Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Who is showing film in 2014 by choice?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Who is showing film in 2014 by choice? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Who is showing film in 2014 by choice?

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-01-2014 12:46 PM

I am confused. The photochemical process goes camera negative -> IP -> multiple INs -> release prints. The IP has timing corrections incorporated into it and the IN may have slight further corrections. Multiple optical track negatives are made as well. A check print is made from each IN for approval. The IP becomes a preservation element can be used for video transfers.

With a DI, does the Arrilaser (or whatever) normally output an IP or an IN?

Logic would dictate outputting to an IP, since only one is needed and since INs can be contact-printed from the IP faster than outputting multiple INs. Is that what is normally done?

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

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

posted 06-01-2014 02:08 PM

Many thanks Bill. Scott - AFAIK, in a typical workflow you'd filmout an IN, the logic being to introduce the lowest possible number of analog duplication steps between camera original and release print. The files produced as the final step in the digital post-production process are the digital equivalent of the fine grain IP.

Filmout machine time is expensive enough that doing dozens of release prints that way is too expensive to be viable, but not so expensive that doing half a dozen INs (as distinct from just one or two IPs) is prohibitive. But of course the number of release prints being needed of any movie from here on in is going to be so small that I can't imagine more than one IN (which typically has a printing life of 200-300 prints) being needed, anyway.

Of course, knowing the challenges in preserving digital data, filming out an IP makes sense for archival preservation, and many higher budgeted productions do this. But it's not generally used for make printing INs from in the original release.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Wood
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 206
From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 06-01-2014 03:32 PM

The practice in the Uk , specifically Deluxe was almost always to film out to negative. As Leo said this , once graded , would have all the efx and grade incorporated the IP should then just contact directly from it. It's important to realise that at this stage , since a contact printer is used, only basic density / timing corrections can be made so all the more reason to get the neg right. Deluxe didn't refer to this new neg as an IN as strictly speaking it was for all intents and purposes a new negative and as far as I can remember was struck on camera negative stock with an ISO of 50 as opposed to intermediate stock ? No one was really using IP as a video transfer master anymore as the DI files had now become the new master for such purposes. I believe on occasion 'show prints' were also struck from the ' new neg' depending on the producers needs for more prestigious screenings . In the UK I think the last movie released using traditional photo chemical IP / IN was theBrad Pitt movie Troy, simply because there wasn't enough time for a laser film out.

| 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.