Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Improve 35mm

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Improve 35mm (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Improve 35mm

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 03-08-2006 12:06 AM

still film and movie film - each uses completely different developing procedures.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 03-08-2006 06:40 AM

Yes this is very true because of the Jet Backing on motion picture film. This protects the film from scratches in the camera and needs to be scrubbed off in the process. Otherwise the rest of the chemistry is much the same. The difference only being in Ph level controls and replenish rates. Actually still camera chemistry is more in tune to expact way over and under exposure and film types differences then motion picture film chemistry.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 03-08-2006 07:52 AM

quote: John Pytlak
Yet some producers (where print runs are relatively small) will not invest in the protection duplicate negatives offer, and make release prints directly from the original negative. Today, some "Bollywood" films still do this.

And it shows!! [Cool]

Reason I asked about the original negative being used for the entire printing run is that sometime back I read some comments by Robert A. Harris that some films have butchered negatives because they were run through the printer 350 times! Maybe I read it wrong.. not sure.

quote: John Pytlak
More recent films like KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film 2242 can produce duplicate negatives that yield prints almost indistinguishable from direct prints --- the Kodak SMPTE presentations that introduced the new generations of intermediate film actually showed "split screen" images where most experts could not see any loss in image quality.

That's great [thumbsup]

.
Actually I ran a print of the "The Worlds Fastest Indian" on Tuesday night and the quality was amazing. I suppose it is a limited release unlike major Hollywood product but the print looked great and sharp too!

quote: John Pytlak
One of the major reasons for increased unsteadiness and loss of sharpness is the practice of using continuous contact printing for all stages of duplication, so the correct short-pitch to long-pitch perforation relationship is not maintained for all printing steps.

And that's where the Digital Cinema folk start their noise claiming that at least in Digital format quality is maintained. I have yet to see a "film" in 2k or 4k [dlp]

so I can't comment on whether it's [bs]

. The way I see it though is no matter what resolution [dlp]

Cinema reaches it's not film and never will be. To me film has a certain aesthetic that digital cannot replicate.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-08-2006 07:54 AM

quote: Larry Myers
Yes this is very true because of the Jet Backing on motion picture film. This protects the film from scratches in the camera and needs to be scrubbed off in the process. Otherwise the rest of the chemistry is much the same. The difference only being in Ph level controls and replenish rates.

The motion picture ECN-2 process has a prebath and rem-jet removal step, but also uses a different color developing agent (CD-3) than the consumer film C-41 process (uses CD-4).

Here is the recent Chronology of Kodak Motion-Picture Films:

Kodak Chronology 1960-1979

Kodak Chronology 1980-Present

1974 was a landmark year, and the beginning of the new era in film development:

quote:
1974

EASTMAN Color Negative II film, 5247. Tungsten, EI 100, Daylight 64. Sharper/finer grain than 5254 (EI 100) (E). Process ECN-2 (new process). EDTA bleach. Paper given 1972 SMPTE.
EASTMAN Color SP Print film, 7/5383. For higher temperature Process ECP-2. For greater release printing efficiency in larger labs. Quality similar to 7/5381 with which it will co-exist. Discontinued 1983.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 03-08-2006 01:15 PM

That right although, CD-3 is not all that different the CD-4 and for small runs, you could go back and forth with each agent without too much crossover. If you can get the Ram Jet backing off the film, motion picture film will run nicely in C-41. Again for small runs. The chemical composition ECN-2 is designed for large runs with correct exposure. Not something you get with 10,000 ft of 35mm rolls of consumer film all spliced together.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-08-2006 02:33 PM

quote: Larry Myers
That right although, CD-3 is not all that different the CD-4 and for small runs, you could go back and forth with each agent without too much crossover. If you can get the Ram Jet backing off the film, motion picture film will run nicely in C-41.

For hobbyist use, maybe okay. But professional motion picture labs make every effort to follow the H-24 Process Specifications closely, especially for the ECN-2 process used for camera originals:

Kodak H-24 Process Manuals

quote:
Module 1: Process Control 307KB
Module 2: Equipment and Procedures 629KB
Module 3: Analytical Procedures
Module 4: Reagent Preparations
Module 5: Chemical Recovery Procedures 496KB
Module 6: Environmental Aspects 305KB
Module 7: Process ECN-2 Specifications 670KB
Module 8: Effects of Mechanical and Chemical Variations in Process ECN-2 439KB

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-08-2006 02:47 PM

John P.,

Is there any reasonable way to tell from looking at a release print whether the internegative was contact-printed or step-printed? It would be nice to be able to know how often this problem occurs in practice, and whether a given release print was struck from a contact-printed internegative.

(I'm not sure what any such clues/hints would be...I suppose it's asking too much for the labs to scribe "contact-printed interneg" on the leaders...)

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 03-08-2006 03:15 PM

Yes, you would never run 10,000 ft of Vision 50 through C-41 although you might run 2 home load rolls of that same stock through C-41 if you can get the backing off first.

Sometimes if you load the Nikor developing can with 1/2 load of water and shake it like hell doing this about 10 times, you can get the ram jet backing off.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-08-2006 03:34 PM

quote: John Hawkinson
Is there any reasonable way to tell from looking at a release print whether the internegative was contact-printed or step-printed? It would be nice to be able to know how often this problem occurs in practice, and whether a given release print was struck from a contact-printed internegative.

(I'm not sure what any such clues/hints would be...I suppose it's asking too much for the labs to scribe "contact-printed interneg" on the leaders...)

Yes, if the step printing was done for the master positive ---> duplicate negative printing stage, the framelines would be opaque and coming from the aperture of the step printer. With continuous contact printing all the way, all you will see are the opaque framelines generated by the original camera apertures.

Since multiple cameras are often used on a feature film production, you may see variations in the framelines from scene-to-scene, depending on the cameras used. With a full length step-printed duplicate negative, the framelines would likely be consistent for the entire reel.

If you have consistent "hard matte" framelines on a "flat" feature, they likely were put there by step printing.

The reason labs often don't have the time to use pin-registered step printing for generating the duplicate negatives is they they usually need to print up to a dozen sets of printing negatives for worldwide use. Much faster on a 180 or 240 feet per minute continuous contact printer than a step printing going only a few frames per second.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-08-2006 04:02 PM

The REEL ID section shows examples of different framelines.

8 Below - black framelines

Dreamer - clear framelines

Brothers Grimm - hard matte framelines

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-08-2006 04:56 PM

Thanks, Brad, for the examples, those are helpful for thinking about this.

John, I'm a bit confused. Shouldn't the camera aperture produce clear framelines, rather than opaque ones?

Perhaps I haven't been paying close attention, but it seems pretty rare that I actually see clear framelines on a release print, which suggests that it's pretty rare to find labs using this shortcut?

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-08-2006 08:29 PM

quote: John Hawkinson
John, I'm a bit confused. Shouldn't the camera aperture produce clear framelines, rather than opaque ones?

Perhaps I haven't been paying close attention, but it seems pretty rare that I actually see clear framelines on a release print, which suggests that it's pretty rare to find labs using this shortcut?

If the camera aperture is 0.735 inches high, and each frame is 4 x 0.1866 = 0.7464 inches high, you have an unexposed area of negative film that is 0.0114 inches high. This clear unexposed area becomes the opaque frameline in a contact print. If the camera aperture were higher than the 0.7464 frame height, there would be a double exposure of the two adjacent frames in the frameline area.

White framelines often indicate that the negative itself was optically printed, perhaps as a blow up. The aperture of the optical printer creates the clear frameline on the master positive, which ends up as clear in the final prints. Clear framelines would also be produced if the master positive was generated using a laser recorder (i.e., digital intermediate).

An optical printer used for the master positive ---> duplicate negative stage produces opaque framelines in the final prints. So would the output of a laser recorded duplicate negative.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 03-09-2006 03:15 AM

Yea, "Dreamer" had those white frame lines being a Scope print - and with slightly overcut apertures, that was a stinker to keep in the middle so none of those white framelines would sneak into view. - Monte

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-09-2006 04:37 AM

quote: John Pytlak
White framelines often indicate that the negative itself was optically printed, perhaps as a blow up. The aperture of the optical printer creates the clear frameline on the master positive, which ends up as clear in the final prints.

...only if the printing of the master positive to internegative was done continuously, i.e. improperly, yes?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-09-2006 07:30 AM

quote: Carl Martin
...only if the printing of the master positive to internegative was done continuously, i.e. improperly, yes?

Yes. Step printing the master-positive to duplicate negative stage would result in having the opaque framelines from the pin-registered step printer aperture.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.