Deniz Zagra

I'm not really experienced with the process, but as far as I know, the traditional way of making a release print from the original camera negative involves making a color master positive then a duplicate negative and finally a release print. The process seems pretty clear, but what about films that were shot on reversal stock like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which was shot on Ektachrome 25T 7252. I'm pretty sure the process is long gone, since even when film was dominant not a lot of people shot reversal stocks, but it still sounds interesting. Can anyone explain the printing process? Was it widely available? Any advantages or disadvantages? Apparently, Jane de Bone overexposed the negative on Basic Instinct (1992), so that the final prints would still have good blacks. Since reversal stocks are contrasted in nature, would the same idea hold true? Thanks in advance.

According to some ARRI research from 2009, new photochemical facilities are so advanced that "generation loss" is a thing of the past. I remember reading about it on a lengthy, 60 page document that compared a digital intermediate and traditional photochemical print (from tests shot on Vision 2 200T) and found out that the print contained much more detail and sharpness. I haven't done any tests myself, so ı'm just quoting what that article said.

I know this post is almost 10 years old, but I just wanted to mention an old ASC article that they have on their website (https://theasc.com/magazine/nov98/PRODUCTS/page3.html). According to this article, Kodak engineers used the technological advancements that helped create the Vision line in a different way with 5289. Rather than keeping the same speed and making the grain finer, the stock sharper, and the latitude more flexible, they used these advancements to increase the speed of the stock. The interviewee argues that the image structure is closer to that of 5298 rather than the image structure of 5273. The interviewee also mentions how difficult it was to optimize the yellow layer to be more fine grained and high speed. I don't understand why they insisted on this stock being tungsten balanced, night time often features blue tones, so a daylight balanced film might have been easier to make and would have even had finer grain and better sharpness. I guess there was no reason practical use for this stock after 5218 became a thing. The article also contains a small section about filming the underwater shots in Supernova (2000) on 5289 (Lloyd Ahern, ASC). Again, might be a trivial topic to talk about now, but I thought it was interesting.

It seems the Dmax of 2393 achieves above 5.0 while that of 2383 is closer to 4.0. Is it possible to increase the Dmax of 2383 during the printing process, or should we just wait and hope for a new and updated version of 2383 from Kodak?

This might sound amateurish, but I wasn't able to find any resources online about this topic and wanted to post my questions here. What is the dynamic range of Kodak Vision 2383 color print film? Some people online correlate a film's dynamic range with its density, arguing that slide film, especially Velvia 50, has the highest dynamic range of any medium because of its high Dmax value, but Velvia is also known for its harsh contrast and narrow exposure latitude. Are there two types of dynamic ranges: one during capture (exposure latitude maybe) and one for projection? Kodak Vision 2383 has a high Dmax value, but how many stops can it show before blowing out highlights or crushing shadows. Lastly, can Kodak 2383 produce most of the colors accurately? Have you ever experienced a noticeable shift in color when comparing a DI image to the printed image?

I can see why that can be off-putting, but it really worked well on the big screen. The film is very contrasty but somewhat bleak as well. The colors are very muted which I quite like (I also think they made it work on 1The Last Duel1 (2021) and "Robin Hood" (2010)). I don't know ut a lot of the senes had that milky contrast as well and maybe a bit of smoke. The look is very digital, but I think Scott and Wolfski are one of the few that can make it work for period films. They don't even try to emulate the film look; they straight out go with the digital image, including very heavy filters for certain scenes, but it somehow works. I don't know how though, but unlike films that were shot digitally and made to look like film, this looked a lot better and was very effective.

He was the reason for many many deaths, but his vision for state regulation is undeniable. Many of his reforms are the base for most countries today (centralized administration of government, higher education systems, etc.)

Hopefully Spielberg's Napoleon mini-series will accomplish that. It's based on the research and the screenplay layouts of Kubrick, and apparently Ridley Scott based his screenplay on that version as well.

I, personally, liked it. It really felt like the historical epics from the 60s, of course, with added Ridley Scott scenes and concepts. I understand and agree with the criticism that it left out a lot of stuff; I would have loved to seen the politics a bit more like him accepting the emperor title or his opinions on the republic. However, Ridley Scott did a good job at making the character feel real and believable. The fact that Scott was more focused on Josephine and his relationship with her is no surprise; I think he always liked female characters a bit more. It was interesting seeing her struggles as well. The war scenes were great: not only emotional but also thrilling! So what did you think of the movie? How would you compare it to Scott's last historical epic "The Last Duel" (2021)? I'm personally more hopeful for the director's cut. Ridley Scott always excels in the alternative cuts/dvd region. I would also like to add that the opening scene with Marie Antoinette is one of my favorites this year. I love when movies can make us feel what the characters are probably feeling, especially those who lived centuries before us. I think that's one of the things that makes cinema so powerful. The way she walked through the courtyard and the long-lasting shot of her resisting to bend over her neck by blocking it with her shoulders were magnificent. The shallow depth-of-field and the subtle slow motion served that scene really well. I love it when slow motion is done in an elusive way (David lynch does it in "Blue Velvet" (1986) a lot).

What about the one that can go up to 2500fps? I wish Kodak would develop a special made-to-order low light stock. One that has an iso of 2500 or 3200. I feel like a lot more people would prefer film then.

They also got customized T-series anamorphics for a more vintage look, apparently. Why not go with the C-series? https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/killers-of-the-flower-moon-cinematography-lenses-panavision-1234918775/

I believe the opening shot of oil gushing out was shot with a Phantom camera (at 700 fps I think) to achieve slow motion. I wonder why they didn't go for a 435 or even a Photosonics camera.

Is there really much of a difference between the final image when it comes to comparing additive and subtractive color?

That's why I mentioned both of those films, because I watched original prints of those movies. On both of those occasions, I was sitting close to the screen. Never saw Cruising on digital, but both seemed fine grained enough. Same goes for Mulholland Drive.

I've started noticing how clean, sharp, and properly color-balanced night shots in older movies look. Maybe it's because I'm an amateur, and don't know how to expose properly, but I'm curious how they were able to get such clean shots. A few movies that come to mind are Someone To Watch Over Me (1987) and William Friedkin's Cruising (1980). I suspect that street lighting was helpful on Cruising, but to shoot all of that on 5247 (maybe they pushed it a stop as Friedkin usually did) just doesn't seem plausible. The opening shot of Someone To Watch Over Me was probably shot on high speed stock (250T, 400T maybe?) but still the grain level and sharpness hold up extremely well. The only logical way I can think of is maybe, these types of scenes were shot with low speed stocks since everything is almost black during the night, and then the film was exposed for the highlights. Is this how they did it, or am I missing something? What do you think the selected aperture, shutter speed would be for such scenes? Additionally, I was surprised how the ugly green tint from fluorescent and mercury lightning wasn't present in these shots. Did they use to correct the tint in the lab with a magenta filter (I'm not sure since the filter would also add magenta to the shadows as well, right?) If not, is there way to replicate this without requiring post-processing?