Dirk DeJonghe

For sync rushes more and more productions are using the new Aaton Cantar. At the end of the day the sound recordist makes a two-track temp mixdown (WAV or BWF format) and burns it to a CD or DVD. This CD is inserted in the Keylink with audio option (Keydaw) or in the Indaw (Aaton audio workstation). The audio files are copied to the internal hard disk and the telecine session can begin. Much faster than copying a DAT in real time.

I am sure Dominic will join in as well, but I can tell you there are not many places in a film lab where you can cut corners. Sure, i can hire cheap labor, use old equipment, never invest in new technology and let things run until the place burns down, sinks in the mud or closes down for lack of customers. Please realize that the lab is one of the places where your entire film can be ruined in a few seconds. Improperly threaded cleaning machine or printer, misplaced reels etc. I am all for charging a fair price for a fair product.

by far the cheapest way to 35mm from S16 negative is to make a single strand (A-roll) direct blow up to 35mm positive. Your EDL and a 25fps video output from the offline system is the starting point. There is no need to do an AB roll unless you have dissolves. If you need no more than a few prints initially then direct blow up is the way to go. if the film catches on an IP /DN can still be made for release prints. Doing a 2K scan (from EDL), digital grading and filmout to 35mm is at least three times more expensive (made the calculations yesterday for a Dutch film). not many labs are specialized in making direct blow-ups from S16 (fully graded after S16 answerprint). if you contact the website below, we would be glad to make a quotation and show samples of work done.

It can be a deliberate choice to get a certain look, it can also be imposed by one of the coproducing TV stations that did not believe in the B&W look. It happened to a film we did several years ago. "Le nain rouge" or "The red dwarf" won the European cinematography award. Danny Elsen was the DOP. It was shot on Super 16 7293. Initially all tests were done for a blow up to B&W IP, then to color DN going to a sepia tint on color positive final. For mixing purposes the director needed a contact S16 print. We proposed to do it on sound recording film to get a B&W print without going DP/DN first. Normal B&W positive stock is blue-sensitive only and not suitable for printing from color negative. He instantly liked it so much that the planned tests were abondoned and the film released on sound recording stock. Very sharp, non-linear sensitometric curve. Special look that even Hollywood labs could not duplicate since the american distributor ordered prints from us after having made a new DN in Hollywood.

Studio Gamma in Liège Belgium has a Super 8 wet-gate for his Oxberry optical printer and he has made blow-ups from Super 8 negative to 35mm IP; not direct blow up to positive because he cannot color correct scene-by-scene. From this 35mm IP, a 35mm Dupeneg was made and this was color corrected as usual.

The A-Minima exposure meter is really to be considered an 'external meter' even if it is build-in. It does not read through the lens but is a standard incident light meter. So if you keep the camera on the tripod if will just read the light falling on your right shoulder. If used hand-held the camera needs to be held with the plastic dome on the right hand side of the camera at the subjects position facing the camera position.

Just do like everybody else in PALland and output to 25fps. Harmonize the sound if you want.

One important issue to consider is how will the negative be shown; via direct print on film, via telecine on video or via scanner to recorder to print? The negative has far more latitude than any of these routes is able to reproduce. In making a print the DOP and the grader really decide which portion of the negative information will be used and which portion will be discarded.

Both are very good lenses of classical design. If I had to choose only one lens, I would take the modern technology Canon 7-63 anyday.

I have both the 10.4-52 CVK and the 10-30 VP and the 20-60 VP (35mm) lenses. The CVK is definately a light and small lens compared to the 10-30. The 10-30 is really a converted 35mm 20-60 VP with different rear elements to give it shorter focal length and greater aperture (T 1.5). The 10-30 with a lightweight matte box is about the limit of handholdability on an XTR in my opinion. A really small zoom would be the old Zeiss 10-100mm T3, converted to S16.

Laurent, No I did not work on previous films by Tati, I saw Playtime (restored) in 70mm projection last year and it was impressive.

If you happened to be in Berlin festival this year, the closing film '25 degrees en Hiver' was shot on S16 7274 mostly and blown up to 2.35 CScope. The DOP Walther Vanden Ende is raving about it. One production is currently being shot ("Guernsey") , DOP Richard van Oosterhout. "Calvaire" was shown in Cannes this year. So far we did about 7 or 8 features like this including "Aaltra" shot in B&W.

I wouldn't worry too much. Most commercial theatres in Europe show the film (unintended) at 25fps. This is easy to check with a chronometer (if you know the true length of the film). I also called a major European projector manufacturer in Germany and they confirmed my findings.

What a coincidence, yesterday I just delivered a digital 3K scan from a scene of Mon Oncle for digital restoration. Had do do some tweaking as it is an old type of negative not supported by current film LUT. A landmark film indeed. Playtime should be seen in 70mm, several times and from several different positions in the theatre.

I would recommend the 7212 or 7217. I think these stocks have the improvements that was introduced in the SFX stock. Equally important is the choice of scanner, a telecine type scanner is not going to help you much for green screen work from 16, you will need a 'proper' scanner.

1. there are several kinds of bleach bath formulations, but the basic developer is the same for everybody. 2.. Until recently Kodak did not make prepared kits for mixing chemicals, everything was mixed from bulk chemicals bought on the open market. 3. Besides the chemistry, mechanical factors also play an important role (turbulation, filtration, temperature, time). If there is a difference between labs it's mainly because they allow chemistry to drift out of specs. 4.Good labs should be very close to another in output. 5. Kodak owns a few labs (In Romania I believe). Generally they don't want to be in this business.

Dominic, In my opinion, pushing a negative does not really help the to increase the film speed because D-Min also increases. Pushing and pulling will change the gamma and the printing lights but will hardly gain any additional information.

I would say, get a copy of "The Negative" by Ansel Adams. Get a processing tank for B&W 35mm still film and follow the book. No need to make enlargements, contact prints would do. Also in motion picture we don't change the gamma for each shot as Ansel would do on sheet film. There is a lot of used B&W 35mm darkroom equipment for sale on Ebay. I suppose you have a 35mm SLR. After you've mastered exposure control (zone system) and gamma control then start shooting color.

I have seen several productions going 500 speed all over. I always find that their exterior shots in reasonable lighting conditions are not nearly as sharp as their interiors. The only difference can be in the filter pack and the lens aperture. This holds for 35mm productions but even more for S16.

If there is any problem with this stock it is that customers are overusing it. At least three feature films we did in the last couple months were shot entirely on Super16 Vision 500T, two of these features were then blown up to Cinemascope, one to 1.85 format. This stock is excellent but I don't understand why you would want to use it in bright daylight if Vision2 now also comes in 100 and 200 speed. According to Kodak, 50% of their sales are Vision 2 500T.

Stephen Why do you think that an optical blow-up from Super 35 3P is inferior to a DI? We are currently doing a feature on Super 35/3P format 1.85. The rushes are optically printed on 35mm 4P and they resolve the 100line pairs per mm visible with a microscope on the sharpness test negative. If you do the math, you will see that a 4K DI will not resolve 100 lpmm. For small budget productions (are there any other in Europe?) I think S35/3P is just perfect with a choice of DI and optical post depending on needs. It is absolutely no problem to mix with 4 perf (within reason) at the IP stage.

There are economic and safety reasons to make an IP/DN. Making prints from the original negative exposes it to wear and tear and the risk of a printing accident (splice coming half loose, tearing the film lengthwise for example). Running a polyester DN with no splices is a lot safer than running an original negative with hundreds of splices. Most labs will charge more for printing original negs versus DN. Also, if the DN gets damaged, it is fairly easy to make a new section or even a whole new reel. Making more than about 10 prints from an original 35mm negative is to be avoided, the breakeven point for a IP/DN is about 8-10 prints. At least make an IP as safety master when printing from the original. For Super16 the situation is similar. Direct blow-ups are good quality if properly done, and many short films only have blow-ups made. The breakeven point between direct blow up /IP-DN is about 8 prints because blow-up is more expensive than contact printing. As an absolute minimum a contact S16 IP could be made as safety, it's better than nothing and less expensive than a proper blow-up 35mm IP. We usually make a S16 answer print to finalise the grading, then the direct blow up or the fully graded 35mm IP. Going to a large 35mm printing lab is not necessarily the best choice for S16 blow-up work.

Michael, The lab will expose a piece of unexposed film you give them in a sensitometer. This idevice makes a controlled exposure with a stepwedge as result. After processing this wedge is plotted and the gamma, speed point, and various other data can be calculated. This process is important in B&W processing where variations in time of development lead to a chosen gamma. Different stocks from the same manufacturer require different developing times to arrive at same gamma.

Fulgenio, All B&W films must first be sensitometrically tested and developed to a chosen gamma. We usually start at the standard gamma of 0.65 for normal exposure. Usually Kodak stocks fall right on speed and on gamma. When Orwo is developed to the same gamma they are somewhat less sensistive than their official rating, but nothing to cause problems. So the answer is: if both Kodak and Orwo are developed to the same gamma you won't see any difference in contrast. There is a film about to be released in France now, it is called Aaltra, shot in Super 16 B&W 7222. The director wanted extra grain and extra contrast. He got it. The blow up was via Orwo Interpositive, Orwo Duplicating Negative onto Orwo PositIve Print film. Oh yes, the final print is in 35mm CinemaScope..

As one of the few labs doing B&W in Benelux/France region, we see very very very little Ilford. It can be obtained here but there were some major problems with mechanical properties (35mm Arri BL camera had great trouble running it). I don't think they have keykode on their films, making modern postproduction more complicated. They make great emulsions, but I feel that they are no longer in touch with the requirements of motion picture shooting. We have good results with Kodak and Orwo negatives.