Jana Slamova

Hello, I want to learn as much as I can about all the proffesions in film crew. I have found a lot of books about directing, DOP, editing, grading, SFX, lighting etc etc, but after googling for a long time, it seems that there is no book for future line producers about line producing. At least I can't found it.

Do you know some book, from which I can learn as much as possible about line producing?

Thank you all for all the replies, but mostly I want to say thank you to Dave Mullen!! Your explanation is great and full of useful informations, as always!! I can't belive there is someone who have so huge knowledge about film stock stuff like you... You are human encyclopedia! I hope some day I will have at least 5% of your knowledge.

Many thanks for sharing the knowledge here on Cinematography.com!!

Thank you so much, great link! So every color film ever made (with exception of the very first Kodacolor) have that orange masks to eliminate unwanted exposition of the individual color layers, right?

Was the color camera negative always terracotta-orange and b&w camera negative always clear and transparent?

I know that todays developed camera negative have orangish terracotta like coloring, orange is perforation and also the image itself. But was the negative always orange? Is it possible that in 1960 and sooner they have used B&W negatives, that was without any coloring, clear and transparent?

This is how it is!! It sounded really strange to me, that they will waste 1/4 of that extremelly expensive film stock when shooting Super35. Thanks for your reply David!! Now it makes sense!

This is how the negative should really look:

Which one is correct?

When you shoot on Super35 4-perf camera negative, and your intended frame aspect ratio is 2.35, is the whole 1.33 film frame frame filled image informations, that is cropped to 2.35 in postproduction, or the image is already cropped to 2.35 on the negative, and upper and lower frame parts is black (letterboxing)?

I have included an image for better understanding. How looks the Super35 camera negative, like image A or B?

EDIT: I know the negative is usually orange and the colors of image should be inverted, please ignore this mistakes

Thank you all for great discussion full of interesting informations and knowledge!! I have learned a lot!!

Topic title says it all - are 2.35:1 films always shot with anamorphic lenses, when using 35mm film stock, or more often they use just cropped field?

Generally, what is the main visual difference between raw image on camera negative and final distribution copy processed through the whole film editing workflow (beside of that the colors are inverted)? Lower contrast and saturation on the camera negative? Some tint?

Yes, "film chain" that feeding film directly to camera, this is exactly what I have looked for and can't find nothing relevant!! Thank you so much Dan!! There are lot of interesting stuff to read about this on internet.

I've got few questions about TV broadcasting from 35mm film stock.

What device is (was) used for transforming the 35mm film to the TV signal?

How is called the film stock designed to broadcast on TV, not for screening in cinemas?

In what period of time was used 35mm stock to broadcast on TV? Was some TV shows broadcasted from 35mm film even in 90s or 00s?

I hope my question is in correct subforum.

Thank you David, great reply as always!!

I know there is something much better than Kodak 2383/2393 or Fujifilm 3510/3513, that is used most times for screening in common theathers. The stock, that is used for screening at special special occasion, gala premieres, etc.

What brand and what type is this very-best-high-end film stock used today, and what type of stock was used in earlier times for occasions like this?

I would be very grateful for every film stock you can remember, I'm trying to put together huge list of high end film stocks, contemporary and also historical.

Very interesting informations and nice reading, many thanks for all contributors! Now I think I completelly understand this!

I need to make really short 35mm film from digital video for my school project - about 1 minute. But here, in Czech Republic, recording of 1 minute costs something around 1000 USD without developing and copying. I guess there must be something cheaper in the world, even with shipping of finished film to the Czech Republic

Do you know some really cheap company, that make 35mm films from digital video, anywhere in the world? Quality is not a priority, I definatelly don't need Arrilaser, I will be happy with everything.

Oh my god. This is awesome! Just awesome reply full of interesting informations. I've learned a lot reading this. Thank you so much David, your answers is absolutelly great!! Words cant express how grateful I am :)

One last question: Does interpositive, internegative and dupe contain sound? And if yes, does it contain just analogue sound, or also Dolby Digital/SDDS? And what about answer prints/workprints, does them contain DD/SDDS or analogue audio?

Thanks again for your reply!!

Thank you so much, David, for taking time to explain this to me, you have hepled me a lot, I really appreciate it! I think I'm understand it right now. Thanks!

I know that after developing the camera negative, workprint is created and on this copy is made all the editing, but here my knowledge ends. What is the exact workflow from camera negative to distribution copy, and what kinds of film stock is made during this (I mean Rush print, Answer print, Showprint etc.)? Someone tells me that in the cinema is 3rd or even 4th generation copy of original camera negative...

Thank you for your reply, Oron. And does the image on processed negative looks the same as the possitive, or processed negative have still inverted colors, when the processing just made them visible?

Topic title say it all. In fact, developed and processed camera negative have positive colors, so it should be called positive?

Hello Paul, many thanks for your reply!!

That PDF seems to be really good source of informations. I have googled for something like this, but without succes.

My point is to distinguish between the camera negative and distribution copy, if I got both in my hands not knowing which is which. According to your reply and that PDF file, beside small differences in image quality (contrast, colors, definition), material strength and absence of sound in camera negative, there is HUGE difference in the color of film strips, because developed film negative is light orange and got some text printed near the perforation, while distribution copy is black.

Hello,

I'm doing some school project, and I need to know exactly how the processed and developed film negative (preferably Kodak Vision3) looks. Can someone, please, post here some detailed photos of processed and developed film negative that comes directly from camera (no copy)? I would be extremelly grateful!! :wub:

What is the main differences between processed and developed negative from camera and distribution copy film stock? Does the distribution copies usually using the same film stock type that is used in camera? Is there some distribution copies on Kodak Vision3? Does Kodak Vision3 contain sound, and if yes, what type? Can Kodak Vision3 (or other camera film negative) contain SDDS or Dolby Digital sound, or just analogue optical audio?

Many thanks in advance for all your replies!!