The end of film for TV production?

[K Borowski]

I think that a root cause of these colour inconsistencies in a print is the disparate Speeds of Film used to shoot the movie. Directors can't expect to get even closely comparable colour quality from 500 ISO that they would get from 50 ISO. Those old Technicolor movies we all love were shot on 5 ASA (yes, 5) Film.

 

I don't think this is the cause. Also, technicolor was notoriously difficult to control the colors in, so much so that they tried to avoid the use of whites.

 

At least according to Kodak, their line of films are designed to match across speeds, at least the V2 line used to be. IDK how, say V3 would match with a film like '60.

 

 

There are then the separate problems of expense of purchase and maintenance, and the fleeting lifespan of electronic technology. I will gladly go out on a limb right now, and predict that a few years from now many Digital Theatres will be bringing their 35mm Projectors out of retirement rather than go heavily into debt to buy new Digital Projectors.

 

I doubt this is going to happen.

 

 

However, what people are overlooking on this thread is the notorious difficulty of maintaining colors and color profiles from one monitor to another.

 

There are a whole realm of problems that digital projectors develop that people are conveniently ignoring. They aren't going to be new and in perfect working condition five years hence.

[Michael Most]

However, what people are overlooking on this thread is the notorious difficulty of maintaining colors and color profiles from one monitor to another.

 

There are a whole realm of problems that digital projectors develop that people are conveniently ignoring. They aren't going to be new and in perfect working condition five years hence.

 

Karl, I don't know how much experience you have with digital projectors, particularly the DLP Cinema variety that are the most common in theatrical installations. I happen to have quite a bit, and in my experience, they are not only among the most trouble free devices I've used, they're also, by far, the most stable display devices I've ever seen. I think most engineers (I'm not an engineer, but I had to deal with engineering issues on a fairly regular basis) in post facilities that use these projectors would agree with that assessment. I don't know what you're basing your statement on.

[K Borowski]

Karl, I don't know how much experience you have with digital projectors, particularly the DLP Cinema variety that are the most common in theatrical installations. I happen to have quite a bit, and in my experience, they are not only among the most trouble free devices I've used, they're also, by far, the most stable display devices I've ever seen. I think most engineers (I'm not an engineer, but I had to deal with engineering issues on a fairly regular basis) in post facilities that use these projectors would agree with that assessment. I don't know what you're basing your statement on.

 

I don't have much experience with DLP, no. I've hit the play button on a 2K BARCO. However, do you think the same people that manage to scratch up and ruin movies are going to keep their DLP projectors in pristine perfect condition?

 

I'd say a device that isn't trouble free, unless it is dead on arrival is the rarity.

 

This is, of course, entirely speculative on my part, but is grounded in the way I have seen people consistently neglect and mistreat equipment in all walks of life.

 

I am certain that old DLPs are going to require far *more* maintenance than film projectors, and am sure you will concur with that.

[Michael Most]

I don't have much experience with DLP, no. I've hit the play button on a 2K BARCO. However, do you think the same people that manage to scratch up and ruin movies are going to keep their DLP projectors in pristine perfect condition?

 

I'd say a device that isn't trouble free, unless it is dead on arrival is the rarity.

 

This is, of course, entirely speculative on my part, but is grounded in the way I have seen people consistently neglect and mistreat equipment in all walks of life.

 

I am certain that old DLPs are going to require far *more* maintenance than film projectors, and am sure you will concur with that.

 

Not sure I would. Film projectors require continual cleaning and maintenance if they are to run smooth and clean. Granted, it's not complex, but it needs to be done and it needs to be done continuously. In theatrical installations today, there are large platter feeders that send the film through sometimes complex pulley systems that also need to be maintained, not to mention the cleanliness of the booth itself, as well as any splicing equipment that's used. Digital projectors actually require very little attention or maintenance. About the only things that need to be done are keeping the lens reasonably clean, and adjusting the lamp level every few days. Lamp replacements on many models are usually done by replacing the entire lamp housing, sending the old one back and having the lamp itself replaced by them (lamp life is usually regarded to be about 1000 hours, so the lamps need more frequent replacement than film projector lamps). And even when you do replace the lamp itself, it's really not a whole lot more involved than replacing a film projector lamp. The stability of the DLP Cinema system is such that once it's set up (usually done by whoever's supplying it), it can run for literally months without any noticeable drift. That might sound ridiculous to you, and I can understand if it does - but it's absolutely true, as observed by me and many others. In a theatrical environment, the only real changes in projector settings are lamp level (set by software, no hardware tweaks), and color space (only needed if you're showing something other than a studio supplied DCP). Color spaces and format settings are all presets and are stored as files in the projector itself, so you simply call them up as needed. Other than fans, there are really no other moving parts (well, I guess if you count the mirrors on the chips as "moving parts" that's not entirely true, but you know what I mean) so there's nothing to lubricate, clean, or check for physical wear.

 

Now, as far as useful life, that's an unknown. One of the nice things about film formats is that they're all based on a single, stable standard - 35mm, 4 perf prints (we'll leave out 70mm for the purposes of this discussion). So the only changes necessary to accommodate different film formats are different projector gates, different lenses (anamorphic, in particular), and adjustable screen masks. The projector itself remains the same. Once you get into the world of electronics, formats are often married to hardware. This is true of HD, but it's also true of 2K and 4K. This is one of the reasons the DCI came up with a specification for distribution elements, in the form of the DCP. This limits the number of physical formats, and it also brings at least some assurance that projection formats won't become obsoleted in the short term. But in the long term, it is an unknown. At some point, the DLP chips will likely need to be replaced, by the estimated life for those components is quite long, so there's no real way to tell how long it will really be. So in short, I think over the long term there are issues, but they're not the issues that you seem to be concerned with.

[K Borowski]

So in short, I think over the long term there are issues, but they're not the issues that you seem to be concerned with.

 

No, you are absolutely right: I'm not particularly concerned with long-term digital projection issues as a reason for not wanting digital projection.

 

But, when you bring up color variations in film reels, that isn't necessarily fair to then turn around and say that it won't be an issue with digital projection.

 

It will just be that, with old DLP projectors, all movies played will look equally bad if the chip wears out and the color calibration goes out of alignment, and what have you.

 

Digital wins hands-down for steadiness and a "clean" image though. No denying that.

 

 

But I really think that you and others on here are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. And remember, a lot of the same people who have been poorly maintaining film equipment are going to be right back at it with DLP, and DLP problems can't be solved with a screwdriver, toothbrush, and a bottle of lubricant.

[Michael Most]

But I really think that you and others on here are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. And remember, a lot of the same people who have been poorly maintaining film equipment are going to be right back at it with DLP, and DLP problems can't be solved with a screwdriver, toothbrush, and a bottle of lubricant.

 

Not really, at least not the way I see it. I think at this point in time, the best combination of quality, reliability, consistency, and presentation is a picture that is shot on film, finished through a properly managed DI process, using either 4K scans or at the very least, 4K down to 2K scans, and presented via digital projection (4K is good, 2K is usually fine except on the very largest screens). I think that gives you the best image capture (film), and the best theatergoing experience (properly set up digital projection). If everyone could see studio prints in studio level screening theaters - as I often can - that might tilt the scale a bit. But they can't, so to me it's a moot point.

 

You might want to do some more investigating into digital projection and just how stable and trouble free it is proving to be. You might see it very differently.

[Jason Reimer]

I've been away from the forum for quite a while, and I have to say that I don't miss these threads at all. Bottom line, I enjoy being visually creative, so if I had the opportunity to shoot a documentary on a cheap mini dv camera, but it was a project I believed in, I'd be stoked. I'll take whatever I can get my hands on, and do the best I can with it. As it happens, right now the opportunities and tools I find in front of me happen to be shooting and printing my own personal projects on 35mm film with my old Minolta still camera, a creaky old Omega enlarger, and fiber-based photo paper. And I love it. Do I prefer film? Yes. Is it always a realistic option? No. I wish it were, but I'll also take the challenge to make the best images I can no matter what the medium is. Two of my all-time favorite films are Iraq in Fragments and The New World. One was shot with a DVX, the other with 35 and 65mm film, and you know what, they both look amazing! They're just tools, so use what you've got. Same goes for TV. If it's well-done and compelling, I'll probably watch it.

 

I really do wish that things here could stay a bit more logical, reasonable and civil, though. When things descend into flame throwing and stupid ad hominems, we all lose out because the real pros who actually have something to share and teach will just bail, and there'll be a lot less to be learned, for those of us that still have a lot of learning to do. There are certain guys here that when I see they've posted something, I'll go read it even if it isn't about a topic I was particularly interested in, just because I know that that guy is going to have something good to offer. Conversely, there are some guys that when I see their names next to a topic, I avoid it because it's going to go from zero to mudslinging in 2.3 posts. On the whole, this forum is a goldmine to the motivated student (I personally have gotten a TON from it), so let's keep it that way.

[Keith Walters]

If you learn something, great. I learn stuff from REDuser; and I lnow it's like wading through a mangrove swamp in rubber boots at times, but there seems to be no other way of learing anything.

 

If you want to get anywhere in this industry, (or any industry for that matter) don't EVER base your assessment of the accuracy or otherwise of someone's information on how polite or rude you think they are. That is the number one biggest mistake you can make. I have known many absolute arseholes in the film and TV industries, but that doesn't mean I don't think they knew what they doing or that I couldn't learn from them.

 

Remember: Experience and technical knowledge take years to acquire; anybody can learn to be a stuffed shirt or an a$$ kisser in no time flat.

 

Regarding the stability of 3-DLP projectors, the micromirrors they are based on are true digital devices. The brightness of any pixel is determined by its associated mirror's "on" to "off" time. There is simply no mechanism whereby this can change, and since colour recombination is achieved by extremely stable glass dichroic mirrors or prisms, DLP projectors cannot drift colour wise.

 

The only thing that can drift is the lamp, but that applies to any projector and I'm pretty sure those will eventually be replaced Red Green and Blue LEDS, or even Red, Geen and Bue fluorescent plates driven by ultraviolet light sources, which will allow fine-tuning of the colour gamut.

 

For other projector technologies such as LCOS, which are prone to aging and drift, adding an autocalibration device based on a simple TV camera feedback system would be a trivial task.

 

However, for the very best results, movies will continue to be shot on 35mm film, and loudmouthed know-nothing nonentities will continue to predict that this is all "gonna change" sooner rather than later, and it will continue to not happen, not that would make the slightest difference to any of them anyway. :rolleyes:

 

And I will continue to point his out, and they will continue to call me all sorts of nasty names :angry: and I and my friends will continue to laugh our a$$es off, :lol: :lol: because many of the more prolific posters here truly wouldn't their a$$es from a 24V battery socket. :blink: And years on they will post endless rebuttals which will prove nothing other than they have still not learned the difference. <_<

[Paul Bruening]

I've been away from the forum for quite a while, and I have to say that I don't miss these threads at all. Bottom line, I enjoy being visually creative, so if I had the opportunity to shoot a documentary on a cheap mini dv camera, but it was a project I believed in, I'd be stoked. I'll take whatever I can get my hands on, and do the best I can with it. As it happens, right now the opportunities and tools I find in front of me happen to be shooting and printing my own personal projects on 35mm film with my old Minolta still camera, a creaky old Omega enlarger, and fiber-based photo paper. And I love it. Do I prefer film? Yes. Is it always a realistic option? No. I wish it were, but I'll also take the challenge to make the best images I can no matter what the medium is. Two of my all-time favorite films are Iraq in Fragments and The New World. One was shot with a DVX, the other with 35 and 65mm film, and you know what, they both look amazing! They're just tools, so use what you've got. Same goes for TV. If it's well-done and compelling, I'll probably watch it.

 

I really do wish that things here could stay a bit more logical, reasonable and civil, though. When things descend into flame throwing and stupid ad hominems, we all lose out because the real pros who actually have something to share and teach will just bail, and there'll be a lot less to be learned, for those of us that still have a lot of learning to do. There are certain guys here that when I see they've posted something, I'll go read it even if it isn't about a topic I was particularly interested in, just because I know that that guy is going to have something good to offer. Conversely, there are some guys that when I see their names next to a topic, I avoid it because it's going to go from zero to mudslinging in 2.3 posts. On the whole, this forum is a goldmine to the motivated student (I personally have gotten a TON from it), so let's keep it that way.

 

Hello Jason,

 

This is how folks hash stuff out. If you will read through the entire thread you might discover that even the most opinionated posters have either modified their positions or at least explored new perspectives. Humans are notoriously sloppy thinkers. This thread is still quite valid and useful.

[Jason Reimer]

Hello Jason,

 

This is how folks hash stuff out. If you will read through the entire thread you might discover that even the most opinionated posters have either modified their positions or at least explored new perspectives. Humans are notoriously sloppy thinkers. This thread is still quite valid and useful.

 

I don't doubt that this is how (some) people hash things out, the question is, should they? What I'm suggesting is an alternative to wading through mangrove swamps in rubber boots (good analogy, by the way), an alternative to stuffed shirts and a$$-kissers, and that's just being respectful, whether you're in agreement or you couldn't disagree more. Not that you guys were necessarily suggesting otherwise, but my whole point was to remind people of this alternative, just in case they have forgotten. I don't think such a reminder is out of bounds. But maybe this should be a topic for another thread.

 

Have a great weekend, everyone!

[Terry Mester]

... the company was willing to pay for real time QC. These were the 70mm road show prints. ...

I'm glad to know the Studios were willing to pay for quality control on 70mm movies because they were "A" movies, and charged more for the ticket price than 35mm "B" movies.

 

...

You might want to do some more investigating into digital projection and just how stable and trouble free it is proving to be. You might see it very differently.

This is a premature statement given that Digital Projection has only been in practical use for around five years. It will require another five years to determine its long-term reliability. You also do not address the issue of high "expense" in both maintenance and initial purchase. Even if the Studios provide financial assistance to theatres for initially buying Projectors, it's highly unlikely that they will provide such assistance in the years ahead for buying replacement Projectors. The theatres will be left holding the empty money bag.

 

...

Regarding the stability of 3-DLP projectors, the micromirrors they are based on are true digital devices. The brightness of any pixel is determined by its associated mirror's "on" to "off" time. There is simply no mechanism whereby this can change, and since colour recombination is achieved by extremely stable glass dichroic mirrors or prisms, DLP projectors cannot drift colour wise.

The only thing that can drift is the lamp, but that applies to any projector and I'm pretty sure those will eventually be replaced Red Green and Blue LEDS, or even Red, Geen and Bue fluorescent plates driven by ultraviolet light sources, which will allow fine-tuning of the colour gamut.

The one inherent problem with Red, Green & Blue additive colour systems is that they have to use RG&B Filters. These Filters cause colour loss which is unavoidable, and this problem cannot be fixed. The problem for Technicolor which Karl mentioned is a result of these Filters. Film Projectors of course don't use these Filters which is another reason why I so vigourously support Film Projection. I don't blindly support Film -- it's simply better than an artificial electronic process. Substandard lab printing is not to be blamed on Film itself -- it's to be blamed on the Producer. Rather than seeing Digital Projection as the way of improving the theatre experience, I see going back to 65/70mm for all important movies as the way to go. With the modern optical digital soundtrack, the old problems with magnetic tape are history!

[Keith Walters]

The one inherent problem with Red, Green & Blue additive colour systems is that they have to use RG&B Filters. These Filters cause colour loss which is unavoidable, and this problem cannot be fixed.

Wha...? :blink:

 

With the modern optical digital soundtrack, the old problems with magnetic tape are history!

Er... magnetic tape for cinema film sound was "history!" some considerable time ago.

 

And as for "modern optical digital soundtrack" youi're lucky to get two weeks' screening out of one of those, at which point most projectionists switch back to the analog track.

Despite what all the "golden-eared" fraternity might try to imply about the superiority of the auditory apparatus nature supposedly equipped them (and only them) with, most punters can't tell the difference between analog surround and digital surround in a casual listening test. They might be aware of when you switch from one to the other but that's about it, and permanently switching to the analog track is considered subjectively less irritating than a sound processor continually flicking back to analog when the print starts to get a bit worn.

Most film prints come with the two most common digital sound formats: Dolby SR-D and Sony SDDS, and many also have DTS (which is really just a control track for syncing a CD-ROM drive). However in most multiplexes, chances are you will be listening to the plain ol' analog optical Dolby SR system from '78 or so. Sorry to rain on your parade :rolleyes:

[Paul Bruening]

So, we've come a long way on this thread. Would anyone be willing to hazard an honest tally of what the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches are, both in acquisition for the big screen and TV and projection for big screen? Naturally, we should keep in mind that anything could be possible in the future.

[John Sprung]

I got more than one call at 5AM from Bill Bickford back in the day....

 

Wow, that's a name I haven't heard in how many years.... At least you weren't getting phone calls from Jim Potter. ;-) MGM when it existed was the Rolls-Royce of labs.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

I think that a root cause of these colour inconsistencies in a print is the disparate Speeds of Film used to shoot the movie.

 

However, this high color precision does not mean that three-chip DLP projectors are capable of displaying the entire gamut of colors we can distinguish (this is fundamentally impossible with any system composing colors by adding three constant base colors).

 

Film speed has nothing to do with it.

 

A little wider gamut might be good, but expanding the gamut only gets you more extremely saturated colors. You don't find many of those colors in the real world, and you probably don't want to. Spend a few days on a big green screen cyclorama.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

Wow, that's a name I haven't heard in how many years.... At least you weren't getting phone calls from Jim Potter. ;-) MGM when it existed was the Rolls-Royce of labs.

 

I assume that's about the time he would get done running QC on dailies?

 

I think that may be an extreme in the opposite direction in terms of quality control. The color doesn't have to be right to check for focus, line-delivery, or physical damage to the negative.

[John Sprung]

And even when you do replace the lamp itself, it's really not a whole lot more involved than replacing a film projector lamp. The stability of the DLP Cinema system is such that once it's set up (usually done by whoever's supplying it), it can run for literally months without any noticeable drift.

 

Indeed, the early Christie's were build in front of their existing film lamp houses. So, the lamp contribution to color inaccuracy is indentical in both cases. DLP uses dichroics to split the light into primaries. That gives them excellent stability and saturation. They were designed to be low maintenance, because they knew what kind of maintenance film projectors were -- or weren't -- getting.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

According to the article 70 percent of the television shows are now using digital rather than film for origination.

[John Sprung]

I'm glad to know the Studios were willing to pay for quality control on 70mm movies because they were "A" movies, and charged more for the ticket price than 35mm "B" movies.

 

The one inherent problem with Red, Green & Blue additive colour systems is that they have to use RG&B Filters. These Filters cause colour loss which is unavoidable, and this problem cannot be fixed.

 

They were willing to pay for 100% QC because we were finding a significant number of bad prints. Letting the theaters find the bad ones would mean refunding several full houses worth of tickets and shutting down on opening night. The word of mouth would have been deadly.

 

DLP's use dichroics, not dye filters. Dichroics send the different colors in different directions, rather than absorbing some and passing others. Here's how it works in video cameras:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_prism

 

The DLP projector setup is simpler, because they're just moving light around, they don't have a focused image to retain yet. Trying to do that with dye filters would give you an impossible heat problem unless you resorted to something silly like water cooled filters.

 

A film print is basically a dye filter combination, with the dyes located in such a way as to form the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Dominic Case]

(from Karl) I know of some machines that can adjust the value of a "point", and there used to be the added confusion of subtractive printing numbers too. Those numbers were even more non-standardized, as the filters would fade more quickly.

Over the years there have been all sorts of printer light control. I'm talking about current equipment used by release printing labs. They are based on a common understanding that one point is one light which is 0.025 logE. Many light vanes however can be adjusted in half points (0.0125 logE). That still leaves "a point" at 0.025logE though.

 

(from John) different labs each had their own number of points into which they divided a stop. I'm sure some had twice as many points as others,

John, the old Bell & Howell Model D & Model J printers (black and white) had steps of 0.05 logE. At a print gamma of 2.1, that gave just over 0.10 density change per point (so in density terms, a point was point one). There were 21 lights on the dial. As I understand it, when they brought in the Model C colour printer, the light vanes were set to give half that increment (0.025 logE) as the colour print gamma was higher. On the Model C and many other colour additive printers, there are 50 grading light values, and 24 trims, for each colour.

 

 

(from Karl: BTW, Dominic, I guess I had been going on the assumption that most color variances were chemical in nature, not due to light discrepancies.

The end resultant colour of a print is due to the combined effects of the raw print stock, the exposure in the printer, and the processing conditions (chemical and physical). Each of those is controlled separately at the input stage (i.e. stock batches are tested for consistency), printer tests are carried out regularly, both photographic and (in some labs at least) photometric, and chemical analysis is regularly carried out to maintain chemical equilibrium.

 

But on an hour-by-hour basis, both small variations in emulsions, in printer lamp colour and brightness AND small variations in chemistry are compensated by adjusting the printer trims.

[Dominic Case]

Actually it's worse than that -- or at least it was back when I worked for TriStar. We had to check every reel of every print on 70mm releases, mainly because of the magnetic sound. What made it worse is that we had to watch prints of the same reel over and over, not the whole show.

Similar to what happens now in making deliverables: countless masters have to be made with different sound formats, international versions and domestic versions (maybe with different censorship cuts), different timecoded masters, etc etc. And they all have to be QCd in real time.

 

Back in the days when cigarette advertising was legal, and common in UK cinemas (where I worked then) I remember spending hours at a time in the lab checking bulk release prints of Benson & Hedges commercials. I think they ran at 2X speed (not much faster than that), but there were a heck of a lot of them. I don't smoke now, but I wonder if I'd have a case against the lab if I got lung cancer. (Or don't adverts have an effect on your behaviour :blink: ).

[Keith Walters]

According to the article 70 percent of the television shows are now using digital rather than film for origination.

So what does that prove?

70% of what exactly?

The overall percentage of program material already shot with video cameras is overwhelming, if you include the news, sports, reality TV, chat shows, kids' shows etc etc.

 

100% of my movies of the dog, the kids and family BBQs are shot on miniDV digital.

 

The clear implication in the article is that at last video cameras are good enough to compete with 35mm film for prime-time. Except that many of the video cameras being used actually came out years ago. So it's not a case of video getting better, so much as it becoming more acceptable.

 

The apparent reason for this is political (SAG contracts and the like) and financial. Neither situation is guaranteed to last forever.

[Terry Mester]

Wha...? :blink:

That's right. Filters aren't "perfect". You lose light reflected off of the front surface, and then refracted off of the back surface. The RGB additive colour system (like Digital) is inherently flawed -- unlike the natural White Light subtractive system (like Film) which has minimal problems. If a Filter were perfect it would be invisible from the front side!

 

Er... magnetic tape for cinema film sound was "history!" some considerable time ago. ...

I was talking about 70mm movies which would have mostly stopped getting made by the early 1980s. They certainly would have been using magnetic tape with 70mm into the 80s.

 

...DLP's use dichroics, not dye filters. Dichroics send the different colors in different directions, rather than absorbing some and passing others. Here's how it works in video cameras: ...

Dichroic Filters are better than Dye Filters, but they still aren't perfect. I had previously provided a Wikipedia quote mentioning the colour problems with three-chip DLP Projectors.

 

So, we've come a long way on this thread. Would anyone be willing to hazard an honest tally of what the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches are, both in acquisition for the big screen and TV and projection for big screen? Naturally, we should keep in mind that anything could be possible in the future.

For those TV shows that don't use Film, I can offer my observation of how absolutely crappy Analogue to Digital Video conversion is. To paraphrase Hamlet: O horrible, horrible, most horrible! With new DTV they can now fit three frequencies in the length of one analogue frequency. Channel 2 in Buffalo broadcasts 'Retro TV' over the air which runs old shows, and is obviously converting the Analogue to Digital via a computerized process. The old programmes which would have been filmed have not been digitally remastered from the original Film. The pixellation and blurring is unbelievably atrocious! The washing out of the colours is sometimes so bad it looks like a water painting! I can't even begin to accurately describe how bad it is. For TV shows not shot on Film the future will be bleak.

[John Sprung]

Dichroic Filters are better than Dye Filters, but they still aren't perfect. I had previously provided a Wikipedia quote mentioning the colour problems with three-chip DLP Projectors.

 

Ah, but a film print *is* a dye filter -- or a combination of dye filters. Three different dyes in varying amounts and locations make the picture.

 

Film color gamut is limited by those dyes. Dichroics can give you a wider gamut, but there's not much outside the existing film color gamut that you'd want to see.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

Back in the days when cigarette advertising was legal, and common in UK cinemas (where I worked then) I remember spending hours at a time in the lab checking bulk release prints of Benson & Hedges commercials. I think they ran at 2X speed (not much faster than that), but there were a heck of a lot of them. I don't smoke now, but I wonder if I'd have a case against the lab if I got lung cancer. (Or don't adverts have an effect on your behaviour :blink: ).

 

Cigarette advertising is still legal. . . just watch a Quentin Tarantino movie :lol: As for Benson & Hedges commercials, if you were watching them at 2x speed, you'd probably only have a case if you got lung cancer if you were smoking twice as much ;)

 

 

Back to a more serious question: Assuming you are correcting for different emulsion batches and different bulb colors, which is a lot easier with built-in printer quality control and calibration these days, is it possible to correct color drift at each step of the process?

 

0.0125 ln is about 1/16 the color drift I've seen in release prints. The "grey" patches on the Shirleys were consistently grey-magenta patches.