Dirk DeJonghe

Just last week I had a similar incident. A group of film students (3rd year) making their end-of-year film. They had absolutely no idea they had to budget for post-production as well as production. Unless you project the original, 5000 US$ is not going to get you very far on an 6-7 minute film. It would probably not cover just the optical sound negative and internegative blow up.

here is how it works: -process the S16 negative, -transfer to SD video with keykode for off-line editing, -edit on off-line system (Final Cut, Premiere etc) -generate EDL or cutting list -have the negative cut -add titles etc, direct in S16 -grading on film analyser -make first trial print on S16 -screen S16 positive print and make grading corrections. -have optical sound negative made -direct blow up to 35mm positive on optical printer -optical negative is printed onto the same raw stock on contact printer before processing It is best to chose a lab that is familiar with S16 blow up work.

There is one good way to test this: a blind ABC test. When the customer is not sure what stock he wants, we print a few sections of his film on different stocks and show it to him as stock A, B, C etc. We know which stock is which but won't tell him until after the screening to remain objective. We see differences in color rendition, sharpness, contrast between the stocks. Some are rejected right away, others are a matter of taste. It also varies if printed from original negative or from intermediate negative.

On the "other" cinematography website there are some comparison images between different telecine systems you may want to look at before jumping to conclusions. Look for the topic 'TK direct to hard disk'. I don't see why an XTR would not produce the same image quality as a Panavision Elaine. Panavision is a shareholder of Aaton. The Elaine is more a 'studio' type of camera. Kodachrome is only made with long pitch perforations, this may give steadyness problems on any professional camera. You will find that even a 2K scan and filmout doesn't give you a better quality than a direct blow-up from S16 negative. I doubt if any scanners can handle the deep blacks of Kodachrome. if you want crushed blacks they can always be added later. I still feel that a properly made direct blow-up from 7201 will be cheaper and sharper than any other S16 to 35 operation.

Kodachrome is a projection film with many compromises for other uses (prints, blow up, telecine). It has an unusual infrared transmission incompatible with any of the (no longer made) reversal Ektachrome print stocks. In the 70'ies this was giving reddish shadows when printed on the reversal print stocks. When printing onto 5272 internegative stock the contrast is way too high because the internegative stock was really designed to work with 7252 Ektachrome Commercial (ECO-3 process) which replaced 7255 (ECO-2 process) wich replaced Kodachrome Commercial (low contrast special for reproduction). All these stocks are gone. Ektachrome Commercial was very nice stock for sunlit scenes with low contrast and 25 ASA speed (3200K). With the 85 filter you were down to 16ASA. Hardly useable for interior work. Current Kodak 50ASA negative stocks (7245and 7201) will give much more comfortable shooting, can be intercut with any other negative up to 500ASA, and can be used for direct blow up with minimum hassle and perfect contrast and color reproduction. Making an internegative from Kodachrome will require aggressive flashing and pull-processing to keep the contrast in check. Lack of Keykode will complicate conforming. I would try 7201 direct blow-up to high contrast color positive such as Agfa CP30 or Kodak Vision.

I never developed B&W reversal but I did tens of millions of feet of color reversal and am still doing B&W and color negative. The first developer in a reversal process is a negative-type developer just like the one in a negative process. You make or break the contrast there. Sloppy processing can partially be recovered in telecine but if you project it really shows up. Start by asking for a sensitometric test strip, you give the lab 5-6 feet of film and see what they make of it.

Probably the pilotone output to Nagra recorder.

Fulgenio, I always invite customers to do a test shoot. There is currently a major animation feature being finished. They gave me 4 minutes of material to shoot, when they saw it projected they admitted that another test had been done on an Arrilaser at a big-name house in Paris. The other test was screened and it was visibly inferior: less gradation in the shadows, suble face details missing etc. All this proves is that an Arrilaser doesn't give you automatically a better product, a pixel is stil a pixel and a byte still a byte. If someone would be foolish enough to give me a Stardivarius viiolin, I could still only scare cats. I hate it when someone calls and asks if I have such or such machine. How often do you ask the cook of a restaurant what kind of knives/pots/spoons he uses? For David: technology is there to help creativity but you know this already.

After 35 years in the business, I have learned to look at the screen rather than at the nameplate of the machine before drawing any conclusions. It happens all the time: 'I want XYZ print stock', we show them 'A', 'B' and 'C', you pick the best.. In the film recorder business, the man behind the machine may make the difference, just like the man behind the camera, or behind the editing or compositing or grading system.

Some packages run on dekstop computers, others are on dedicated hardware. The difference in features between both becomes smaller and smaller every year. Some packages are made to be front room applications with the client in attendance, others are backroom applications where the client only comes to look at a semi-finished product. I use both Digital Fusion on Windows and Shake on LInux. Both are very powerful packages, the limit is more in the operator than in the software.

Except in mixing studios and labs where multi-speed projectors are available, most commercial multiplex cinemas in Europe run at 25fps, not 24 fps. I even called Kinoton, one of the leading projector manufacturers to confirm this. Because mains is 50Hz in Europe, it is easier to make the projectors run at 25 fps. I have also timed the projection time of many feature films we did, since I know the exact number of frames in the film, timing is easy with my mobile phone, then divide number of frames by the minutes it took to show the film and presto: fps of the projector. I have not yet found one single theatre that really runs at 24 but there must be some. Conclusion so far: the average multiplex theatre in Europe runs at 25. This said, it is better to have your 24fps film projected at 25 than your 25fps film projected at 24.

Maybe the message was: better to use the 500T stock at proper of slightly overexposure than the 200Tstock with underexposure. Pushing will not help if there is no exposure to begin with. Exterior nights can be very beautiful if properly exposed on 500T. An underexposed night shot cannot be 'slightly downprinted' and will give greyish blacks while a denser negative will give nice blacks, even on a night shot.

I did a speed test with Plus-X and Double-X two weeks ago. I shot a grey chart underexposed at -4 stops and looked for a density of 0.10 above D-Min. This corresponds to a Zone 1. For Plus-X I got 40ASA, for Double-X 80 ASA with standard processing to a gamma of 0.65. This is with shadow detail down to 4 stops under, probably overkill for most subjects but gives a nice full negative. I had some correspondence with Kodak Chalon 3 months ago and it was confirmed that the speed ratings of the B&W negatives are somewhat optimistic. Processing with the ecological hydroquinone-free developer also loses maybe half a stop.

Unless your a good swimmer, traveling with unprocessed film from one developed country to another one is not a good idea since 9/11. Once processed, no X-ray inspection will be able to harm your image. Some inspectors have even insisted on visually seeing that there is real film inside the can. I would buy my stock locally from a reputable source and have it processed at a local lab. Many times cheaper than having to reshoot the lot because of X-ray damage. If you shoot in darkest Africa, then it is another matter.

We push ECN2 negative by running the processor slower (more time in developer) pulling is accomplished by lowering the temperature of the developer only while keeping the speed of the processor standard. Having said this, pushing and pulling only changes the gamma of the negative, very little information is added, even if the printing lights are higher. If there is no exposure on the negative, pushing will add nothing.

Both Laser and CRT recoders would produce output that is barely watchable if it were not for the LUT. A great deal of skill and knowledge goes into these LUTs. How are you going to put a LUT between your HD monitor and the camera?

I saw the first results of 7201 and it looks much more low-con than the 7245. Nice balance between sunlit areas and shadows. Very neutral in shadows. Will shortly do a direct blow-up and 2K scan/shoot to 35mm for Kodak demo film; A LOT of image quality is lost by using high-speed films outdoors, not because of the film but because of the lens and everything in front of it. Same camera, same lens, same stock but why are the interiors and night shots sharper than sunny exteriors? Only one reason: whatever is in front of the lens (including F-stop).

These tanks were used in WW2 to process gun camera film in the field. For that purpose they were fine, they could show the hits if any. I have used a G3 tank in my younger days, I consider it a complete waste of time. Maybe for B&W very short sections, line tests for animations or similar, but nothing you want to show to a public.

I have one in operation since 20 years, that must make it a Dinosaur in video world. However, the machine was far ahead of its time when it came out in the early 1980'ies and still performs very well if properly maintained and equiped with the latest updates. Unfortunately the company Marconi decided to stop its involvement in broadcast equipment quite some time ago and all support is from third parties who do an excellent job. For example we modified our machine to do Super 16, Super 35, 3 perf, all things that were declared impossible by the then chief engineer at Marconi.

Joachim, your reasoning is correct, you do not want to intercut unmasked B&W negative with color negative. It will not give you a neutral gray between the color shots. The method you propose is the cheapest, simplest and safest and you won't have to order extra stock and processing.

I think the smartest move is to buy film stock locally and have it processed locally (if services are available of course). Even if the film stock is more expensive (taxes, VAT etc) it is a lot safer than some stock you carry around with you halfway around the world. Low-dose X-ray exposures may be safe for one exposure, but they add up. I have seen too many rolls wasted to X-ray the last couple years. Never happened ten years ago. Never had a problem with UPS, Fedex etc, all of the problems were with film in checked bagage.

I would add: use the slowest film stock that will do the job. A lot of potential sharpness is lost due to excessive ND filters, lens stopped down too far, combination filter packs, etc. Some people try to shoot everything on one stock (usually 7218) and they end up with very nice and sharp interior night shots (no ND filters, wide open lens, etc) and muddy sunlit exteriors (plenty of filters, lens stopped down too far). You cannot believe what difference in sharpness the same lens and the same film stock can make when used in improper conditions.

I would recommend shooting a Kodak Plus gray chart, with the white and black edges visible and almost full frame. It helps to set up the digital grading more than the color charts. Is is the best tool to get the general gamma right before any artistic color corrections.

if you would work for only one day in a lab, you would understand why it is better to put the core back in. During transportation sometimes the reels get dropped and are oval, not round when they get to the darkroom. Trying to get a core back in is timeconsuming and frustrating even more so when the loader asks to 'save the tail'.

I think in this case 'tapeless' means scanning direct to hard drives. We do it all the time, in fact, my scanner cannot scan direct to tape because it is not real-time but who cares? if there is no tape recorder at the receiving end then the scanner can run at any speed it wishes, in the future this may well be much faster than real time for SD and maybe for HD.