John Pytlak RIP

Kodak has quite a bit: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...d=0.1.4.9&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students...=0.1.4.13&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/train/?id=0.1.4.7&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/screench...jTraining.shtml

Just remember you are on your own when you use a non-standard format. You may be considered either a visionary pioneer, or... You do limit yourself to the vendors who are supporting that format.

Here are the Kodak color reversal motion picture films: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/reversal/ http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...rsal/5285.shtml The "Lord of the Rings" trilogy used Kodak camera films, but distributor New Line usually specifies Fujicolor print film for general release prints.

Here's the Kodak Super-8 products: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/film.shtml

Here are some things already being done to promote Super-8: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...00/super8.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/super8/tips.shtml

Normally, B&W separation POSITIVES are made from a negative element, then recombined to make a color duplicate negative. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...html#operations

Kodak Kodachrome films: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....22.5&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/.../tech7268.shtml

Certainly the majority of the film volume is print film. But the same machines coat both products, so the economies of scale come from ALL film products. Motion Picture Color negative film is still a very healthy market.

Mitch Gross wrote: Nah. It's all in my head. (NOT!)

The color of a flare depends on its chemical composition. I suspect many use magnesium, and so would be quite high in color temperature. Here are some links: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fireworks/anat_nf.html http://hmchemdemo.clt.binghamton.edu/zumda...07fireworks.htm http://www.skylighter.com/mall/chemicals.asp?Sort=S http://www.pyro-pages.com/Info/Chemistry/chemical.htm Be careful!

Please do recognize that Kodak's list is only as good as the information provided to us by these labs and transfer houses.

IBL wrote: Unfortuately, I've had some really bad experiences with Digital Cinema presentations as well. One screening of "Ice Age" was cancelled when the theatre's server kept hanging up, posterizing the image and having the image "freeze" up and go black. A digital screening of Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" in August 2001 had truly "ugly" looking tone scale, with highlights that clipped and murky shadows. Another digital screening at a theatre owners trade show looked like it was projected through a dirty lens, with lots of obvious flare. Digital Cinema will not look good in theatres that don't care about presentation quality, or cut corners on maintenance and good operators. :(

Certainly if any Super-8 production has made "the big time" with a pick-up by a distributor, network, or cable, or great success on the festival circuit, let us know about it. If you know you are working on such a potential "blockbuster", take lots of photos to document "the making", and keep accurate technical records for any article that may be written. :) If you make a good film that wins local acclaim (e.g., best film in your Filmmaking-101 class, or broadcast on your local TV or public-access cable), recognize that many others are learning and perfecting their craft in the same way. B)

Unfortunately, unless the prints are "hard matted", a movie with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio can be misframed by a careless or overworked projectionist. Always better to shoot and "protect" that area of the image so the boom mike or swim briefs in the shower scene don't accidently show up on the screen. Standard SMPTE 195 has recommendations regarding "hard matting" of prints rather than the original negative.

FWIW: Kodak sold a record amount of motion-picture film last year. Well over 10 BILLION feet of film. Kodak Entertainment Imaging still invests about 70% of its R&D budget in FILM related projects, with several new VISION2 films being introduced shortly, and more in the pipeline. B)

Moire is a form of "aliasing", where the regular patterns in the scene (tweed, venetian blinds, screen doors) interacts with the fixed array of the camera CCDs or video display device. "Filtering" to reduce aliasing actually reduces the sharpness of the image to eliminate the fine detail causing the aliasing (Nyquist criteria). So a camera with 1920 x 1080 pixel sensors will have less than half that resolution when the normal "anti-aliasing" filtration is used.

Slight overexposure on color negative films will generally reduce graininess and give more shadow detail and "richer" blacks. But too much overexposure will result in a very dense negative that requires very high printer lights (or even a different TRIM setup), or more noise in telecine transfer.

"Pushing" the 200T will generally increase the contrast and graininess. Probably a better match for 7279, but may actually look more grainy than 7218.

Here's a link to the new Kodak website devoted to 16mm production: B) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/index.jhtml As others have said, it's really a matter of the "look" you want. If you find recent productions that really have the "look" you want, do your research and find out how they were shot. Super-16 can offer a way to get a real "film look" on a lower budget.

I agree, fireworks will be rendered most naturally treating the exposure filtration as for daylight (5500K): http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

High coercivity videotape is unlikely to be affected, but because of the wide variety (power levels and types) of baggage scanners, probably safest to treat it like unprocessed film. Here are the Kodak recommendations: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...l/xrayAir.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...cal/xray4.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h340.shtml http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editori...torial_1248.xml http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editori...torial_1035.xml High altitude transportation does increase the exposure level to natural radiation (e.g., recent "solar storms"). This can affect both unprocessed film, and sensitive electronic devices like CCD sensors (permanent "dead pixels"). So avoid air shipping when severe solar storms are predicted: http://www.noaa.gov/solar.html http://www.sec.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/ Old low coercivity magnetic media could be affected by stray magnetic fields, such as from the motors driving the conveyer system or maybe close proximity to the magnetometer.

Found this on the net (not verified): http://www.azd.com/list/video/076782900X.html "To clear up some of the confusion and angry reviews about this special being edited, as a fan of Emmet Otter, let me explain that there are 2 different versions of this classic holiday special. In 1977, HBO first aired Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas and also ran it in 1978 and 1979 which is the version that's been available on VHS for years and was just released on DVD. In 1980, ABC snatched the special away from HBO for one year and made some changes to it including adding Kermit's voiceover narration, trimming some of the songs ("Ain't No Hole In The Washtub" and the reprise of "When The River Meets The Sea"), extending some scenes like the Riverside Rest scene where Emmet, Ma and the boys are singing inside where it pans over to Kermit narrating to us the audience (the original 1977 version did not have Kermit at the Riverside Rest but just dissolved onto the next scene when Emmet, Ma and the boys are walking home after singing) while trimming others. HBO began airing the special again in 1981 and throughout the '80s but instead of using the original 1977 version that they ran from 1977 to 1979, they instead ran the ABC network version which is what most viewers had remembered seeing and therefore were upset by the video release which was the original 1977 cut and not the 1980 network version. So my advice to those who still have a copy from HBO recorded during the '80s, keep it and buy the video version which is the original version that aired back in 1977 on HBO and watch them back to back and decide for yourself which version you like the most. Personally, I prefer the video edition because that was the version I had remembered watching as a kid. I just wanted to clear up any confusion by those who had bought the video or DVD and was disappointed to see what they thought was an "edited version" of what they had remembered seeing on ABC or HBO in the '80s which is not really the case when it comes to this classic holiday special where there are 2 versions: the 1977 cut which ran on HBO from 1977 to 1979 and the 1980 ABC network version which ran once on ABC in 1980 and on HBO from 1981 into the late '80s. Hope this information helps. "

A "variac" is an autotransformer that has an adjustable tap, so AC voltage can be varied. Has the advantage that it maintains the sinusoidal waveform of the power without "clipping" the waveform as an SCR dimmer would.

There are some labs that specialize in processing old films for which there is no current process. In most cases, they process in a specially modified B&W negative process to obtain a B&W negative. Remember, Kodachrome has rem-jet. For very old film, it's likely that the film will not survive a very "hot" process, as the gelatin emulsions of that era were not forehardened. The lab may try using a low temperature B&W process, perhaps with higher bromide and/or anti-foggant to reduce the fog level. Here are some labs that specialize in processing old films. You may have to "sacrifice" a few feet of film for dip tests to decide the best way to process the film: http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/oldfilm.htm http://www.filmrescue.com/ http://www.processc22.co.uk/

I suspect even 4K won't fully capture the detail and quality of that original film image. :)