|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Old color films never fade away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 06-24-2003 11:34 PM
Oh my...
Color negative not being a problem?
While Marty Scorsese and others in the late 1970s and early '80s made it known that we would like our Eastman color prints to last longer, the problem
of Onegs was understood, although the majority of the studios did little or nothing about it at that time.
A few very hard facts.
Kodak did do something about it, and beginning around 1980, offered a better print stock for mils more per foot. The industry, with few exceptions didn't jump at the chance to extend the life of prints because they knew that the prints would (generally) wear out before they would fade out. The major exception here are studio and private reference prints, which we would like to have around for a long time.
Eastman color negative stocks, for all the complaints that that have been leveled against them are extraordinary taking and reproducing mechanisms. Those of you who have visited labs will know what I mean. Their ability to withstand abuse is unheralded, but the reason why many film survive today. Eastman Kodak continues to make positive changes in the stocks, down to the angles of the corners of perfs to make stocks better and better. I've examined half century old color negs that are amazing.
As an example, the Oneg of Rear Window, shot in 1953 on a very early incarnation of 5248 had slight overall fade and additional damage to the yellow layer of reel 5B, but had survived being run OVER 400 TIMES, with replacement sections cut in over the years. When we took over this neg in 1998 the perfs on one side were virtually gone and it could only be printed one way, but it ran!
The separation masters were also the earliest incarnation on Eastman 5216 gave us decent results and had only been around for a few years at that time.
Some specifics regarding comments in this thread.
Freddie Young photographed Lawrence to be "fully exposed" when possible, and this absolutely did help the image quality through the years, even after 150 or so runs on the Oneg with splices comiing apart while runnng at 150 feet/minute. I seem to recall doing an interview an using the term "over-exposed." Freddie caught it and made the correction. Sometimes in doing interviews we get into situations in which we have to look at the interviewer as an eight year old and work with our terms. Occasionaly they come out inaccurately.
In fully exposing a negative, you have full color saturation and deep shadows with detail. One way to drive a laboratory crazy is to hold the full exposures made by the DP, even when used for day for night. If a day for night scene is printed down (dark) in an answer print and that same timing is used for the interpositive, the IP will be extremely heavy.
Most labs would like to run their prints as one-lites, but this isn't the best for the image on screen. During the color timing of a restored film, we generally go to interpositive with full exposures, even in day for nite.
This creates a properly exposed IP and a resultant fully exposed dupe, rather than a thin printing neg. Giving your print a heavier exposure to create night effects gives a much more detailed image with full highlights and shadows, as opposed to "dark."
Because LoA was fully exposed (not over-exposed) it had heavier dye layers, which helped to preserve its color balance, especially the yellow layer.
(John P. is welcome to jump in any time here and lend a hand)
Spartacus was derived totally from 8 perf separation masters. These are positive elements, not negatives, and not to be confused with three-strip Technicolor hegatives (or their preservation elements, which are not separations, but rather fine grain black and white masters), with which they have little in common. Eastman sep masters are derived as opposed to photographed. While in most cases, we had all three records, for some shots only two were extant. All were severly shrunken, and the film was recomposited on an optical printer virtually a shot at a time.
A few additional factoids on Eastman color.
Although we do find fade in later negative elements, especially those which may have been shot thin in the '70s, the fade problem (generally) ended some time in 1961 with the changeover from the final incarnation of Eastman 5248 to 5250 on which Lawrence was shot. By 1964 and 5251, things were even better for the dye layers.
Here is the strange thing.
Whether because of better processing or changes in either the stock or the chemistry between 1952-3 and 1960, we do see a major change in the fade characteristics of what one might presume is the same negative stock -- 5248.
The very earliest years have the most resiliant dye layers.
Hit late 1954 or early 1955 and things get worse, and continue all the way through 1960. Generally, the later the production, the worse the dye fading characteristics. For example, there is very little left of John Wayne's 1960 Alamo.
The majority of Eatman color films at least until 1961 have dye fade problems. From then on it seems to be almost a case by case basis, with a great deal of emphasis on the way a film was shot.
As to the reality of separation masters...
In many cases, they were not made.
In many cases they were made badly.
In many cases the wrong filters were used.
And then the studio would pay tbe lab bill and place them in storage.
Trying to use early sep masters, if they were made is a total crap shoot, and not the fault of Kodak, but rather, the labs who did virtually no inspection or testing of these elements. Testing only really began in the early 1990s.
But Onegs not having fading problems? Hogwash!
Hope this is helpful.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 06-27-2003 12:41 PM
Robert Harris wrote:
quote:
In fully exposing a negative, you have full color saturation and deep shadows with detail. One way to drive a laboratory crazy is to hold the full exposures made by the DP, even when used for day for night. If a day for night scene is printed down (dark) in an answer print and that same timing is used for the interpositive, the IP will be extremely heavy.
Most labs would like to run their prints as one-lites, but this isn't the best for the image on screen. During the color timing of a restored film, we generally go to interpositive with full exposures, even in day for nite.
This creates a properly exposed IP and a resultant fully exposed dupe, rather than a thin printing neg. Giving your print a heavier exposure to create night effects gives a much more detailed image with full highlights and shadows, as opposed to "dark."
Because LoA was fully exposed (not over-exposed) it had heavier dye layers, which helped to preserve its color balance, especially the yellow layer.
(John P. is welcome to jump in any time here and lend a hand)
Generally, good film duplicating practice places all significant scene information on the "straight line portion" of the duplicating film's sensitometric curve. The original (and still valid) procedure for making interpositives, duplicate negatives, and separation positives was detailed in the Kodak paper "Techniques in Color Duplication" by Walter Kisner and Robert Gale, published in the December 1960 SMPTE Journal (Volume 69, pages 874-881).
My Laboratory Aim Density method is based on the techniques outlined by Gale and Kisner, but simplifies the control method by using a single density aim point (Laboratory Aim Density - LAD) and determining scene-to-scene correction using an electronic color analyzer carefully calibrated to correlate with the final prints. My paper "Simplified Motion-Picture Laboratory Control Method for Improved Color Duplication" was published in the October 1976 SMPTE Journal (Volume 85). Here is a link to a simplified guide to using the LAD method with current films:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h61/
Here is the technical data for Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml
And for Kodak Panchromatic Separation Film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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.
|
Home
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
and Phil thinks theres an economic slump...... ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic