft to be considered 4K resolution. But the "look" is wonderfull for a digital camera. Much better, as a photograph, than something from Sony HD we have seen so far. Not in terms of quality, but in terms of getting close to "organic" look of film.

I have a couple of books from Crewdson. Big fan. He is, while the only, probably my biggest inspiration in photography. There is no point in discussing is he good or is he not good. A carpenter is good or not good depending on the quality of chairs he makes (do they fall apart etc.). This is art. It's either an inspiration to someone or not. Crewdson is the kind of artist, you either stop and stare at his photos, or should I call them paintings, they certainly look like paintings, and get carried away, or they are just plain stupid. If it works for you, it works for you, if it doesn't move on to the next photographer. The reason I like it, is, besides the visual impact of the lighting and colors, is the stillness you can find in them. I wouldn't even call them photographs in the typical, moment in time sense of the word. In them time stops, and is somehow a piece of eternity, and not a moment in time. Photographs usually radiate from this life, motion, etc. while paintings usually radiate with some kind of sense of calmness, serenity, almost death, but in a really serene way. Crewdson is the only photographer I've seen that uses film as a medium (not canvas), yet his photographs radiate that stillness of paintings. The lighting is also a work of a genius. It's like movie lighting, but even more distant from reality. Very surreal. Like something out of a dream. When I dream at night, I see through Crewdsons camera. There is an idea going around that there is a lot of digital trickery involved. Sure he is known to combine different "takes" and exposures. But if you take a look at some of his behind the scenes images in some of the books, you can see how much of it is "real", on set, and I'd say pretty much all. If you walked on his set, you'd get that same surreal feel you get from his prints. Because it's all in the light. It's one of those things that look good on any medium, film, even a video camera. There is a nice shot in one of the books, showing a view through the viewfinder of his camera, photographed by another camera behind the LF camera he uses. You can see that the optical image on the viewfinder is pretty much what ended up in the print. The light is amazing. Glad to see someone else can appreciate it. That's not a "problem". That's the center idea around his images. He is not communicating specific "human" ideas, but communicates dreams. I don't know if you have ever had that feeling, when you wake up, and still "feel" the dream you had last night, but it's nothing specific, it's just a place you have been in your dreams, and there is nothing really to say about it, it's just a feeling of something other than this reality, a tone as you say that wants to be expressed but there is no word for it. Well that's Crewdson. To be able to capture that subconscious feeling on film, takes a genius. But it also takes a certain kind of viewer to see it in those images, because different people communicate on different levels. Not that everyone has to like it. On the contrary, some people feel the same thing radiating from those images, and hate them because it can be disturbing. It's one of those things you can't talk about with words. It would take some kind of vulcan mind melt to express. It's a vision, plain and simple.

Yes it was Brazil, but I didn't know its name before you mentioned it now I liked that film (Brazil)

No, not like that, sorry for not being clear Here is an example: adforum has a large collection of current and older ads, which you can purchase in a full-SD resolution, just for personal use. I'm just interested in finding some specific ads and buying them in full resolution for my own personal enjoyment. So I'm looking for other places (other than adforum) where I can simply buy clips

Hi I know about adforum, but is there another place where one can buy single high-quality ads over internet? thanks

In my mind, at this point in time, it's not supose to be realistic, it's supose to be film history. The crappy effects are part of the whole original Star Trek look and feel. But I guess they are looking more at it as a product which is supose to entertain the audience on the same level as a modern show would.

Just rented it on DVD Finally something fresh. Now this is my idea of a perfect mix of traditional and CG effects. The physical creatures are THERE, you can touch them. You can feel a giant rubber suit in front of you as you watch the movie, instead of the unphysical feel of CG, that I've seen in most new Star Wars movies. It's difficult to describe really. I remember there was a scene where you saw a silouette of some kind of a caterpillar creature on some dark planet maybe 10 meters from the camera, moving. It's movement looked fake, like something from muppet show, but it felt 100% real, even as a silouette. I had the feeling if I was on that set and walked there I'd bump into it. I think that's the first step in realism: physical realism. Some disney cartoons look a lot more expressive then a lot of movie dolls, but that doesn't make them realistic Some better lip sync would be nice in the creatures though. Well enough of that.. I think the film is imaginitive, steps away from the cheesy try-to-be-serious SCI-FI we've seen in 90's, and has a lot of depth. Haven't felt that adventure type feeling since the last time A new hope felt fresh, and that was at least 10 years ago. It's all ridiculous, but very interesting to watch, because its original, and makes me feel nostalgic for the days when sci-fi was original and alive, like 70's and early 80's Something about it made me feel like watching A new hope for the first time again. It also reminds me of a great film I once saw, but forgot its name. It was a british film I think about a small guy in a huge company, something very Kafkaish, grotesque, surreal and exagerated. It had a twisted style, loved it. Anyone know the name of that film? Loved the DVD transfer. Looked a bit odd, as if done from a wierd kind of copy (DI?), but nontheless very realistic photo rendition, I could almost touch that robots head, it felt so 3D. That's because photography didn't feel flat. It had depth. CG blended like a charm I think, exept for the most obvious coputer generated scenes. Loved the lighting in that snow scene at sunset. Wow, that robot look like the one from those stylish glossy Sony catalogue ad photographs. Love the way the film mocks everything, including itself, and its own logic, and human logic in general. It makes humans look kinda stupid even in their peaks of phylosophical thinking, which I think we are in general as a species. The best part was when those people asked the computer what is the answer to all life. That's a question people often ask, but its funny because that's not really a question so you can't answer it. Really, I think human phylosophy and logic needs a slap in the face, that this film gives it. It takes no sides, and has a kind of a selfdestruct mechanism to ensure it doesn't leave a whole new philosophy, just kind of mocks everything up and then dissapears, selfdestructs. I love it. Photography, effects, set design, creatures, story, message. An A from me

yea, I had someone like you in mind :) maybe cooked film gives some kind of interesting new look

Film is sensitive far beyond the visible light, at least in the direction of higher frequencies than light, it captures UV and x-rays, possibly gamma rays (can anyone confirm?) , but I don't know if it works in the other direction (infrared). Try putting a 120 roll (because it has no metal) into the microwave and see if it gets exposed. If it does, then it will be sensitive to IR too, because microwaves have even lower frequency than IR lol, or maybe you can just ask someone who knows for sure

It's a red light. if you can see it, color film can see it. I always found funny those kodak warnings about not using a safelight, I didn't think people would actually consider using it

You know Croatian/Serbian then? Did you have to learn it in school during Yugoslavia? about the spaces. I really don't know, I think he was talking about how some movies mixed this real space and movie space when people walk out of the screens, but he seems to be so passionate about it, and I just don't understand what's the big deal.

No ambient light, I'd use this in a controled studio environment Yea, just that Well I do use reversal mostly, so it helps with controling light ratios like that, but I don't want to go too far. I want the part that is lit by the key to act in a regular way (no blown out highlights), so that's why I'd rather not increase the contrast of the image, bur just increase the ratio of fill and key. There is a difference in look between a contrasty medium and contrasty lighting This negative fill sounds like a good idea. I'll see what I can do about that

Scott, oh, I forgot to mention, I'm not a cinematographer, but a still photographer (that's what I said what I said about asking on photo.net first or lack of that action), so there is no "production design" involved, nor green screen. Though I do get what you mean. Maybe a kind of a spotlight on the subjects would reduce the fill?

Ok, here is something like what I had in mind. This is is a photo by Philip Lorca Dicorcia from his "Heads" exibit and book http://deutsche-boerse.com/dbag/dispatch/d...ia3_518x413.jpg I can see that its a rather contrasty rendering too, but the light also seems to lack the fill I get in a closed room that bounces around. This one is taken on the street, so naturally there is less bounce and less fill. So what I'm aiming is getting this kind of lighting contrast in a closed room.