Jump to content

John Pytlak RIP

Premium Member
  • Posts

    3,497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Pytlak RIP

  1. As you may have noticed, I have not been participating here on Cinematography.com or other forums during the past few weeks. On Labor Day, I found signs of severe abdominal bleeding, and had felt increasingly weak the week before. I was admitted to the hospital, and required a transfusion of four units of blood to bring my hemacrit from a low of 20 (normal is above 40). The stress on my heart from the loss of blood precipitated a mild heart attack, as indicated by elevated Trioponin enzyme levels. I was subjected to a week of testing, including upper and lower GI endoscopy exams. The internal bleeding had stopped, but no definitive source was found, except for an area of "thickened tissue" near the appendix. So a biopsy was taken. On Friday, September 8, I had two angiograms and a 95% blockage was found in one of my coronary arteries. The blockage was opened with an angioplasty and insertion of a bare metal stent. I was released from the hospital on Sunday, September 10. Unfortunately, this past Thursday, I received word that the biopsy was positive for cancerous cells. A CAT scan Friday showed two areas of suspicion along the middle small intestine. I will need surgery, but it cannot be done until late October, since I am on blood thinners to prevent clotting around the new coronary stent. For now, I am feeling well and staying active, but with all the doctor visits, do not have much time to log on to the Internet user groups that I like to help on. I'm posting this in this topic because this is where I am a most frequent poster. Hopefully, I will be returning to health again after the surgery. And maybe get back on line during the next month, between doctor visits. Please keep me in your thoughts and prayers. John
  2. The professional photographer who shot my daughter's wedding last November INSISTED on using 120-format FILM. Nothing like film to hold highlight detail in white lace and flowers, and have great flesh tones.
  3. Don't forget that camera films for the ECN-2 process have rem-jet, which requires a prebath, water wash off and buffers to remove properly.
  4. Really, any of the Kodak VISION2 stocks should do a fine job holding detail in the highlights. Lots of overexposure latitude. B)
  5. Yes, it was discontinued quite some time ago. Any remaining stock is probably showing age effects by now.
  6. Since the motion picture color negative films have rem-jet that needs the special removal steps in the ECN-2 process, they are rarely cross-processed. A color reversal film like 5285 can be cross-processed in the ECN-2 process. Work closely with your lab, and pre-testing to get the "look" you want is highly advised.
  7. The big issue with the authorities will be due to security concerns. Reportedly terrorists often gather information about potential targets by shooting videos, so if you get caught, you may have some explaining to do. Getting a film permit may be lots less hassle.
  8. Several things to test: 1. Use a higher speed film (more graininess) 2. Underexpose (more graininess, less density and detail in the shadows) 3. Filtration (tobacco, coral, contrast reduction) 4. A bit of fog on the set. 5. Shoot into the sun to get lens flares and haze. 6. You might be tempted to actually blow some dust around -- watch out for the equipment.
  9. Well, here is a link to first-hand information: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?...;idhbx=investor Digital imaging now represents over half of Kodak's revenue. Kodak still sells lots of consumer still film, but has to be more selective in which products and formats to offer: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....14.5&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.11&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.17&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.19&lc=en
  10. Again, the complete Film Code-Emulsion-Roll-Part-Strip number really helps Kodak track any potential problem right to the equipment and people that made each strip of film. If there ever is a problem, returning unopened cans from the same batch aids in the investigation: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...15.18&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...eykode/35mm.pdf http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...ification.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizesP.shtml#p For your own tracking, you want enough information to track the particular magazine and camera that were used as well.
  11. As always, best to call the labs and ask for quotes: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/....4.17&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/....4.19&lc=en
  12. Yes, Kodak does plan for the future. But time will tell, I won't. I doubt that Kodak will build any more $200,000,000 film sensitizing machines, but Kodak certainly will develop new motion picture films to be sensitized on the state-of-the-art machines we already have. As mentioned before, 2005 was a record year for motion-picture film volumes, so reports of film's "death" are very premature, just as they were fifty years ago when Variety headlined "Film Is Dead" as Ampex introduced 2-inch videotape. One thing is certain, FILM you shoot today WILL be used in the future. I don't think Desilu Productions ever envisioned in 1953 that "I Love Lucy" would have it's 35mm nitrate negatives being shown on HD television from 2K or even 4K scans, as John Lowry has done: One has only to look at the thousands of titles available on DVD to see how film shot decades ago still finds a profitable market today, using the latest display technology. Those same films will continue to find a market, as displays evolve to 4K and beyond. Again, when you look at your options of what to shoot with TODAY, film is still often the best choice. For today, and for the future.
  13. Projection contrast reversal films generally have less latitude than color negative films. As mentioned, on reversal films, you can usually tolerate a bit of underexposure better than overexposure, as with overexposure, you lose highlight detail on the "toe" of the film's characteristic. Most 16mm reversal is either projected directly, or a telecine transfer is made. If 16mm prints are needed, you need to make an internegative, as Kodak no longer sells a color reversal print film.
  14. Here is the technical data for EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.4.4&lc=en Kodak Developer D-96 is the developer normally used, but any B&W developer will yield an image, so you can feel free to test D-19 and see what contrast and curve shape you get. The film does NOT have a rem-jet layer. Here is the Kodak H-24.15 Manual for processing B&W films: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...h2415/h2415.pdf
  15. You should choose the format that best supports your project TODAY, and assures it's marketablity well into the future. In many cases, that's still FILM, which has a proven track record of image quality and supporting ever evolving display formats. It's kinda pointless to base your choice on digital cameras that haven't even been invented yet, or that have a workflow that few can handle. It's kinda risky to shoot a feature film using a format that barely supports today's typical 2K feature production workflow, much less a higher quality one in the future. When Sony demonstrated their 4K SXRD Digital Projector, they chose clips of 1962's "The Music Man" and 1965's "The Sound of Music" to demonstrate image quality, tribute to well-shot film being "future proof".
  16. Do a quick search using "LCD monitor" "5-inch" "PAL": http://www.nextag.com/5-inch-lcd-monitor/search-html http://www.nextag.com/All--zz5+inch+lcd+mo...21zB1uz5---html http://www.chinasuppliers.globalsources.co...Monitor/140.htm http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/ever...d-EV-7089-.html
  17. Are you saying that you intend to shoot using only existing "practicals", rather than trying to control the lighting and the lighting contrast? What light levels (footcandles) do you have in that location? The biggest issue you might face is not one of light level, but controlling the lighting contrast so those practicals don't clip in video. With only the practicals, you are likely to lose any details in the highlights like lampshades.
  18. Use a waveform monitor. If the video signal "clips", it means it exceeds the capability of the system to handle it, losing the extremes of the tone scale. Here is a NTSC waveform monitor display of an 8-step gray scale that is NOT clipping:
  19. Whether you overexpose or underexpose, once you have the image signal go into a clip mode, the information is lost forever. If there is still information, you do at least have the ability to manipulate tone scale to "stretch" out those "muddy" images. With film, the "toe" and "shoulder" of the sensitivity characteristic are more gradual, so you won't find the same sort of harsh clipping of the extreme shadows or highlights.
  20. My records show films Kodak made for 3-Strip cameras included: 1237 EASTMAN Red Sensitive Negative Film 1938-1950 1238 EASTMAN Green Sensitive Negative Film 1938-1950 1239 EASTMAN Blue Sensitive Negative Film 1938-1950 The "Technicolor Monopack" film was 5267 KODAK KODACHROME Professional Film (1942-1951), which had an exposure index of EI 16 Daylight.
  21. Marty Hart's "American Widescreen Museum" has a very comprehensive section about Technicolor 3-strip: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/fortune-page01.htm 1934 Fortune Magazine Article http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/ball.htm 1935 Article http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kalmus.htm 1938 Herbert Kalmus article http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/hoch0.htm 1942 Hoch article Some Technicolor photos and illustrations from American Widescreen Museum:
  22. If you decide not to use correction filters, err on the side of overexposure. But for natural color, always best to try to correct with the filter recommendations in the film's published technical information. Many stores and public places lit by fluorescents have a relatively high light level: http://www.lightsearch.com/resources/lightguides/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighting http://w3.ouhsc.edu/ehso/labman/Section%20...gineering%22%22 http://www.mts.net/~william5/library/epalight.htm
  23. Again, suggested correction filters for fluorescent lighting are usually included in the technical data published for each film: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.4&lc=en
  24. If you know the type of fluorescent light, you can correct most of the color difference with filtration. The latitude of color negative films also allows fine-tuning color balance during timing/grading, especially if you have a "rich" exposure (i.e., avoid underexposure): Here is the filter information for 5218: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...;lc=en#colorbal And 5205: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...;lc=en#colorbal Each Kodak camera film has this data on the Kodak website: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.4&lc=en
  25. "Zooming In" to extract a smaller image area (e.g., to get a CU from a MS, or to correct composition) can be done, especially from a larger image area like 35mm. Obviously, as you increase the magnification, you get more graininess, and less sharpness by using a smaller image area on the negative. Wet printing will generally cover all but the most severe base side scratches, and can minimize superficial emulsion-side scratches. Diffuse illumiation telecines like the Spirit are also very good at minimizing scratches. Kodak also has "Digital ICE": http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/hybrid/dice.jhtml
×
×
  • Create New...