Explanation for few terms ?

[deepak srinivasan]

Hi, friends

i want to know answers for the term's like

1.Interpositive &

2.Internegative.

 

I know i can google this but i feel ppl here can easily explain me which ill have in my head forever :)

So, Kindly tell me what these terms mean :)

[K Borowski]

An interpositive (also called a fine grain positive [usually in B&W] or a master positive) is a timed contact print, or blowup print made from the original camera negative. It is low-contrast (unlike a color print) to reduce contrast buildup in the duplication process. Now that digital intermediates have become ubiquitous, the traditional optical printing process has been surplanted by producing these via a film recorder, instead of printing these photographically.

 

An internegative, you have to be careful, because it technically refers to a negative made from a color reversal original (such as a movie like "Buffalo '66," or The Original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It also refers, somewhat incorrectly, to the duplicate negative made from a master positive, that is then used to make prints. They can make up to a dozen of these for commercial releases. Even though they are often made on polyester now (wheras camera neg. and interpos. are usually acetate), they will wear out after striking hundreds of prints, so multiple copies have to be made. This is (usually, now that there is a special digital film recorder intermediate stock for making master positives from DI files in a film recorder) the same stock as a traditional master positive, just on the polyester base usually, for increased durability. It has the same contrast as interpositive stock, for a lower contrast to reduce contrast buildup. Even though "duplicate negative" is the correct term, most 35mm prints currently distributed (in the United States, at least) have "IN" numbers printed on the prints rather than "DN" numbers.

 

Collectively, these types of low-contrast, fine-grained, slow stocks are referred to as "Intermediate stocks."

[David Mullen ASC]

The truth is that it's the same stock, an intermediate duplicating stock that is low in contrast so as to not add any contrast in the duplication process. If you copy a negative onto the stock, it becomes an interpositive; if you copy a positive element to the stock, it becomes an internegative. Yes, originally internegative meant a negative copy of a positive reversal original, whereas the negative made off of the interpositive was called a dupe negative. But these days, since copying reversal images is much more rare, dupe negative and internegative have become more interchangeable as terms.

 

BTW, the intermediate duplicating stock has the same brick orange color masking of color negative stock.

 

See:

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Intermediate_Films/index.htm

[deepak srinivasan]

Thanks for the answers

it was very helpfull :)

[Dominic Case]

I know i can google this but i feel ppl here can easily explain

 

This will probably sound like an old grump but if you know you can google it, why don't you use that resource rather than ask people to spend their time to write a new definition? It won't tell you anything you couldn't find out by googling in less time than it look you to write the message here.

 

In about one minute I found the following links (I've been working in a team updating the first one, though the updates aren't live yet).

 

http://www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/audiovisual_terms/

 

Mhttp://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Education/Film_Video_Glossary/glossary1.htm

 

http://www.movies-dictionary.org/Film-and-Video-Dicitonary/Interpositive

 

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

 

That said, Karl's and David's answers (as always) tell everything there is to know! One lab I worked at solved the interneg/dupe neg naming problem by calling it an interdupe.

An interneg / /dupe neg is produced to make prints from, in order to protect the original negative. If the original neg becomes damaged, you have no film any more! If the dupe neg is damages you can simply go back to the interpos and make another one.

[K Borowski]

This will probably sound like an old grump but if you know you can google it, why don't you use that resource rather than ask people to spend their time to write a new definition?

 

[. . .]

 

That said, Karl's and David's answers (as always) tell everything there is to know! One lab I worked at solved the interneg/dupe neg naming problem by calling it an interdupe.

An interneg / /dupe neg is produced to make prints from, in order to protect the original negative. If the original neg becomes damaged, you have no film any more! If the dupe neg is damages you can simply go back to the interpos and make another one.

 

Be careful, Dominic. . . David I don't think I have seen make more than maybe a couple of mistakes in my six, seven years on here (Has it really been that long? Are parts of the NEW internet, this sit now considered old?) But God knows I have said some wonderfully errant, antagonistic, vicious, and downright ignorant things on here.

 

It is a credit to people like you, the late John Pytlak, Rob at Cinelab, and Cinematographers like David Mullen and too many others who pop up on here to name that I owe a great deal of what I've learned as an ignorant neophyte back in '04.

 

 

While I'm sure there are great resources in the archive (albeit hard to find at times, looking for one just now had me stumble onto this post!) the important thing that these new-be questions stimulate is our memories, our ability to pass on, first hand, the living art of cinematography and the magic of photochemistry, and our passion for what we do. And, look at the wonderful little nugget of information Deepak has gotten out of you, as a bonus to our tireless rehashing of the workings of the release printing process: The interdupe. Despite lighting up the page with red squigglies whenever I type it, the word interdupe is a very handy solution to this linguistic problem, a portmanteau of the finest calibre that would be at home in any darkroom running MP intermediate stock.

 

But, linguistic achievements aside, the boundless energy of another newcomer, eager to follow in the (now doomed?) footsteps of those who have braved nitrate fires, B&W darkrooms, mercury toners, color total dark rooms, mechanized processing, and two thousand mile journeys across the country, reminds me of what I had, and what I've lost, and what we have maybe just a short while still.

 

 

While it is ultimately unhealthy to dwell upon the past for too long a time, making a brief detour there, like when Gart walks into Homeville on "The Twilight Zone," reminds us of who we are now, who we were then, and where each of those entities once wanted to, and currently are going. Maybe that newcomer energy reminds us of a pleasant past and a naivete that is, in more ways, good than bad.

[Tim Tyler]

This will probably sound like an old grump but if you know you can google it, why don't you use that resource...

 

If the question gets answered on cinematography.com it will turn up in Google results for the next guy who searches for it there.

 

Why look, it's already there!

[K Borowski]

Interestingly enough, Tim, the link to YOUR search for interpositives turned up, not the search I was looking for, but another, older post that answered my question, not about interpositives, but low contrast teleprint:

 

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=8399

 

 

Thanks John.

 

But, you are providing yet more quite useful information in this needless rehash.

 

 

Now I have another question for you: I was searching, with Google, for terms without using the "SITE:" function. I mean, where else would information packed with workds like "Kodak 2395 teleprint film" and "master positive" be anyway? :D How is it, that, with fewer words, unrelated to my post, you've stumbled upon, almost, exactly what I was looking for?

 

It's like this post connected me to an interpositive thread that allowed me to get in touch with YOUR search for another interpositive thread that connected me to my 2395 query.

 

An interesting coincidence, like people you know on Facebook who know other friends of yours from completely different facets of life.

 

 

 

 

I need to dig up my exact Google Query, but how is it that a more detailed search NOT including cinematography.com was less successful than a more general search that DID include SITE:Cinematography.com?

 

 

EDIT: Here's my original search: transfer low contrast positive master positive

The link I provide above probably used the abbreviation "lowcon," so that explains why that wouldn't show up, but the other post I was originally looking for and haven't found, I am sure uses all of those words. . .

Edited February 15, 2011 by K Borowski

[deepak srinivasan]

This will probably sound like an old grump but if you know you can google it, why don't you use that resource rather than ask people to spend their time to write a new definition? It won't tell you anything you couldn't find out by googling in less time than it look you to write the message here.

 

In about one minute I found the following links (I've been working in a team updating the first one, though the updates aren't live yet).

 

 

 

 

SIR, I COULD HAVE ALSO GOOGLED AND FOUND OUT THOOSE LINKS BUT I ALWAYS PREFER KNOWING IT FROM EXPERTS THAST WHY I ASK DOUBTS RATHER THAN STUDY MYSELF

CHEERS!!!