Days of Heaveni

[David Mullen ASC]

Metrocolor did standard Kodak ECN2 negative processing just like all the other labs. For a awhile some studios had their own labs, Metrocolor for MGM, Deluxe for Fox.

[Miguel Roman]

Oh, ok; I thought the process might have been different depending on the lab. I read somewhere that. Lately I came across this:

 

Since the mid 1950s the majority of Hollywood films have used Eastman color. The name may read Metrocolor (owned by MGM), WarnerColor, or Color by Deluxe (owned by Twentieth Century-Fox), but the basic stock nearly always comes from Eastman Kodak. Only the processing was (and is) different.

 

I read it in the book Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States (by Douglas Gomery).

[David Mullen ASC]

Lab practices can vary in terms of time, temperature, how often they replenish the chemicals, cleanliness... but its all Eastmancolor processing for MP color negative. Early on there was some greater variations as labs tried things, mainly to avoid paying for Eastmancolor processing and print / dupe stocks, but it all got more and more standardized. You cant really ascribe the look of Days of Heaven to being processed at Metrocolor instead of Deluxe, Technicolor, CFI, FotoKem, etc.

[Miguel Roman]

Certainly, I agree that the look of Days of Heaven was not determined by the Metrocolor processing.

 

I would like to use some of the information that you Mr. Mullen gave before in this topic, the info regarding the film stock 5247 and how the first version was not really liked by numerous cinematographers and directors; I was wondering if you could tell me the source of this info so I can justify it in the bibliography of my thesis, unless, of course, it comes from your own knowledge. Thanks in advance!

[David Mullen ASC]

The controversy surrounding the first release of 5247 in 1974 is documented in various magazine and book interviews of the day, but I can't think of a specific one off the top of my head. I'd probably read the American Cinematographer issues from 1974 to 1977, plus the interviews in "Masters of Light" to catch a glimpse of what was going on. Mostly what you'll find is some cinematographer complaining about it and another saying that he liked the new stock, etc. They all beat around the bush about it for the most part but there are a few quotable complaints to be dug up.

 

The improved Series 600 (?) version came out in 1976, maybe mid-summer, I'd love to know for sure because both "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters" had started filming before that summer so probably have used the earlier version of 5247 but could have switched at some point, particularly during the post-production phase of shooting miniatures and matte paintings, etc. If I were home, I could look it up but I'm away from my collection.

[Miguel Roman]

Great, thanks a lot! I can't say about Star Wars or Close Encounters, but for Days of Heaven it seems like they used the new version; the cinematographer Néstor Almendros commented: " A few years ago when 5247 was first released, the results of forcing the film were not very good, but when we began DAYS OF HEAVEN, the response of the new stock had come to perfection."

[Miguel Roman]

I would like to know, can anyone explain me why some scenes in films have been shot running the film backwards (using for instance the Arriflex IIC)? Is it not easier to shot it in the regular way and then put it backwards in the editing process?

 

As an example I can mention the scene of Days of Heaven where the locusts take flight (which was done by dropping peanuts from an helicopter and shot in the way I mentioned).

 

[Mark Dunn]

I would like to know, can anyone explain me why some scenes in films have been shot running the film backwards (using for instance the Arriflex IIC)? Is it not easier to shot it in the regular way and then put it backwards in the editing process?

 

As an example I can mention the scene of Days of Heaven where the locusts take flight (which was done by dropping peanuts from an helicopter and shot in the way I mentioned).

 

Before DIs reversing action in the lab would have required a step-printed optical effect with loss of quality and extra expense. Besides, running a camera backwards is no big deal. I don't know if it's possible to load the roll onto the takeup side of the mag and thread it backwards, otherwise just run the film forwards with lens and viewfinder caps on, then run in reverse.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Mark Dunn

[Miguel Roman]

I see, that makes sense, specially in terms of quality; I didn't know it was no big deal to run the film backwards. Thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

Though duped shots were common before D.I.s, they were not preferable. To make a new negative of an effect of some sort, you had to copy the original negative to an interpositive and the load that into an optical printer to combine it with other duped positive elements to create a finished image onto a dupe negative. Then that shot could be cut into the original negative when creating the final cut negative for printing.

 

Albert Whitlock, for example, was famous for finishing his matte painting composites to the original negative whenever possible, which required that a couple of undeveloped takes were put aside while he created a matte painting based around a developed and printed alternate take, and then he'd double-expose his matte painting into the undeveloped negative. This required that the matte painting area to be added was masked off during the original exposure of the background plate. It was very risky since you only had a few takes that were left undeveloped to work with.

 

Douglas Trumbull sort of split the difference by shooting the background plate in 65mm negative, then exposing parts of that image into interpositive stock (the areas to be used in the final composite) by bipacking the negative with interpositive stock and then pointing the camera at a white board with the area to be painted in done in black and the area to be copied onto the interpositive painted white, so the white area printed just that image area onto the interpositive, leaving the rest unexposed. Then he exposed the matte painting directly into the interpositive stock, the live action area being black in the painting. The final composite was therefore done on the interpositive and then it just had to be copied to a dupe negative, saving a generation on the matte painting area at least, plus it was all done in 65mm for a 35mm production. Trouble with this technique was that the poor matte painter, in this case Matt Yuricich, had to paint an image that looked correct, color and contrast-wise, to being exposed directly to interpositive stock instead of camera negative stock. Interpositive stock isn't meant to shoot real objects; it's meant to copy a color-masked negative or positive piece of film. So the painting looked off to the eye but correct for the film stock.

[Mark Dunn]

I still wince at dissolves which were cut in as opticals before the introduction of A/B rolling (mid-60s?). Perhaps audiences accepted the jarring change in quality during a shot.