Brian Drysdale

An editor friend with lots of experience of UK labs says that they deny things. He put it more strongly, so you have to push back.

They are pretty frontal, which helps, Dedo light are good for this type of stuff. It's certainly not newsreader lighting.

On a properly funded production DPs don't usually get a percentage of a film, they receive a fee for their work. You may get a percentage if the producers don't have the funds to pay you, however, don't expect to see anything if the film is sold, there's a lot of clever accounting that goes on.

No need, since there already is ND gel, which you can buy in rolls, which you can also use on Lights.

You won't get minutes from 100ft ar 24fps, it'll be 1 minute 7 seconds.

Just checking "The Godfather", the credit is "Color by Technicolor". Even photochemical prints from an original negative, made over a number of months, can vary depending on how the processing was running on a particular day and other factors.

There are companies that specialise in restorations, you need to check the end credits for who did the work. They may have a print available as a reference, but the restoration can vary in its grading compared to what the audiences saw back in the day. Sometimes the original DP or director is involved in the restoration.

Don't be confused by marketing. Labs used to say color by such and such lab in the credits of a film, even through the stocks were manufactured by Kodak. At least Technicolor had their unique dye transfer, until they went over to the standard photochemical workflow used by the other labs. Credits aren't legal documents. they're part of the marketing.

Prints would a single strip, as used in cinemas, not 3 strips. That was only used for shooting until stopped. You don't want to do transfers to video using projection contrast prints, the results tend to be contrasty. Going back to the original neg will give the best results, however, you do need to know what the original grade was like, otherwise it can vary from what the audiences saw in the cinema.

That means that the film was shot using Panavision lenses and their 35mm cameras and that Technicolor did the lab work including producing 35mm and 70mm prints using the dye transfer process,

That sounds like the one, it had an ENG type servo on it. I used to wonder how good it would've been on a 2/3 HD camera.

Just as an aside, Cooke made a 2/3" video zoom lens. I used this once on a commercial shot on a Sony BVW300, so you can tell how long ago it was it. I've forgotten the technical details of it, but it produced the sharpest looking pictures I've seen on one of those cameras. I haven't been able to find an references to it online, so I can't add any more. However, it may have been based on the Cooke 9-50mm Varokinetal T2.5 design .

In the UK you can run a 2.5k HMI without any problems.

This is probably more for the optical sound than for analogue the magnetic sound recording - they generally used Nagra, which are pretty quiet on the noise front. Part of it is also how the soundtracks were mixed, the foley effects on some 1970s films are far from sounding natural.

An article on this subject: https://www.provideocoalition.com/hollywood-goes-back-to-work-but-its-a-whole-new-hollywood/