charles pappas

9 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The print stock used a Kodachrome process, it wasn't "camera" stock tho, it was lower ISO and specially balanced for this positive to positive workflow. Depending on the age, it was kinda rare for 16mm to be used as "source" on educational films until the mid 1960's. Most of the time they still used 35mm since the workflow was easier to deal with. Remember, with 35mm you don't need A/B roll and blind splices. All the editing facilities were also 35mm. So the added cost of 35mm was worth it. You start to see this shift in the 1960's, especially into the 70's when cameras like the CP16R, 16BL, Eclair ACL and eventually Aaton, made shooting on 16mm much lighter, quieter and easier. People then developed editing solutions and by the mid/late 1970's, it was quite fashionable to shoot on positive stocks and do exactly the workflow you're describing. I have dozens of films (original camera elements and prints) from educational and documentary films made this way. The workflow was a lot easier. 
 

Color timed prints were pennies per foot back then. Even today, I think $1.25/foot seems awfully high for a timed print if you already have the timing tape. The cost to time was not related to the actual print itself, it was a separate line item. The big thing was soundtrack and we found every single one of the 16mm films we had all the source elements for, had 35mm 3 stripe mag original soundtracks and no optical soundtrack. They would create the soundtrack on the prints from the magnetic 3 stripe on the fly, as you said using electro-printing process. Pretty nifty! 

 

Yes, I used Bolex, Beaulieu  and CP-16. 4-gangs, A/b rolls, etc., as you refer to. Lenny Lipton et. al. stuff.

The $1.25 was for an answer print, which I used as a release print. Maybe the "Kodachromic," print stock cost more than normal print stock, hence the break-even formula for when to make an internegative.

At any rate it didn't matter to me because I was only making one print.

Considering it further, I guess the "electro-printing," was similar to the Auricon sound-on-film process.

On 4/15/2024 at 9:30 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Kodak use to make Kodachrome print stock for this purpose. You'd be able to make positive prints from your positive originals. This isn't necessarily how they'd make theatrical runs however, because you still need to add things like soundtrack and most of the time, that was done on 35mm for theatrical releases.  So the positive original, would be blown up to 35mm internegative, which would then be used to strike prints, on low budget films. Theoretically, one could still do that today, but I can't imagine it looking good with Ektachrome. 

Many people did shoot on reversal stocks, especially VFN (video news film) and other variants of Ektachrome, designed for high speed photography. I've been managing an archive of original Ektachrome camera rolls for over a dozen films that my friend (now passed) made back in the mid to late 70's and into the early 80's. They're all done using the same process of reversal to reversal. The quality of the prints is soft, but the colors are good. I can't imagine there being any real benefits compared to shooting negative and printing that way. 

Quite a lot of DP's overexpose negative, I for sure like that look as it adds contrast. For printing however, you really wanna keep the exposure consistent. Michael Ballhaus did this on Gangs of New York, shooting the film at the same stop and not doing any color correction and the prints look outstanding. I think it was a lot of work on set to match it all tho. I have also done a lot of printing of my own work and I find it to be hit or miss. If you light it perfectly, it can look really good, but for printing, I think it's imperative you nail the consistency of the exposure. You can't muck around if you want it to have any detail, especially in the blacks. 

Yes, I think reversal to reversal "release" prints were fairly common way back when; I had two short films shown as part of two Architecture and Film series and had one such "release," print made of each film. I seem to recall there was also a specific film stock for that that wasn't Kodachrome.

The prints were priced as answer prints - about $1.25 or less per foot (more than one-light). There was informal break-even formula for the number of reversal release prints that could be made until it was cheaper to made an internegative. Maybe 5 to 10 prints - of course this was all for semi - amateurs.

On the first film the soundtrack was "electro-printed" onto the reversal release print so no separate soundtrack film had to be made. By the the time of the second film electro-printing was dead, I was told, and a soundtrack strip had to be made.

For the record, I just saw it on that site and thought I'd post it just in case it is of value to someone here. Don't know anything about it.

https://www.govdeals.com/asset/18/25758

Looks good in pictures. Missing  couple of plug cords?

2 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

You got any Coronet or Encyclopedia Britannica films? If I can use them, I'd gladly pay media mail and packing. You can sell rewinds on eBay. They bring pretty good $$.

I'll send you a list of the titles and producers tomorrow to see if you want any. I'll certainly at the least pack them for you.

You're right about the rewinds, (and some of the other stuff) if the "sold for" prices aren't just scams, which I sometimes, depending on my mood, suspect. Thanks.

If anyone in Austin wants about 30 or so 16mm educational films - sound, color - dm me and you can have them. I'll throw in some rewinds too, maybe some other stuff.

If it were me, I wouldn't worry about the reflections much, but I'd put a good number of cutaways in there and fight to the death with the director over them.

That is, unless this scene stacks up favorably with Bibi Anderson's famous monologue in Persona.

There is also a Bob Ross channel (24/7 I believe) that I get on Sling TV.

Surprised no one has mentioned "Nope." That movie got into celluloid vs. video, film sizes, film cameras. 

Does anyone remember the title of this film about filmmaking that I can't remember. I think it came out just before "Living in Oblivion," and had a very similar plot: the misadventures of a small group of low-budget indy filmmakers.

I remember the film being almost as funny as Living in Oblivion or maybe funnier, but it appeared to be truly low budget. Like 20 -25 400 ft. rolls of b & w neg plus lab costs and that's it low-budget.

Anyway, it did get a release and I saw it then and maybe someone else remembers it.

9 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

https://in70mm.com/news/2023/oppenheimer_cinema/index.htm

There are plenty of theaters in Texas playing it on 5 perf. Do not watch it on 15 perf. Total waste of time. 

 

Yes, having read a few comments here beforehand, there was no way I would have driven back to San Antonio again to see it on 15 perf IMax. My intention then was to just see it on standard 70mm in Austin, but when we were told the showing would be free we decided to stay.

I will go to it it again in Austin on standard 70mm

On 7/13/2023 at 10:33 AM, charles pappas said:

July 23rd in San Antonio.

Projected Film IMAX, one of the few left.

Drove to San Antonio, taking an extra 20 minutes due to torrential rain. When we arrived at the theater, an employee said that the showing would be in a digital IMax format (can't remember what she called it) because the film projector was broke, having "blown the compressor due to pulling a 600 pound reel of film."  

I said, "Oh darn, we drove all the way from Austin to see the film. Can we get our money back? She said yes,  AMC would be refunding all the money, and she would validate the parking ticket (which she did, $15.00) We were turning to leave when she said, you can still see it go in, the money will still be refunded."

So we decided we might as well see it anyways, and I was glad we did see this very excellent film then, with the regret being not knowing when I'll see an IMax 70mm again. 

I am supposed to get a e-mail notice refund from AMC and I don't really care about the refund per se at all. However, if it doesn't come through I may contact them solely to reinforce their notion of the demand for 70mm IMax showings. 

July 23rd in San Antonio.

Projected Film IMAX, one of the few left.

Hello, is anyone interested in this 16x9 Inc.wide-angle lens converter. Before I try take take photos and post them here I'd like to gage interest.

It is in mint condition, with the matte box, pouch and cleaning cloth included. The matte box alone is listed at about $150.

I'm asking $225 including shipping. If anyone is interest I'll post the photos.

Otherwise I'll put in on E-Bay soon at Buy-It-Now for more than $250.

2 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:

If you never saw one of those well-made, multimedia, 60 slide projector, video, arena-sized, "mega shows" in person, you missed a remarkable spectacle.

These stands were the king of producing these type shows.

I know it sounds cheesy and primitive, but if the show was put together properly;  wow.  Just wow...

I did see one of these shows and it was indeed spectacular. At least I think I did, except my memory is that it was more theater sized than arena sized.

Having said that, I can't right now really remember anything about it except that it was probably in Houston Tx  in the 80's and I went to see the show specifically because it was promoted as a spectacle.

Not much of a reply, but thanks for bringing back a memory. 

Beautiful, intense color saturation. Beguiling night shots. Grain blows up on the big screen and becomes another of the film's characters. Some light leaks throughout - might have been timed as by loading film in bright light. 16mm wind-up Bolex. $500,000 and counting gross.

Wonderful !!!

With women nowadays eschewing hose, or nylons if you will, for all but the most formal occasions, if then, I think the largest market for the hosiery manufacturers is now cinematographers who use them over their camera lenses. The innovative ones would dare to use white hose in night scenes and dark hose in day scenes. Or is it vice-versa? Or is there a LUT for that now?

Thanks for the work and for posting this.

I think there was a miscommunication: to pay homage to sepia toned one-reeler horse operas was mis-heard as homage to sepia toned soap operas. 

I just saw the widescreen masterpiece "Earwig," in a theater and must say that the cinematography and visuals of this film were staggeringly good. 

It's hard to believe that a small group of humans could accomplish such lighting, composition, visual effects, and set design.

And I also include sound and soundtrack design, which in this film (as in a few other films I've seen) is interwoven with the cinematography.

I did enjoy your ultra-short very much. Especially thought it was very imaginative. Great use of the shower trope. No quibbles.

29 minutes ago, David Sekanina said:

This one?

or the EMP?

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01321/01321.pdf

Yes !!! The EMP: your post had apparently not all downloaded when I replied. I read the linked ad and the camera was much more advanced than I had remembered (what, 20 plus years later).

Thanks so much for saving me the time and trouble. 

My gut reaction is no, but it could be.

This thread reminds me of that very tiny 16mm camera that used to be advertised in American Cinematographer back when.

I  believe it had a crystal motor and used a 50 foot spool. I think it was called the EMP or IMP, and was marketed as a crash cam, if I remember the ads correctly. It was for a 10mm lens and a wire frame viewfinder, I think, and about half the size of the Ikonoscope, again IIRC.

I'll look through back issues of AC over the next day and post a photo, unless someone can beat me to it.