John Pytlak RIP

Please try to get your facts right. There's lots of "hype" and name-dropping in some of the articles that are out there. Even worse is when it gets repeated on the Internet user groups, getting even further from the truth as the tale gets retold again and again. Go back to the source, and provide links to your sources. James Cameron used a special 3D CineAlta rig for "Ghosts of the Abyss" and another production about underwater volcanos.

Just announced today (March 15, 2004): http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/US/en/corp/pr...r/headlines.cgi Although currently limited to an individual viewer, this technology could foster much more 3D production for the game, science, or adventure film market. :)

:( Please shoot some Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 as well, and compare it. You may change some minds. B)

Are you SURE it is "Super-X"? What is the film code number? If it starts with a "12.." it is likely dangerous NITRATE film. Be careful!!! Nonetheless, quite a testimonial for the keeping qualities of the film. Was it refrigerated?

EASTMAN 4-X Negative Film 5224/7224 is an oldie but goodie. EI500 in daylight, EI400 tungsten. Distinctive grain. Plus-X 5231 Negative Film was first introduced in 1941. Super-XX Type 1230 was introduced during the 1930's. Other recent discussion: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...hp?showtopic=60 http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/archiv...ors/toland.html http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/bio/celeb/1676708

Much depends upon the complexity of the shoot and the action. A one-person monologue with skilled talent (e.g., one of the Bill Cosby skit films) doesn't require much coverage. "LOTR" is another matter. ;)

The February 1997 issue of "American Cinematographer" specifically cites the film types in the cut negative of "Star Wars Episode IV' as 5243, 5247, 5253, and CRI (5249). The Special Edition Visual Effects Producer Tom Kennedy said: "They made far too many release prints off the original neg". CRI (5249) was the most problematic for fading, indicating that the cut negative likely was not stored at the reduced temperatures recommended for long term film storage (SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131). No mention of B&W separations having been made either. :(

In the last few years, Kodak has made some significant improvements to its line of B&W films. Give them a try! http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.8&lc=en

With a B&W camera negative film, graininess does increase slightly with increasing exposure. Here is the granularity curve for 5222 (RMS granularity is the red curve): http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...es/5222Diff.pdf And 5231: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...es/5231Diff.pdf Best to give a "normal" exposure at the rated EI. Underexposure will give lower density "smoky" blacks in the final print, where grain will be more visible. But gross overexposure will put scene information (especially highlights) on a grainier portion of the film's characteristic curve.

Thanks for the good words about 7218 and other Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films. Keep those wish list ideas coming. B)

Panchromatic camera films are very sensitive to ANY light. The eye is most detail-sensitive in the green portion of the spectrum. So green is usually chosen for maximum visual sensitivity, as long as it is only used for path lighting (dim green LEDs) or task lighting (e.g., lighting a gauge), and does NOT illuminate the unprocessed film. Slower lab films like color print film, with a deep "notch" in the spectral sensitivity near 590nm, can tolerate some level of exposure to amber safelights like a Kodak Number 8 safelight filter, amber LEDs, or a low pressure sodium vapor source. It's all discussed in my SMPTE paper. Kodak offers engineering consultancy services (including "Process Lighting" for darkrooms) in its Motion Picture Services: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.28&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...esslighting.pdf

When you look at a color photograph under illumination from a low pressure sodium vapor (589nm) "safelight" used by some labs for color print film darkrooms, it appears to be amost totally monochromatic. My SMPTE paper "Shedding New Light on Darkroom Illumination" talks about using red light (or higher levels of the amber "safelight") even outside the darkroom itself, to help keep workers' vision dark-adapted. LEDs have become a very useful means of darkroom illumination, especially suited to "path lighting" and "task lighting", allowing a significant reduction in overall darkroom illumination and its potential to fog unprocessed film. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...on/page01.blind

I recall the techique was used for "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Night They Raided Minsky's". The opening sequence in "Hello Dolly" does a "wipe" from B&W to color. As mentioned, it can be done using traditional film printing techniques, or with Digital Intermediate. Kodak Cinesite was a pioneer in using some of these DI techniques: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/.../oBrother.shtml http://www.vfxhq.com/1998/pleasantville.html http://www.theasc.com/protect/nov98/pleasantville/pg1.htm http://www.larta.org/LAVox/2001/12-3_cinesite_profilehtm.htm http://www.cinesite.com

Yes, it's a processing rack threaded with clear triacetate green processing machine leader. Kodak's subsidiary FPC sells a variety of leaders: http://www.fpcfilm.com/film-leaders-lab-pr...ne-leaders.html http://www.fpcfilm.com/film-leaders-editorial-leaders.html The continuous processing machines used by labs have dozens of racks and many hundreds of rollers, and so are left threaded at all times. When the machine is shut down, it is loaded with leader, usually made of clear base so it doesn't absorb any chemistry while sitting, causing cross-contamination. The machine leader is often a thicker base (e.g., 7-mil polyester) for added stiffness and durability. Machines with sprocket drive require perforated leader. Machines with "soft touch tires" (often used when both 35mm and 16mm are run on the same machine) can use unperforated leader. Here is the Kodak processing manual, publication H-24: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...=0.1.4.15&lc=en Module 2: Equipment and Procedures - discusses the mechanical components of a processing machine.

Kodak has a handy Film Calculator on its website: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/index.jhtml Just enter your running time and format and frame rate , and it shows the footage. For a 5:1 shooting ratio, multiply by 5. (if you have a complex shoot, that's fairly conservative for a feature).

I've heard the same "rumor". ;) Stay tuned. B)

For those wearing contact lenses, and needed good vision in subdued light (including watching movies and looking in the viewfinder), ask your eye doctor about choosing higher quality lenses that have better optical quality and a larger "sweet" spot, giving better quality when the eye's iris is wide open. B) Mass-produced "disposables" just don't have the optical quality of more expensive lenses. Do keep them clean, protein-free, and disinfected between wearings.

You can't set price by image size alone. Large volume formats (e.g., 35mm) lend themselves to more efficient production processes. Smaller "niche" formats like 8mm or Super-8 are specialty items that are often much more labor intensive in manufacture or processing. If dedicated machines are used, you need to amortize the cost and maintenance of those machine across a smaller volume. In general, it's more realistic to compare costs in terms of cost per minute, rather than cost per foot.

Here's a Chronology of Kodak Motion Picture films: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...t/chrono1.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...t/chrono2.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...t/chrono3.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...t/chrono4.shtml

Your best bet for now is to ask a repackager like Pro8mm to consider buying 35mm 5285 in bulk from Kodak and finish and repackage it.

A few years ago I presented a paper to the SMPTE Fall Film Conference that demonstrated the importance of maintaining the proper screen luminance for projection (Standard SMPTE 196M specifies an aim of 16 footlamberts). The presentation clearly showed the loss of apparent sharpness when screen luminance was too low, due to the loss of visual acuity at lower light levels. Dim projection also degraded tone scale and color saturation of the projected image. Sadly, many "first run" theatres are underlit (Lucasfilm THX Theatre Alignment Program surveys show an average of only about 10 footlamberts), and some theatres much lower. :( Standard SMPTE 196M allows a range of 12 to 22 footlamberts for theatres, with no part of the screen being below 10 footlamberts.

For many years, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) ran their own film laboratory on their Culver City CA studio lot. "Metrocolor" is their trade name for film processed in the Kodak EASTMAN color processes they ran. The laboratory was closed a few years after Ted Turner bought MGM, then resold the lot to Lorimar, which sold it to Sony Pictures Corp. Here's a history: http://www.seeing-stars.com/Studios/MGM.shtml Here is a map of the studio lot in 1988: http://www.seeing-stars.com/ImagePages/LorimarMapPhoto.shtml MGM Labs was the large building just to the lower right of Building 20, along Culver Boulevard.

Kodak formulates and tests films for the standardized processes they were designed for. When you process a film in a process it was not designed for, you are on your own. As mentioned, some reversal films still require stabilization during processing, and will exhibit fading of dyes when cross-processed in a process that does not have a stabilizer: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5200.shtml

Usually, another company would buy the rights, or a court would assign them. A restoration with added elements would likely be able to get its own copyright for the restored version, but subservient to the original copyright. Whoever "owns" the copyright has the right to change the work, unless the creatives have negotiated a contract otherwise. FILM is still the preferred medium for long term storage, and even digital productions are often output to a film master for archiving.

Reformulating an existing film is NOT a simple task, and can often run to six figure development costs. But keep that "wish list" coming. B) There are certainly more VNF-1 processes than E-6 processes for 16mm, so why would you want all the films reformulated for E-6?