my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Archival Prints (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Archival Prints Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-08-2004 10:07 AM                    Oh, but Bob, you know these films can be improved upon! Even exhibitors can do their part. For instance, Loews Cineplex Pipers Alley in Chicago (yes, I am naming names) routinely edits out reel-end fadeouts / fadeins on their platter-builds thus correcting the glaring errors of the filmmakers. And typically 12 frames across ordinary reel breaks. Nothing wrong with picking up the pace a bit! **ducks**  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-08-2004 11:59 AM                        Before the days of platters editors used to try and put a fade on the start and end of each reel in order to minimise the consequences of a botched changeover. Nowadays they seem to avoid putting fades at reel ends like the plague, presumably because so many projectionists will simply chop them off rather than risk cutting the film out of rack.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-08-2004 12:46 PM                     Mr. Harris said : quote: This holds true for 35 prints which must be created from negs held in storage and which also be correctly set up and timed. The initial corrected print of a 35 feature can easily hit 15-20 thousand if done properly. and; quote: more and more as we lose the original directors, DPs, art directors, etc. and the studios or rights holders tend to be extremely lax in regard to the creation of new dupes without any sort of reference... Forgive my lack of knowledge, but is this an area that could be looked at? Is there some way of recording a suitable reference, such that re-printing becomes easier? I do agree that digital technology superimposes many more layers of variability, whereas with film, many of the parameters are "locked in" so to speak. The sad thing is that no film should ever have to be re-printed, but that's the story of our lives I guess.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harris Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 02-08-2004 02:32 PM                     The re-printing or manufacture of new prints is not a negative attribute if the prints in question are properly produced. And, no... there is no way to create a record of what a film should look like with the exception of reference prints, which have been vaulted after approval and saved for future needs. In reality this only holds true with viable prints in either black and white or dye transfer. Separation masters do not answer back in any real fashion as they are generally created as a one-lite element and not properly color timed. This means that for any films printed in Eastman Color only, the only use of a reference print created before LPP stock is continuity, track, printer functions and overall density. RAH  |  IP: Logged Joe Schmidt Expert Film Handler Posts: 172 From: Billings, Montana, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-10-2004 02:53 AM                     As one who has substantial experience with archival prints, my view is that in no way should they be allowed anywhere near a platter system, and I wholeheartedly agree that a competent projectionist, such as all of us in Filmtech are, must be required to be in attendance in the booth at all times. Many years ago, the famous theatre organist Gaylord Carter whom I had the great privilege to know personally, actually had his own projectionist who travelled with him, along with the print, to the silent screenings all over. This was mandatory, and it was in the contract. Apart from the fact that prints are expensive, and in some cases irreplaceable at any cost -- as has been pointed out -- when prints are damaged by platters or dummies, even if they can still be run the presentation gets incrementally worse as the damage builds. Suppose, for example, your IB tech print gets sprocket printed on the soundtrack. And when I read what happened to the 70mm Spartacus print I was almost ready to cry. A properly cared-for print, competently projected, can be run hundreds and even 1000+ times and still be just like new. There are a number of things I read about in FilmTech that make me very depressed, and that's why I don't visit too often.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-10-2004 08:53 PM                        AFAIK, all modern color print stocks are now available only on polyester base. Kodak converted all color print production to very stable ESTAR base a few years ago, about the time VISION Color Print Films were introduced. I have ESTAR base color print samples that have been run up to 70,000 times at theme parks in loop type transport systems.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harris Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 02-11-2004 08:02 AM                     I'll add something to John P's comments re: estar... Finally having access to what we believe is a totally inert base stock, and by this I mean inert in terms of vinegar problems and shrinkage, has changed my personal position on certain archival necessities. Where in the past, I was a firm believer that every film needed the production of black and white separation masters, the ability to create interpositives on estar stock has created a situation in which films with lower budgets may comfortably get along with multiple (testeda and geographically separated) estar interpositives -- a less expensive solution to a desire of archival "permanence." My comfort levels with the new Kodak color stocks are so high that I have no problem currently recommending the production of multiple IPs as opposed to sep masters, as long as we know that all elements will be properly archived. RAH  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-11-2004 09:48 AM                     I'm curious as to whether separation masters are ever produced on films shot today... and if not, when the practice was stopped.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-11-2004 11:43 AM                    My comfort levels with the new Kodak color stocks are so high that I have no problem currently recommending the production of multiple IPs as opposed to sep masters Wow. Can you elaborate a bit on the basis of your confidence given the number of surprises we've had in the past? Perhaps you're right but there was a time when triacetate was held in high regard and then came vinegar and the base has proven in some cases to be less stable than nitrocellulose. How can we be sure that polyester won't fall apart in fifty years, perhaps as the result of some normally found impurity. And accelerated life testing on color dyes goes only so far.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-11-2004 02:08 PM                        Well, concerns over the long-term stability of polyester apply just as much to seps as to coupler/tripack elements - the base is the same. So the issue boils down to emulsion stability. Given that the most recent original and intermediate emulsions have only been around a few years at most, I guess that all we have to go on are accelerated aging tests and the belief that Kodak et al have identified and addressed the issues which caused the 'pink peril' of the '60s and '70s. I too, instinctively feel a bit cagey about moving on from the 'tried and tested' separation route. But given that being able to spend £20k for lab work on preserving an industrial promo represents the limit of my experience and Robert is regularly able to deploy multi-million dollar budgets on high-profile feature restorations, I also feel instinctively inclined to defer to his judgement. But a little more information on why his view has changed would, I'm sure, make for very interesting reading.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-11-2004 08:45 PM                        One advantage I've heard for always making B&W separations is that they must be recombined to produce the duplicate negative used for printing. With color elements, it's sometimes too easy to grab an archival element and recut it, or use it to the point of visible wear or damage. The cost and time to recombine separations make them more likely to stay in the vault and not "wander" or get "repurposed" or worn out. Certainly Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film 2242 on ESTAR base can be used as part of a comprehensive strategy for long-term storage. The archival community now has clear direction on what "proper storage" is, e.g., SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131, standard IT9.11, and numerous technical papers by Kodak, the RIT Image Permanence Institute, UK Birmingham, and others. Hopefully the days of storing valuable elements in an unconditioned shed under the Hollywood sun or in a damp warehouse are long gone.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harris Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 02-12-2004 08:05 AM                     While the obvious "advantage" of seps is that they are a supposedly unique element which must be re-combined to create something useable, this hasn't protected the seps in the real world. I have seen more sep masters which have been created improrperly via either poor processing or with three records made of a yellow, a cyan and a cyan... or optical aberrations, or most usually... the green record used to produced black and white dupe negs and found with multiple scratches and damage. When produced and accessed by modern studio professionals who actually know what they're doing, seps are fine, but historically this has not been the case in all too many situations. This isn't even getting into the cases of vault geniuses coming up with three nitrate (or safety) negatives or positives and deciding that they don't need more than one... RAH  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-12-2004 08:30 AM                        I guess successive frame seps might be a way of safeguarding against these abuses...  |  IP: Logged Robert Harris Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 02-12-2004 08:40 AM                     AFAIK SE seps have only been produced for animated films and a test by Stanley Kubrick. John can probably give this group pages in regard to processing at the requisite gammas, etc. (for each record) which, unless digital seps can be created to comp back accurately, doesn't bode well for SEs. RAH  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-12-2004 09:05 AM                        The technique for optimizing color duplication using B&W separations is detailed in the Kodak paper "Techniques in Color Duplication" by Gale and Kisner, SMPTE Journal, December 1960, Volume 69, pages 874-881. It details laboratory procedures of adjusting the B&W processing gamma and deciding curve placement of the scene information. My "Laboratory Aim Density" (LAD) control method is based on the techniques outlined in this landmark paper. Unfortunately, Mr. Harris is all too correct in the "horror stories" that sometimes have occurred with B&W separations that were never "proofed" for quality before being put in the vault, or where elements were lost, damaged, or misidentified. Sequential (SE) separations lose the ability to individually optimize the contrast for each record, and the contrast mismatch that might be unnoticed with animation is not easily addressed with live action. Here is the technical data for each of the films that constitute preservation elements: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2374.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2378.shtml And the techniques: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h61/ http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h44/ http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/ http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage1.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm Again, B&W separations should be part of a comprehensive preservation strategy, as should properly stored color intermediate film elements, and the original cut negative.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.