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?

Is Ektachrome 100D 5294 officially back? I thought it was intended as a limited release made for Euphoria, but there have been a few productions popping up that use this stock. If it is back, that’s great news! I am yet to shoot this stock on a film set; however, i’ve used it for stills before, and it yields amazing results (impressive dynamic range comparable to that of digital). Additionally, compared to the stills Ektachrome, E100, 100D has more neutral blacks which makes the film very forgiving.

Why do lens companies make 2 different lens lines which apparently have the same characteristics with the exception of higher speed. Arri Master and Ultra primes, Cooke S4 and S5, Leitz Summicron-C and Summilux-C, Panavision Primos and Panaspeeds… Wouldn’t it be easier to have just one state-of-the-art lens line. Is there a significant difference in sharpness, contrast, or resolution? I heard that standard speed lenses (T2 or T1.9) have more corrected bokeh which adds to the sharpness whereas the high speed versions (T1.3 or T1.4) have uncorrected “Christmas ornament” bokeh which reduces sharpness no matter how much the lens is stopped down. Is this it?

Thanks David for the advice! I'll try to test both of those methods. I believe Eyes Wide Shut was pushed 2 stops and then printed down to achieve a contrasty print. I was lucky enough to see the film through an original print back in Christmas (Agfa Cp20 stock). Apart from the contrast, the colors were quite crisp as well. I saw "The Love Witch" a while back after you mentioned it somewhere else (loved it). It's interesting how different methods can yield contrasty films but with a completely different look. Of course, the stock is only one of the ingredients I presume. Btw, why did you choose to go with 200T? Surely overexposing 500T by a stop would have made the lighting a bit easier, wouldn't it?

Is it still possible to achieve a high contrast interpositive and/or print with vivid colors through the photochemical process? I know that there used to be a stock called Kodak Vision Premier 2393 which had a higher silver content from the regular 2383 which assured contrast, crisper blacks and strong colors. Now that 2393 is gone, can one achieve the same look through the Vision 3 stocks and 2383? I read somewhere that one method, back in the day, was overexposing the negative then using a strong light source to print. What do you think? Btw, do you think we will see a new print stock from Kodak? One that has finer grain, higher res, a wider color and dynamic range? Maybe in 20-30 years ?

I'm planning on shooting a student film, and we plan to shoot on 35mm 2-perf film for a 2.39 release. The DP suggested we use Kodak Vision 3 200T 5213 and overexpose it by a stop. There are some night shots planned, but I'm just a bit worried about exposing those scenes with these specs. I recently watched American Graffiti (1973) again. I believe it was also shot in Techniscope and on the famous Eastman 100T 5254. Regardless of the low budget nature of that movie, all of the scenes look absolutely fantastic. Any ideas on how they achieved it?

Is it because sensors are made up of small pixels and film is just a continuous layer of silver salts? Scenes that were shot with a super wide angle lens in A Clockwork Orange (1971) had a lot of fringing on high contrast sections of the frame. Are those caused by something else?

This might be a trivial topic for a lot of people, but I'm very interested in learning more about lenses, and I couldn't find any information about these topics. Why is every lens company manufacturing new lenses that they claim to be specifically designed for digital cameras? Apart from the ability to make the lens closer to the sensor and to include anti-aliasing coating, what other benefits do these new lenses offer? Is it a substantial difference that these companies can justify (financially) making entirely new lens designs? A few years ago, Panavision introduced their Primo V and T-series anamorphic lenses. Apparently, the T-series lenses are being used a lot, even on film cameras; however, I haven't seen many productions utilizing the Primo V lenses. I've heard from some stills shooters that lenses designed for film can introduce extra chromatic aberration into the digital frame. Am I missing something here? If you were shooting a film on digital, would you go with the original Primos or the new Primo Vs? Would there be unwanted side effects if these lenses were used for celluloid capture? One last question: I was watching the bonus stuff on the Criterion blu ray of Barry Lyndon. There was a section where Joe Dunton talked about the lenses Kubrick owned. He mentioned some very small lenses that Kubrick used on his early black and white pictures and that these lenses were specifically designed for black and white cinematography. Any interesting facts about those types of lenses? What extra requirements/adjustments are needed for lenses designed for b&w? Are there any newly designed lenses specifically for b&w photography? The lens in question is discussed at this time code: 6:20

Btw, the famous Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 is notoriously small, roughly the same size as my Canon 85mm f1.8.

I was fortunate enough to see a small part o the Kubrick Exhibition. While walking through and checking his equipment, I noticed how many lenses he collected over the years: from very small cine lenses designed specifically for black and white to the more famous Cooke Speed Panchros and the 20:1 zoom lens. Even though these were state of the art at the time, they look much more mechanical and "steampunky" than I expected, and they're a lot smaller than modern lenses like the Master Primes. I just wanted to share a few things that I thought might interest a few people on this forum. By the way, the Arriflex 35 II C, one of Kubrick's favorite cameras, is much smaller and more compact than I expected. It looks like it would be really fun to use it. Any experiences with this camera? 1b (18) copy.jp2

Are there any labs in the US that make duplicate slides from camera originals without DI?