Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

To the OP...Check out the Filmmakers Handbook. https://www.amazon.com/Filmmakers-Handbook-2013-Steven-Ascher/dp/0452297281 To Michael...that is impressive! You should photo some of your projects and blog about it. I'd like to see what you are doing. If you don't have a blog, make a free one on WordPress. I tried your FB, but it wont work. FB banned me so maybe that is it.

It is good. I got ADD and it was not really boring. I got a little tired at about 3 1/2 min, but watched it all. Nice technicals and comp. You got talent!

Are you doing the film processing at home?

Good work!

History of film censorship https://ncac.org/resource/a-brief-history-of-film-censorship In the old days they used to put up a fake 'censor approval' leader on stag films in case they were inspected.

What are the new features? Do you have anything you can share that you shot with the old model?

This is what I found on WorldCat https://www.worldcat.org/title/art-of-the-sixties/oclc/24686419&referer=brief_results No copyright date on film, just Bailey Film Associates Art of the Sixties Date at WorldCat was 1968

OP...can't see your work. Maybe it is because FB banned me, don't know. Why not make a WordPress and blog on it. Free and easy. I'd like to see what you have done.

Did Fuji make many different stocks for printing?

I think it is 1970s vintage, but am not sure. It is a clip from The Art of the 1960s film. Did Fuji make movie stock that was comparable to Kodachrome? Most of the vintage color stock I see from the 60's and 70's has turned red. The Fuji looked pretty decent for color fade. On another topic...too bad the film companies did not put 'Y' on the stock with a number after it to show the year of production. You can date Kodak stock, kinda, but still have to guess many times at the Kodak codes as one code spans a few decades.

Nice work with the PP! But why is your first sample so flat? I would think the raw image would look better. This is why we need to see the OP's raw footage. To see what was what from the start. Yes, agreed, the BW I posted is a little too plasticy of a look. But when you depend on others doing the work you are stuck with choice 'A' or 'B' sometimes. That is why I would like to do the work myself if I could, to have more options. I had hired him because he was willing to do the underground material that others had refused to scan and he was willing to take a song off YouTube and marry it to my film. In the end I bought scans both ways from him...plastic look and non plastic look.

This was an old 1975 8mm I had scanned a few years ago. The guy that scanned it did some noise reduction on the film. Before is no noise reduction, after has the noise reduction. It was the first film I had scanned and don't know the tech details. He had a home scanning biz and produced it with some basic equipment. Nothing state of the art like we got today. I do know they were frame by frame scans as I bought all the TIFF files from him.

OP, they look terrible. They look like still photos shot at ISO 25,000. Or digital that is pushed 4 or 5 stops. Is your film properly exposed? Scan a sample of your film on a flatbed scanner and lets see what you really got with no post processing. That is the benchmark. The movie scanners output I've seen are just fair to poor in my opinion when it comes to scans. But I'm coming from still photography flatbed scans. If you don't have a scanner, mail me a foot of your film and I will scan it for you.

An example of a notched 16mm film used in a coin operated peep show machine NSFW = Nude Content https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2018/08/13/an-example-of-a-notched-16mm-film-used-in-a-coin-operated-peep-show-machine/ Does anyone have actual photos of the peep show movie machines? Thanks

Yes, Kodachrome was something! Too bad it is gone.

I haven't seen a 35mm film in a theatre for ages. I can't remember what they were even like. The current crop of digital projections I've gone to don't look impressively sharp and the blacks are not rich and deep at all. I do remember the old time BW films. Jesus they had magnificent blacks. Would you say current digital projection = good 35mm film projection? (OK film has grain, but we don't need to get into that. Just stick to sharpness and blacks.) Now with still photography 35mm digital far surpasses 35mm film in sharpness. But I don't see the same sharpness benefit on digital movies when they are on the big screen. Maybe I'm sitting too close to the screen? (Front 1/3 of theatre.)

Thanks for the rundown. I mean the OCN has faded beyond restoration, not talking about physically lost. And this topic is not limited to the 70's but going back to the 50's and 60s. Although back then were most of the famous movies shot in Tech IB? How are negatives photochemically restored?

Dunno, but when you get time give a detailed review. It is the only somewhat affordable option out there for scanning.

A print I bought on eBay faded away in 1.5 years with normal room light. https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/be-careful-what-printer-you-use-some-media-fade-away-in-no-time/

Someone told me that the original Star Wars had faded red and all that is left are digital copies. Do you think that is true? I imagine the dye transfer films should be pretty good for color. But what about the films that were not Technicolor IB? In my archive I have Kodachrome 16mm going back to 1939 that looks pretty good. I had read the early Kodachrome version faded. I've found a few early 1938 samples of Kodachrome that faded somewhat and they verify Kodak changed the formulation.

You should go to the Large Format Forum. They are crazy for that stuff.

https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/16mm-film-clip/ Used to keep film from unraveling.

Vintage 1940s / 50s 'Radio & Television Magazine' cover collection https://airwavesephemera.wordpress.com/2018/08/04/radio-television-news-cover-collection/

An interesting throwback in time. 1931 copy of Cine'Kodak https://photographysgoldenage.wordpress.com/2018/07/31/cine-kodak-1931/

About 5 years ago I did a comparison test of resolution of still photography film vs. digital. Here are the results. http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/ If you don't want to sift through it all, 35mm negative film is = to approximately 3 or 4 mp with a point and shoot camera. Did not test chrome film.