Dominic Case

Probably 90-95% of all negative is processed normally. Push or pull processing isn't that useful, and it rarely improves the image quality. That's why normal is normal. Push processing is increasing the development time (or very occasionally the temperature), to obtain a darker, more developed image. It's usually acheived in a commercial motion picture lab by slowing the machine down - typically 20% slower for a stop, though that is a bit conservative these days as stocks are more stable to variations. As all the other chemical stages such as bleach and fix are done to completion, an extra 20% doesn't make any difference. But in the developer stage, you get increased density, slightly increased contrast, and slightly more grain, particularly in the shadow areas. Also the fog level or D-min of the neg goes up. With black & white neg, there is a more noticeable contrast increase. It compensates for underexposure to the extent of bringing the mid tones back to where they would have been with normal exposure anyway. So in effect, a neg exposed at 200EI and pushed one stop will be the same density as a neg exposed at 100EI and processed nornally. But you don't actually see a stop further into the shadows, so it's not a true increase in speed. Pull processing is the opposite - speeding up the processing machine to under-develop the negative. Cinematographers who overexpose half a stop or a stop do so to ensure good rich blacks in the image, and to minimise grain. In fact, under-exposure gives you grainy, grey blacks very quickly, so part of the over-exposure policy is to avoid underexposing at any cost! It's not usual to pull process in this instance, as the purpose is to get good solid density on the negative - so pulling would negate the effect.

Well said David! But unfortunately it's the modern way of thinking. Keep options open until the very end, postpone any decision until the last possible moment (or later). I don't see any benefit that has come from this.

You can't do bleach bypass in a colour reversal process. After first developer and colour developer, there is silver in both the exposed and the unexposed areas of the image. The purpose of the bleach is to re-convert the silver back to silver bromide, which the fixer will then remove. If you skip the bleach, the entire image will be covered in silver - I guess it would be like looking at the film through a 2.0ND filter. No gain in contrast either, even if you could see the image properly. PS but that is exactly what you have done.

Thanks James- I hadn't come across the centre for social media one before, it looks excellent. Here are a couple of others that I've drawn from in the past . . . http://www.greeningthescreen.co.nz http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/environmental http://grass.org.au/ http://wbenvironmental.warnerbros.com/pdf/...andbook2007.pdf Anyone here with actual experience of trying to put these into effect - even the water bottle stuff?

I'm not looking for a debate on the scientific reliability of climate change predictions here, or on government (in)action. I'm assuming that some of those who acknowledge the science wil also recognise the need to do something about it on a personal and local level (while waiting for the politicians to do what they always do). So my question is - are there any tips or ideas about reducing waste, pollution and carbon emissions in film production that anyone here has thought of or would like to see put into practice? Things on set like bottled water, things about getting there like car-pooling, things in the office or postprod facility like using less paper, power-saving tricks etc. Anything specific to screen production in fact. Please share.

I've never heard the term "plug-in" applied to a physical or chemical process, as distinct from an add-on piece of software to do particular tricks with a digital image. But it seems that you are indeed asking about a photochemical process. There is nothing new about Technicolor's "Oz process". I used silver retention or bleachbypass on the interpos stage about thirteen years ago on an Australian film called The Well (shot by Mandy Walker ACS who more recently shot Australia. At the last minute (after seeing the answer print) they pulled the plug and reverted to a straight IP, so unfortunately you can't see the effect, but we did a lot of tests along the way to get the desired effect. It is really a cross between the bleach bypass effecgt as applied to camera negative, and the various silver retention processes such as Technicolor's ENR applied to the prints themselves. Like ENR (or Deluxe's ACE and CCE) the retained silver has the effect of darkening the shadows and so increasing contrast, and slightly reducing saturation in the darker tones. Highlights and fully saturated colours are less affected. The advantage of treating the IP instead of the prints is that it only has to be applied once, instead of to every print. Bleach bypass on the negative affects the darker tones of the negative in the same way - retaining silver - but this time it's the highlights of the image that are affected, not the shadows. Though printing darker can confuse this a little. Either way, bright colours are the most affected and therefore desaturation is more noticeable. In all cases the analogy of creating an additional layer in a digital process may be illuminating if you are more comfortable thinking that way. The silver retained in the film emulsion is proportional to the amounbt of colour dye, so you could create a negative or positive mask in just the same way. Curiously, the original Technicolor imbibition printing process also used three printed dye layers and a black silver layer as well: it was to improve the contrast and neutralise the blacks, but this was discontinued some time in the late 1940s when they improved the dyes they used.

So do I. But they were all heavy smokers, and they were all client reps or managers, so not so exposed to chemicals as others in the lab. And, like Karl, I know other people who have died of cancer who weren't lab people. I don't think there is a statistically significant issue here. And if there is, rather than the chemicals, I'd put it down to the constant pressure that lab liaison people work under in a busy lab, which might encourage the smoking and both of those might increase the risk of cancer. But that is a lot of mights. Point being, that the chemicals are more or less known risks and there are safe handling procedures, which good managments insist on - whereas smoking is left as an individual right (only outside the building these days of course). And the real issues that this thread is about aren't personal risk, they are environmental risk. I don't think film as such is the biggest mosnter here, it's many of the routine production practices on set: using only bottled water, having everyone drive to location individually, keeping lights on too long, and so on.

I think I've read that Google have located their servers at places where they can use hydroelectric power. (e.g Columbia River?). Of course it might just be for cooling water. Either way, it's a lot of heat generated, with or without CO2. I've read somewhere that the IT business, on a global scale, matches the airline industry for CO2 emissions. That's hard to imagine - but think how many people are in front of a computer all day every day, for each one person on an airplane for an hour or so once or twice a week (or mostly a day or so in this part of the world but that's another story). Still'n'all, that's no reason for complacency, whatever you do. Nero is fiddling away . . . .

The greater part of the cost of a film-out is not labour but the cost of the film recorder (the capital cost has to be serviced). Once the machine is set up, it's basically load and and leave. Are we right to assume this is a feature-length project that is being discussed. I don't think Arun specified. It does make a difference to costs!

Traditionally, "recycled prints" are ones sent to other territories where the release dagte is later than the initial release. "Second hand or used prints is a better term. ANyway, it happens less and less as "day and date" release take over with simultaneous release aropund the world. In the environmental sense, Kodak and Fuji and Gevaert changed from acetate-base prints to polyester base prints about 20 years ago. In theory youcan recycle polyester (PET). Kodak had a division that collected used prints and recycled the material. I don't think they do it any more. Nd in many other countries, the prints are still just sent straight to the tip (where they do more damage than the old acetate ones, which at least would decompose in time). The recylced material isn't used for more prints - it's shredded, compacted etc etc and eventually used for packaging products, cheap clothing, etc etc. It's only marginally economic at the moment (no-one seems to care about the environmental benefits when they look at the business case). One plan seems to involve shipping used prints to a centralised recycling facility, rather than having a facility in each country. Seems pointless when you think of the carbon miles that would involve.

I watched this too. I was struck by the "look". It seemed very similar to "The Eagle", a slightly similar Danish show (with an Icelandic cop). Part of that is the always low light of far northern latitudes. I wouldn't say it lacked sparkle, I don't think is was meant to have sparkle. That hard, desaturated look works well for this kind of program. Didn't know it was shot on Red. Are you suggesting that this restricted the "look"? In which case the choice seems to have been a good one. BTRW "the actor playing Wallander" is Kenneth Branagh - distinguished Shakespearean and film actor. Times must be tough if he's doing TV cop shows.

The book David recommends (it's by Patti Bellatoni) is essential reading for this subject. Nothing else comes close. But if you can get hold of a copy of Chris Doyle's book called "R34G38B25" (it's the printer light he had his colour tests printed at!) you should. It's written around the work he did on Zhang Yimou's "Hero", in which colour is used as a fundamental indicator to separate several different viewpoints of the same narrative events. You can also link them to cultural significance in ancient Chinese culture, but that road is fraught with difficulty: does Red mean death, stop, life, royalty, war, or what? And it is a beautiful book too. There was a write-up of Hero in American Cinematographer (possibly a late 2004 issue, but David will know instantly), which gives you a taste of the way in which colour was used.

The director's and the DoP's roles overlap, just as the DoP's role is an overlap of creativity and technical operations. Some directors will tell you exactly how they want every shot placed, lit and covered: others will only talk to the actors and leave everything to you about how you capture the scene that they parade in front of you. But it's all collaboration. I suspect that a director who had confidence that you knew what the extent of your role was would more likely allow you to be a bit creative. One who knew that you understood what (s)he wanted to "say" in the scene would also be more comfortable sharing decisions with you about how to convey that. In collaboration and discussion, of course. If you are still confused you might think about how a great classsical conductor can be creative - after all he or she has the score to follow. Equally, how can the players in the orchestra be creative? And yet most of them, especially the section leaders, the concertmaster, the principal horn etc have to do more than just follow technical instructions in order to get the unique performance that a great orchestra can deliver.

I'm really not at all clear as to why you are shooting 7285 for cross-processing. I presume you are looking for the effect that this non-standard process gives - so why do you ask about ways to minimise these results? You will indeed get an image with more saturation in the green/magenta direction than in other colours, and more overall contrast - which is what reduces the brightness range it can handle. You will of course get a negative image on the film, so the final results will be determined largely by what you do on telecine. If you rate any stock faster, it will give you less density if it is processed as a negative. The lightness or darkness of the final positive image is determined by how you then make the transfer. Have you discussed this with your lab? As it is a non-standard process (which is therefore to a certain extent unpredictable and unguaranteed) they will probably want to lay down some conditions, but might have some recommendations. Those will probably include the words "test, test, test".

Box office takings had been dwindling thorughout the 1920s, because of the spread of radio! But then cinema hit back with talkies - a much more dramatic enhancement than colour, which was in its very very early days then. Although the technology for talkies had been around for years in various ways, it took the box office success of The Jazz Singer to get all the studios on the bandwagon. In some towns, live theatre went dark almost overnight in the rush to the new films with talking and singing (there had been music with films for a long time of course). But did live theatre die in the long term? I don't think so! By the way, I think the figures show that box office receipts were hit badly at the very start of the great depression. Had cinema not been in the middle of the sound "boom" things could have been a lot worse.

I am saying that the purposes, the processes, the applications, the requirements, and the ways of viewing the image are different. But since you ask, yes, the film is different too. A simple example. Nearly all still photography, both professional and consumer, is now digital. The majority of feature film photography (image capture) and the majority of cinema exhibition is still on 35mm film. There are many reasons why the cinema world is changing far more slowly: some of them are to do with image quality, some of them are to do with the purposes, the processes, the applications, the requirements, and the ways of viewing the image. And some with cost structures. Every one of these considerations is different in still photography compared with cinema. So it is not surprising that photographic or cinema film is designed and used in a slightly different way for each. I really don't think there is much more to be said.

Push processing does increase contrast overall and more particularly at the highlight end of the scale. But it also increases the fog level (d-min), so at the exttreme shadow end of the scale, contrast tends to be reduced - this is how you get the effect of seeing slightly more into the shadows. Since push processing is often used to compensate for under-exposure, it is the shadow wnd of the scale that you are more interested in. Modern colour negative stocks are more resistant to all processing variations. So - for example - a 20% increase in dev time has less effect than it would have done on a pre-Vision type of emulsion. I suspect labs are generally reluctant to physically increase the push-process correction to allow for this resistance, as such dramatic variation from the norm may introduce other unreliable effects or issues.

I can't quite see what your problem is, Rajendra. The Ektar 100 is a stills film - and it may well have" the world's finest grain". But it's only 100 EI, which these days is only used if you really need fine grain. Most motion picture stocks are rated at 250 or 500. Faster speed naturally equals more grain. But if you are still wondering why the motion picture industry doesn't use reversal, there are many reasons, but the simplest is that it doesn't suit the workflow. You have to do a lot of image processing (which traditionally was always donbe photochemically, though mostly digitally now), and you have to make dupe negatives and prints. If you start with a reversal original, which is optimised for immediate viewing, then however beautiful it is, those duping and printing processes will degrade the image far more than they would if you start with a negative, which is optimised for duplication, not for direct viewing.

There's no reason why this shouldn't work on conventional black and white motion picture negative. The Vitamin C (Sorbitol) is a widely used developing agent - probably has more effect than the coffee, which is just there for the novelty. (Though I've no reason to suppose it doesn't also work as a developing agent given enough time). But unless I've missed something, developing negative in this brew will give you a negative - and a silver negative at that. Possibly with coffee stains, but that's not what the video shows. The sepia positives shown in the video can't have come from this process. Even printing from the caffenol-processed negative would only give you a regular black and white print. And it's a very long developing time at normal temperatures. You'd need a lot of hot coffee in that processing machine of yours, James ;) Perhaps there is a use for that stuff that Starbucks make, after all.

Where did you see/hear the term "gamma channels"? Are you asking for a definition of gamma?

Not really. A faster film (more sensitive to light) simply records a different range of brightnesses. "Sensitivity" to light is about how much (or how little) light it takes to expose the film to a certain density. "Contrast" is about how much the emulsion discriminates beween different brightnesses within a range.

Thanks John. I knew that ;) . . . . just a mild senior moment perhaps. Sorry to everyone else for the error.

This sounds like a rather speculative argument. Try running a festival. Then report back. Russell Richard Fowler adds to my point about projection when he mentions print/media inspection etc. What projectionist runs a public screening on a sight-unseen show, whether it's a new print, a dog-eared print or on tape or hard drive? It's ALL got to be checked - especially for a prestigious festival that's likely to have an audience full of film professionals, reporters and the filmmakers themselves. And "just adding digibeta" might be fine. But why just digibeta? Once you do that, someone asks for some other format, and then another. One rule for one filmmaker, a different one for another?

There are only seven colours because Isaac Newton believed that seven was some kind of universal number - seven notes in the musical scale, seven planets (as known then) etc. He had no theories of colour mixing, that came later. So he looked at the spectrum that he formed with a prism, and divided it up into seven areas. It was his way of pleasing both God and Science. There is a load of stuff about the three primary colours, and an alternative theory that has four primaries - red, green, blue, and yellow - that works better in explainng colour blindness. It brings in everything from physics and physiology biochemistry to psychology and linguistics. But this isn't a book :blink: In the human eye, we have three types of colour detector (rods). Each is sensitive to a different but overlapping range of wavelengths, but they peak at fairly precise wavelengths that we see as red, green and blue. When we look at those pure wavelengths, that is the colour we see. A single wavelength of 650nm will trigger a response just in the red detector, and we will see "red". 520nm would just trigger the green detector. But since the rods' sensitivities do overlap, the in-between wavelengths will trigger more than one detector. So with, for example 583nm (sodium yellow), we get a response in both the red and the green detectors, and interpret that combined signal as "yellow". The important thing here is that we see any colour purely as a combination of signals from the three receptors. So if we mixed wavelengths of green and red light, we'd get responses in both red and green detectors, which is what we just interpreted as yellow. The wavelngths are different, but the results as we see them are indistinguishable. Most natural surfaces reflect a very broad range of wavelengths, but some wavelengths more than others. However, once the light is in the human eye, it's all reduced to three signals from three types of colour detector.

Cinemafilm needs a format that can easily be mass-reproduced for release prints. That is the negative-positive system, not reversal. Manufacturing neg and pos stock, and processing it, is easier, more reliable, cheaper, and better quality than reversal. In particular, neg has several stops more latitude than reversal, allowing for more image manipulation and colour correction than you can achieve with reversal. The original negative image doesn't need to look good in itself. You don't preject the negative. It simply needs to act as a carrier of information to be printed onto another piece of film. That is the one that you look at.