Frank Chang

I see. Thanks David.

Hello David. Just a follow up. We did a test scan for one scene (about 10 seconds) and it does appear that both have the same quality and can not tell a difference between the two. The original vault person retired years ago and the record keeping back in the days are almost next to none. The things that are worth noting are that these IPs are not the standard IPs I am used to. For one things, past IPs we have worked on are almost all final (i.e. same as IN). These IPs, however, look like it is direct copy from the OCN. So not only it is not color-timed (it does at least contains clipboard images for each scene about the color configuration), it is missing all the optical effects. And it contains 2 to 4 blank cells that separate for each scene. No splice. Generally I would have called this as a workprint reel. Just pondering why it is called IP?

Thanks, Perry.

Ok, I will have the other dept do a test scan of each type. Thanks.

Hi David. Do you mean compare them for image quality? By the way, I did notice this morning that one of the fade in/out is not in the IP but it is in the IN.

Hi All. I posted this message at the "Film Stocks and Processing" section yesterday and soon after I realized it is likely in the wrong section. Sorry for this dupe post. We recently pulled two reels that needs to be restored. And there are more reels that are in this similar configuration. Here are the facts. All the reels are from the mid 80s. The two reels are the same clip, one internegative and the other interpositive. There are no splices on IP nor IN. The IN is the final edit/release, and the IP is not the final edit. There are no other IP reel found that is final edit like the IN. The IP is also a little longer than the IN. The only problem is that the IP seems to be raw/source reel or perhaps a one light print or workprint or perhaps a direct copy from the original camera negative? In other words, the clip on the IP have each scene that are separated by 2 or 4 blank cells. Throughout the reel, it contains the RGBs info on the cells. Each scene are usually about 10 seconds or less. The IN, however, is complete and final with all editing done. And the IN comes with paper works from the processing lab for all the RGB configurations for the IN reel. Here are the questions: I just find it strange that there are no IP that is the same final edit as the final IN. So, the question is if it is worth the cost and time to scan the IP for the 4K restoration, since it is at least one generation early? or just scan and 4K restore the IN instead? Any ideas/guess out there for the reel that is marked IP, if it is a raw/source reel or perhaps a one light print or workprint or perhaps a direct copy from the original camera negative? Frank

I just reviewed the IP and two more thing that I like to add are that the reel have no spice. And the scene are also out of the order, compare to the IN (final) I know it is marked as IP, but I wonder if it is really just a raw and or source reel or perhaps a quick-copy from the camera negative or workprint?

We recently pulled two reels that needs to be restored. Here are the facts. The two reels are the same 15 minutes clip, except one reel is internegative and the other interpositive. The only problem is that the IP seems to be raw or source reel. In other words, the clip on the IP have each scene that are separated by 2 or 4 blank cells. Some cells contains the RGB info. Each scene are usually about 10 seconds or less. The IN, however, is complete and final with all editing done. And the IN comes with paper works for all the IN RGB configuration. The question is if it is worth the cost and time to convert the IP, since it is at least one generation early or just convert the the IN instead? Thanks

Thanks Simon and David. David, the feature was made for TV but during the mid 80s. These two features do have mixed b/w scenes and color scenes thru-out. It does not look like RGB separations, just b/w. I think you are right. Perhaps for some reason the distributer needed b/w for some reason.

Just pulled 2 reels out of vault of two different production features that are suppose to be in color. But these reels are marked fine-grain and it is on b/w film stock. Does not look like separation masters, plus there are no more other b/w reels of these. Strange. Any idea why there is a fine-grain b/w (no separations) made for a color production?

Just pulled 2 reels out of vault of two different production features that are suppose to be in color. But these reels are marked fine-grain and it is on b/w film stock. Does not look like separation masters, plus there are no more other b/w reels of these. Strange. Any idea why there is a fine-grain b/w (no separations) made for a color production?

Tyler, just curious. Since this is a completed version, is it common back in the days (this particular reel is from the mid-80s) to use optical duplicate negative to make prints for release/theater? Or is it more common to vault/save the optical duplicate negative after making an IP from the "optical duplicate negative", then an IN to make mass duplication? PS: The film have about 3/4 that have optical effects, so the OCN basically is without any effects, etc. This is one of reason I was thinking this optical duplicate negative is serving as the master/OCN. Interestingly, we could not locate any IP of this reel that is the final version like the optical duplicate negative. The only IP located was with all scenes still mixed and matched (i.e. not final). And there are no other IN of this reel that can be located in the vault either. So either this optical duplicate negative was serving as the master/OCN and or also used as IN, then vaulted, or the IN were destroyed after release prints were made. Our original vault person who retired years ago didn't have too much of good record keeping back in the days.

Hi Tyler. Just wanted to give you an update. Our lab tech said the reel is an optical duplicate negative. I didn't get into too much details with the tech, but I assumed it is optically printed with all the needed optical effects, etc. Not sure if this means the same as duplicate negative/internegative. One interesting things is that this optical duplicate negative (no splice) have scenes done in 1.33 and some done in 1.37 and there are some frames of certain scene have mixed 1.33 and 1.37. Very weird. But it is complete with all optical effects, etc done (ie. same as release version).

Just an update. Good news. Our lab tech confirmed that the reel was scanned as FA-1.33:1 with scanning width 1.32:1 with no spatial processed. I suppose, this also explained why the left and right were cut off at the frameline/curves (scanning width 1.32:1) Thus, it was not scanned as the Academy format of 1.37 at all. Reason is actually because (and I was not aware of this until an hour ago) that the internegative have scenes done in 1.33 and some done in 1.37 and there are some frames of certain scene have mixed 1.33 and 1.37. Very weird. But because of this, the lab tech decided to scan it as FA-1.33:1 with scanning width 1.32:1. PS: The lab tech also said the reel is an optical duplicate negative. I didn't get into too much details with the tech, but I assumed it is optically printed with all the needed optical effects, etc. Not sure if this means the same as duplicate negative/internegative.

Thanks David Cunningham.