Dirk DeJonghe

Michael, I now understand the reasoning. In my workflow we don't use tape anymore except for final output or for rushes. If you record to SR tape and you want to grade/ dustbust/ conform/ VFX etc you would still have to playback from SR to disk as image sequence. In this case you are probably using the SR recorder as an expensive tape streamer. On my telecine I use only two formats: SD and HD. On my scanner I can use whatever is most suitable, I can scan Super 35 letterboxed as 2.35 or as 1.77 for TV release.

Stephen, Shadow and Spirit2K have the same Dalsa CCD sensors. Because Thomson didn't want to spend money on upgraded Zeiss lens design, they kept the previous design that only covers part of the 2K CCD. If you look in the pricelist for the Spirit, you will see that the Kodak optics are very expensive and we all know that Zeiss makes pretty decent optics too. I have comparisons of the same negative on Shadow and Spirit 2K and they are certainly very close but not identical. Dirk

John Spung, I think it largely depends on the price ratio between 'real scanning' and telecine transfer. In my case I have a non-real-time 2K-3K real-scanner and an SD/HD telecine. The telecine is about one tenth of the price of the scanner per film minute. The telecine needs one minute per film minute, the scanner will take one hour per film minute.

I don't see the economical advantage of this 'single scan' method. Since most productions shoot at least 10 to 20 : 1, it makes more sense to do a straight telecine to SD, and scan only selects at high quality (after off-line editing). A 90 minute film is about 1.2 TB or more of storage (10 bit DPX Log). Why would you want to scan about 25 TB 95% of which will not be used? Even if TB are cheaper than they used to they still take up space and capacity on the network that must be pâid for somehow.

If we would have to do this job, if the negative was transfered with no interruptions, we could easily recreate timecode/keykode relationship in our logging program. Importing a CMX3600 EDL would provide us with a cutting/scanning list. Scanning would be with a couple frames overlength (handles). Conforming in Baselight would be automatic, visual checking against a video playout would provide double check. So, what is the problem again?

IP has a very low contrast and on a modern telecine will transfer much better than a print. Teleprint stock is better than a release print but little used these days. If the customer opts for a digital grading session on our Baselight, then we prefer a transfer from the negative direct, even if it is AB rolls. In this case we transfer direct to our server as DPX 10bit log, and do the single roll assembly in Baselight during the grading.

Are you sure the Shadow was properly focused. I run a Shadow and it is a great machine, I would put it between the Spirit 1 and the Spirit 2K in resolution.

5242/7242 has a gamma of 1.0 by defintion since it is made to print as interpositive from original negative and as duplicate negative from interpositive. Since the duplicate negative has to be intercutable with the original, the gamma cannot be anything else but 1.0. Consider the gamma of OCN to be about 0.55, B&W original camera negative is around 0.65.

I am sure it won't be long before someone asks if he can shoot 2-perf 1.33 format with it.

You can skip bleach on the interpositive but that will greatly increase contrast. There are ways to skip bleach on the interpositive without increasing contrast but there are no ways to isolate red in this process. Recently, in some countries, prices of 2K digital intermediate have come down so much that they are hardly different from the traditional IP/DN process and this would give you what you want easily.

Any process with bleach bypass will affect the saturation of the reds which you don't want. There are ways to make an IP/DN with desaturated colors with normal contrast and normal blacks but not without affecting the saturation of the reds.

The processing chemicals are the same but the time in developer to reach gamma 0.65 is longer on Orwo than on Kodak 5222. Every type of emulsion requires a different developer time and must be tested beforehand for best results. At the aim gamma of 0.65 you will find a certain film speed to be used, don't trust the manufacturers speed information until you have tested.

in my experience most B&W stocks are less than their rated speed. This was confirmed about two years ago when I exchanged sensotometric strips and processing with Kodak Chalon. I processed their sensitometric strips and vice versa. You have tro adjust the processing time to get a particular gamma, usually 0.65 and accept the speed you get. My clients usually rate 5222 at around 125 ISO or less. If you would process 5222 by accident in positive developer instead of negative developer, you would get around 400 ISO and excessive contrast and grain.

Several short animation films have been done like this. One of the issues to watch for is that some digital SLR cameras have a slight vibration when the mirror is swung to the up position just before capturing the frame. This only shows up if you have a sequence that you can play at full speed, you don't see it on single frames. Any house with a film recorder should be able to take your hard disk with image sequence and record it to 35mm negative.

What you also can do is to make a B&W Interpositive 5366 from the 5222 negatives, from this you then make a color intermediate negative on 5242 and this you can intercut with the original color negative or intercut with the DN if you are going to make one. In this case you will have to do some tests to determine the best contrast, play with the processing times of the 5366 until the 5366/5242 match the rest of the production for contrast. The main reason for putting the B&W negative on a separate B-roll as David suggests is also to allow additional filtration on the printer to compensate for the missing orange mask. Whatever you do, B&W negative and color positive are not really made for each other and will take some experimenting to get a good result.

hello Stephen, We charge about 5 Euro per minute for SD, about 10 for HD. This is with Keykode flex files. We may charge a little extra for the time spent copying to your hard disk depending on the time needed to setup the link. Technical grading would be about 125 Euro per hour extra. All prices approximate and exclusive of VAT (none if exported). Have a look at our website too,

Hello, We have a Shadow telecine and can transfer direct to our video server as uncompressed HD/SD format 10 bit LOG DPX files. These files can be copied to any hard disk you have (USB2.0, Firewire) Using Glue Tools you can import these files easily into any Mac based program such as Final Cut.

It is the old VND 160ASA daylight stock for VNF-1 process (early 1980'ies technology). Polyester can be spliced with tape or with ultrasonic splicers. Cement splices will not work. How fresh will that stock be, who will process it?

I started my career in 1973. ECO 7252 was fairly new then, 7255 was obsolete. I started processing 7252 in about 1976. I was the last European lab to process ECO-3 when we stopped it in about 1990. Even then the film had to be fresh to give good results. With enough light it would give stunning results on telecine. It was very low speed tungsten, would need lots of light for anything larger than interior tabletop sets. The probabilty of 7255 still being fresh enough to give acceptable results is less than nihil even if you can manage to find ECO-1 processing at any price.

If you are talking about S16, 35mm print, lowest cost and highest quality then the obvious solution (time-tested) still is a direct blow up to 35mm positive. If you need more than a few prints, then IP blow up is still slightly cheaper than DI and you will definately get the film look and S16 feel. Why make it complicated?

The current Agfa print stock is the CP30, can be processed in ECP2 chemistry of course. it is available in polyester only. With regard to contrast and saturation it sits halfway between the Kodak Vision and Premier print stocks. I appears slightly sharper than the Kodak stocks and the blacks are more neutral. It is very suitable for printing from dupe negs 5242. In this case it looks more like the answer print made on Vision than the Kodak stock itself. In many cases our customers ask for a blind test between Kodak and Agfa print stocks and in the majority they opt for the Agfa look.

As a lab we do about 1 or 2 features per year shot on 3 perf and released on 4 perf via optical printer. One of the films 'Een ander zijn geluk' by Fien Troch, DoP Frank vanden Eeden even received personal congratulations from Vittorio Storaro who was president of the jury at the Thessaloniki festival. Another one finished earlier this year was 'Si le vent souleve le sable' by Marion Haensel, DoP Walther Vanden Ende. The first film mentioned was shot in 2.35 Super 35 3 perf, the second one in 1.85 Super 35 3 perf. In all cases the sharpness and quality was excellent and we really had to work hard to make the digital inserts match the quality of the optical blow up. Both films mentioned were shot on Aaton 35-III 3 perf cameras.

There is no need to do anything special in the shooting except taking care that you have a 'good' negative. I would avoid shooting without proper filtration unless you are short of light. if you shoot without an 85 filter, the blue channel will reach overexposure before the red and green channels. This may give undesirable effects in the highlights. Everything you propose to do to make the NY footage stand out can be done in post.

In fact we have done several feature films where only 1 or 2 prints were required. We used the Lasergraphics P3 to expose directly to color positive stock. At our request Lasergraphics added black mask capability. Sound track is exposed on standard contact printer. We call this a direct digital blow up. It takes about 1 hour per minute of film, the latent image fading must be taken into account on long runs. Blacks are less deep than from a negative/intermediate negative. Sharpness is very good, grain is nonexistent, picture stability is excellent as it is pinregistered. For one or two prints maximum this is a good economical way to work if you can live with the slightly milky blacks.

Cineon is LOG by definition, DPX is usually LOG but there are many varieties of DPX. Most DI work is done with LOG images, you need a special viewer LUT to see the images correctly. Think of LOG images as digital negatives. Nobody is projecting a negative and expecting it to be 'normal'. There is a log of good information on Steve Shaw's website Digital Praxis