Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Archival Prints (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Archival Prints
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 02-12-2004 09:23 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
...and surely another key part of a long-term preservation strategy should be to work towards a design of studio camera (or a means of modifying existing ones) which can safely run polyester negative stock. I've often thought it ironic that the most widespread use of polyester (i.e. projection) is for an application in which its tensile strength can be a serious flaw, but it is not used for the application (i.e. exposing original camera negatives) in which its inert chemical base would be a huge boost for the chances of long-term preservation.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-12-2004 09:35 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Kodak does offer some camera negative films on ESTAR base (e.g., SO-579, SO-256). However, the primary use has been for 65mm film used by IMAX for films shot in space, and high speed instrumentation applications.

Aside from the issue of the need for failsafe protection of the camera mechanism, negative cutters have not been too keen on the idea of using ultrasonic splicing.

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Bailey
Master Film Handler

Posts: 317
From: Nambucca Heads, Australia
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted 02-12-2004 10:08 AM      Profile for Ian Bailey   Email Ian Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
would you use Film Guard on an archival print? I've booked in 4 "archival prints",one for each week in March and I'm feeling a bit uneasy now!The application form did state it's dislike for platters but my film booker assured me that the hirers said it would be ok to run them off a platter.No way I can set up two projectors.They are Acetate prints,$5000AU insurance is required.Apart from making sure it is thread up right what other precautions should you take when handling Acetate prints?

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Harris
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted 02-12-2004 10:15 AM      Profile for Robert Harris   Email Robert Harris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An additiional problem with estar originals for heavy printing requirements is that the base reacts differently, ie. not as well to wet-gate situations, once wear occurs.

While I have no problem producing estar archival elements, I have concerns that estar negs will not react as well as acetate for specialized purposes, such as 65mm or optically created printed negs. There is certainly no problem with the use of estar dupe negs, which can easily be run off an IP which is standing by.

RAH

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-12-2004 12:24 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wet-gate printing is normally done using the solvent tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene or "perc"), which has a refractive index of 1.504, which is a very close match to that of triacetate film base (1.478) and gelatin emulsion (1.52). Polyester (ESTAR) base is bi-refringent, and has a much higher refractive index of about 1.66, so "perc" does not optically "hide" polyester base scratches as well as triacetate base scratches. Unfortunately, no suitable solvents have been found that better match the 1.66 refractive index of polyester base.

Kodak developed much of the technology of wet printing, and published many technical papers on the subject. Henry Imus and Joe Schmit of Technicolor were also key contributors to the technology. A key paper is "Printing Motion-Picture Films Immersed in a Liquid Part III: Evaluation of Liquids" by Delwiche, Clifford, and Weller, Journal of the SMPTE, October 1958, Volume 67, pages 678-686.

"Perc" is also widely used for dry cleaning clothing, and is efficiently recycled by motion picture labs:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/hse/perc_wetGate.jhtml?id=0.1.4.5.6.4&lc=en

quote:
This publication addresses the most commonly asked environmental, health, and safety questions about the use of perchloroethylene in Motion Picture wet-gate printing applications.


http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printingP.shtml#wetgate

Scratch reduction can also be accomplished by use of diffuse illumination (as used in the Kodak-developed scanners for the Thomson Spirit datacines), or by "dirt busting" techniques for digital intermediate or telecine transfer:

http://www.cinesite.com/?124

Here is a recent restoration project Mr. Harris worked on with Kodak Cinesite:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/oct2003/patriot.shtml

http://www.cinesite.com/?1243&0&1380

quote:
The following article was written by Bob Fisher and David Huering for In Camera (September/October 2003)

Robert A. Harris of The Film Preserve has played vital roles in restoring and preserving many of the crown jewels of Hollywood's history, including My Fair Lady, Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus. Harris is currently focusing his attention on a unique restoration project. The Story of A Patriot has been playing at a theatre in the Williamsburg colonial village in Virginia, since April 1957. Estimates are that more than 30 million visitors to have seen the film depiction of life in America during the revolutionary war. Harris says that when he first saw the film during the late 1950s, it touched him deeply. He describes the film restoration project as a labor of love.

The film was originally produced and shown in VistaVision format, which is designed to put a huge, widescreen image horizontally on the screen. It features six-track magnetic sound running at twice the normal speed, which was revolutionary for its time and delivered on its promise of "motion picture high fidelity." "It is like looking through a window to the past," says Harris.

Since the early 1980s, the film has been shown to audiences on 70mm film format. When Harris saw the film again in 1994, he knew a rescue effort was in order. "The picture was contrasty, grainy, out of focus and out of registration," he says. "I met with Richard McCluney of Colonial Williamsburg Productions and with his approval, the restoration project began. I've worked with Cinesite, in Los Angeles, on other restoration projects before. I knew how dedicated the people there are, and they have been extremely helpful throughout the process."

Harris' eyes and memory are helping Cinesite restoration specialists Brad Reinke and Jerry Pooler restore the film to its original grandeur. A hodgepodge of older elements, most importantly a 35mm dye transfer copy of reel 2AB provided by a collector, are also used as a reference for color. Harris and the team are also consulting with 94-year-old Haskell Boggs, ASC, the original cinematographer on the project.

"We've looked at costumes and props that still exist, as well as the brick on the buildings as they stand now," says Harris. "It's a major puzzle, but we're solving it piece by piece."

The original VistaVision images have been scanned into the digital realm at 6K resolution. Each frame is represented by 150-200 megabytes. The film consists of about 54,000 frames. The result is a gargantuan data management challenge. Once perfected, the frames will be output to VistaVision interpositive and optically converted to 65 mm, from which 70 mm prints will be struck. The work will be done at Pacific Title and CFI in Los Angeles. Cinesite will also provide black and white separation masters for archival purposes. Cinesite Manager of Restoration Services, Brad Reinke, says that the negative had a significant amount of differential dye fade as well as overall color saturation dye fade.

"Other than the dye fade, the negative was actually is very good condition," he says. "There are some dirt problems, scratches, and lens falloff in some cases. We are also recombining some separation masters when necessary. One crucial aspect of this project is to preserve the original grain structure. The film was originally shot on Kodak stocks, and we have the advantage of bring a sister company to Kodak. We're going back and researching the technical specifications on these older stocks and applying that knowledge to here.

"The characters, costumes and environments in this film are very period," says Reinke, "but the look of the film is not. It's incredibly rich and vibrant and colorful. Bob Harris and the Williamsburg people want the images to pop off the screen. They want those colors sharp and vibrant. "The Patriot is a big project for us because of the size of the files and the extent of the restoration necessary," says Reinke. "But it's also very important to us because of the historical significance. It's very exciting to work on a project that is the oldest running American film."



 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 02-12-2004 01:42 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
would you use Film Guard on an archival print?
In a word, yes - if it's genuinely a print, i.e. a viewing copy, not a preservation element. For older and more fragile viewing copies I do strongly believe that FG has a lot to offer. Firstly it has a lubricating function, meaning that the film will travel more smoothly across the surfaces it comes into contact with. If there is slight shrinkage, that will ease the passage of the sprocket teeth in and out of the perforations, for one thing. Secondly, it will remove surface dirt. And finally it will 'fill in' lighter scratches, again helping to clean up the on-screen image.

The way I apply FG is with a Selvyt (i.e. lint-free) cloth (I believe that 'Webril Wipes', available in the US, are pretty similar) while manually winding. I wind one pass through an FG-impregnated cloth and the second through a dry one to take off the residue. The second pass is important, since a heavy application of FG can dissolve the adhesive in tape splices, causing them to come apart in projection.

That having been said, I've only ever applied FG to viewing copies from my own archive. If you are borrowing prints from another institution, be sure to get their permission first.

quote:
I've booked in 4 "archival prints",one for each week in March and I'm feeling a bit uneasy now!The application form did state it's dislike for platters but my film booker assured me that the hirers said it would be ok to run them off a platter.
Are you sure it's genuinely from an archive as distinct from a specialist arthouse/rep distributor? If so I'd be inclined to bypass your booker and get permission straight from the archive before you cut any heads and tails off. Most of them absolutely forbid it.

quote:
Apart from making sure it is thread up right what other precautions should you take when handling Acetate prints?
In terms of film handling, just the usual ones. If you have a high standard of film handling at your cinema and do it carefully, there's nothing to worry about. Just check and double-check everything. Ideally, get someone else to double-check for you (human beings, however skilled and experienced, make mistakes) to minimise the risk of error.

Tbe issue you might need to look at is whether you have the correct lens and plate for the ratio these films are in. If you don't normally screen arthouse or rep titles you may be getting films in a ratio you don't normally see (i.e. full-gate silent, Academy or 1:1.66). Ditto the sound format - it could be Academy mono or Dolby 'A' type, for example. If the can and/or leader doesn't tell you, I'd suggest checking with the archive.

 |  IP: Logged

Tao Yue
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 209
From: Princeton, NJ
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 02-12-2004 08:34 PM      Profile for Tao Yue   Author's Homepage   Email Tao Yue   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One important thing with acetate is to stop and think if you're not sure, don't take anything for granted. There may be something you're not familiar with.

This may be more suited to the "You suck" thread, and hopefully an "archival" print won't come this way (unless it's truly the last projection print in existence). But since the issue of acetate handling was brought up in general, and since it has some peripheral relevance to Robert A Harris who's posting on this thread ...

Here's an example: acetate prints often come on light metal reels that were used before plastic reels were common. We once got a print of Lawrence of Arabia where every single perf on one side of the film was broken.

The flanges on those metal reels tend to pop in-and-out (I'm not sure if this was how they were designed, but I've had numerous acetate prints come this way). When shipping, they are popped-in and keep the film secure. When used as the supply side, the film starts out curled a bit, so the film leaves the reel easily and you get no warning of this problem when you first handcheck the film.

When used as the takeup reel in the popped-in position, the film just does not want to go in. You have to either:
  • Rotate your hand a bit and guide it in so that the film is not perpendicular to the flanges.
  • Pop the flanges out, keep the film winding evenly (i.e. no telescoping), then pop it back in.
Evidently whoever had the print before us found it hard to force the film into the takeup. Instead of taking three seconds to think, he just applied more pressure on the rewinder controls, thereby breaking all the perfs. That person didn't need to be forewarned of these metal reels, he just needed to stop and think, and find a better way.
Another feature of acetate is cement splices. These often become brittle with age and will fail when stressed. It may be worth it to reinforce with at least a one-sided tape splice even if the splice still seems good, because often you are gentler on the film in handchecking than the projector is. Acetate is thicker than polyester, make sure the gate isn't overtensioned.

Again, an archive print usually won't come this way. This is more related to the problems that repertory houses face day-to-day. Just make sure the print doesn't leave this way.

I wonder how frequently multiplexes with midnight movies destroy acetate prints ...

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-12-2004 11:42 PM      Profile for William Hooper   Author's Homepage   Email William Hooper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Another feature of acetate is cement splices. These often become brittle with age and will fail when stressed. It may be worth it to reinforce with at least a one-sided tape splice even if the splice still seems good, because often you are gentler on the film in handchecking than the projector is. Acetate is thicker than polyester, make sure the gate isn't overtensioned.

I'll second that. One piece of tape on the base side.

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Bailey
Master Film Handler

Posts: 317
From: Nambucca Heads, Australia
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted 02-13-2004 12:52 AM      Profile for Ian Bailey   Email Ian Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Leo-the prints come from Screensound Australia who in conjunction with Kodak(John Pytlak will love that!) and Atlab Australia are restoring and copying a lot of old(30-50 years old)Australian Classic movies.The "Cinema Collection"prints are prime archival film copies in new or near new condition.They are in 35mm 1:1.85 format.I will contact Screensound to verify the use of platters and whether the use of Filmguard is allowed.Thanks for your advice,I will personally supervise my projectionist when we run these prints so i can check everything before we hit the start button!Most of the prints supplied by Screensound have been upgraded to Dolby Digital sound.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 02-13-2004 06:14 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's really great to hear that, despite all the political issues affecting Screensound at the moment, they're doing great things in getting prints out and about, let alone rerecording their tracks in Dolby digital. Dominic Case and his colleagues at Atlab are among the best in the business - I'm sure you'll be showing some great prints. Good luck!

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-16-2004 10:37 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As you know, Dominic Case is now a participant on Film-Tech. He participates on a variety of Motion Picture user groups, lending his decades of practical experience in laboratory operations and film technology. His book "Motion Picture Film Processing" is an excellent introduction to what goes on "behind the scenes" at the laboratory, as is "Film Technology in Post Production":

http://www.fetchbook.co.uk/search_Dominic_Case/searchBy_Author.html

http://www.sarai.net/cinematography/pages/biblio.htm

 |  IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001


 - posted 02-16-2004 12:05 PM      Profile for Christian Appelt   Email Christian Appelt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The original VistaVision images have been scanned into the digital realm at 6K resolution. (...) Once perfected, the frames will be output to VistaVision interpositive and optically converted to 65 mm, from which 70 mm prints will be struck.
Why is the image output to VV when 70mm prints are the end format?
Would it not make sense to skip the optical printing from VV interpositive to 65mm internegative by recording the data directly to 65mm negative, or is this a matter of film recorder availability?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-16-2004 12:16 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know Kodak Cinesite has 65mm scanning capability:

http://www.cinesite.com/?1231&0&1269

quote:
GENESIS PLUS 65MM SCANNER

Cinesite is excited about the tremendous growth happening in the large format, special venue industry. The Kodak Genesis Plus scanner brings the same dynamic and robust digital tools to the 65mm wide-screen filmmaker that are available with the 35mm Lightning scanner. The Genesis Plus handles 5, 8, and 15 perf formats.


I don't think they have a 65mm laser recorder:

http://www.cinesite.com/?1231&0&2421

quote:
KODAK LIGHTNING LASER RECORDERS

The Lightning recorder's technology is unique in that it uses red, green and blue lasers to expose negative film. The three lasers write directly to each color layer of the intermediate stock. This combination produces images of unparalleled sharpness and color saturation. The system's 10 bit (per color per pixel) log space retains all the film's enormous density range, while the lasers' extremely wide dynamic range ensures that the quality of the new negative is absolutely optimised

Obviously IMAX has used 65mm recorders, but I'm not sure if any are laser recorders:

http://www.globalmediapro.com/av/messages/165774.html

quote:
For example, there are no laser recorders that can record to 65mm (from 5-perf to 15-perf 65mm IMAX), so CRT recorders are used. Some efx people doing IMAX work are still waiting for a 65mm laser recorder.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Harris
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted 02-16-2004 08:08 PM      Profile for Robert Harris   Email Robert Harris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The problem is one of cost effectiveness.

$2.35 - 2.50 per frame for a 65mm record is a tad on the expensive side for our purposes.

RAH

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-16-2004 09:05 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Are 65mm laser recorders even available? I thought most were still CRT recorders.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.