|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-16-2006 06:31 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
1) Write a letter to Technicolor about the feasibility of 70mm dye transfer. Do you value the pictorial quality of the colours rendered with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the quality of the pure blacks produced with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the archival quality and the stability of the colours with dye transfer printing?
I'm pretty sure they'd tell you the feasibility was nil. A few years ago they tried to bring it back for 35mm, but even that never got beyond a small-scale pilot plant, and only a few films were printed this way. Dye transfer printing has only ever been used on 35mm stock, though 16mm, 8mm and Super-8 prints have been produced this way, in multiple on 35mm stock. To do it with 70mm everything mechanical would have to be designed and built from scratch. How much would that cost? How many 70mm prints would be required? How much use would the equipment get? I suppose it could be built to be convertable for 35 or 70mm, but that would mean loss of production during the time it was set up for 70mm, and again while it was returned to 35mm. How much would each 70mm print cost, prroduced this way.
I can think of a couple of advantages that 70mm would have over 35mm for dye transfer printing: firstly there would be no need for the photographically-printed silver sound track, as there is with 35mm, and secondly, the print would be blown up less on the screen, so the reduced sharpness of the dye transfer print, compared to a chromogenic one would be less noticable.
I think it's a total non-starter for the small number of 70mm prints which would be needed. Using the best quality Eastmancolor, or similar, chromogenic print stock would be the only sensible way to make such prints. Such stocks have improved greatly in the last 50 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-17-2006 05:51 AM
quote: Stephen Furley
I'm pretty sure they'd tell you the feasibility was nil. A few years ago they tried to bring it back for 35mm, but even that never got beyond a small-scale pilot plant, and only a few films were printed this way. Dye transfer printing has only ever been used on 35mm stock, though 16mm, 8mm and Super-8 prints have been produced this way, in multiple on 35mm stock. To do it with 70mm everything mechanical would have to be designed and built from scratch. How much would that cost? How many 70mm prints would be required? How much use would the equipment get? I suppose it could be built to be convertable for 35 or 70mm, but that would mean loss of production during the time it was set up for 70mm, and again while it was returned to 35mm. How much would each 70mm print cost, prroduced this way.
This is very interesting Stephen. I did not know the 16mm, 8mm and Super 8mm had been produced as multiple on 35mm stock. Yes, most certainly they would not go through the cost of designing new equipment for 70mm gauge, unless they got exclusivity on the printing of the 70mm prints and the number of cinemas and films produced every year was enough to make it a feasible business. Once again, if there isn’t a plan of action for a minimum of, let’s say 5 years, and a minimum of a number of films per year, no one is going to be interested in doing anything, and this includes the exhibitors, the distributors, the studios, the hardware producers, etc. Maybe if there was a serious compromise, Technicolor might be interested. I do not know, just out of curiosity it would be interesting to know the opinion of their technicians it terms of feasibility and advantages.
quote: Stephen Furley
I can think of a couple of advantages that 70mm would have over 35mm for dye transfer printing: firstly there would be no need for the photographically-printed silver sound track, as there is with 35mm, and secondly, the print would be blown up less on the screen, so the reduced sharpness of the dye transfer print, compared to a chromogenic one would be less noticable.
Certainly the alignment of the colour separations should be perfect. When they showed the first reel of the dye transfer print of The Thin Red Line and the NFT in London, everybody was marvelled and the quality of the colours and the perfect blacks. Can you get that with positive printing?
quote: Stephen Furley
I think it's a total non-starter for the small number of 70mm prints which would be needed. Using the best quality Eastmancolor, or similar, chromogenic print stock would be the only sensible way to make such prints. Such stocks have improved greatly in the last 50 years.
How long do chromogenic prints last without losing colour? Also, please, how do you think best quality positive printing prints compare to the last generation of dye transfer Technicolor prints in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness and quality of blacks?
quote: Steve Guttag
Having dealt with a fair number of the recent IB Tech prints that came out in the 90s...I can say it isn't always a great thing. There were more problem prints than good ones...weird little red flecks that would appear and such. To my eyes it just wasn't worth all of the fuss as compared to say a vision premier grade of print stock. 70mm on its own will command more than its share of the movie going public. Once a film goes through the whole printing process, 70mm has a substantial benefit over the 35mm process.
Steve, one of the reasons I was mentioning the dye transfer process was for archival purposes. Detractors of film say colour fades with time and exposure to light. I was thinking that dye transfer printing could preserve the colour integrity for many years. Nowadays many film institutions complain of the lack of prints or the fact that many have lost their colour. Certainly any printing system should be flawless. Again, I do not think it would harm to ask the technicians at Technicolor. I do not recall seeing any amazing chromogenic print recently apart from Amelie some years ago, whereas the very old print of How the West Was Won they show in Bradford still keeps its amazing colours.
Of course, if this becomes more of a hindrance than a benefit for 70mm to come back, I am the first one for dropping the idea. But, as I said, and out of curiosity, I would be interested to find out from Technicolor technicians what they think of the idea. Also, please, how do you think best quality positive printing prints compare to the last generation of dye transfer Technicolor prints in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness and quality of blacks (apart from the problems you mention with the bad prints)?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-17-2006 10:55 AM
quote: Larry Myers
Yes quality vary greatly from print to print. Transfer or no transfer. Until people stop thinking these 35mm prints come from Heaven, there is no real good way to present the case for 70mm.
35mm print quality is only going vary widely if a bunch of the people at the print lab fell asleep on the job. Typically, the quality levels on sharpness, color, grain or lack thereof, is defined during the movie's production.
Lots of movies just run-and-gun a lot of shots guerilla style and deliberatly do things to grunge up the look of a film. There's little thought of doing that on 35mm. It's simply the standard film gauge to use and each film production will do whatever they feel to it to make it look its best or worst.
OTOH, if 65mm is deliberately chosen a movie production will choose it to shoot the sharpest and most brilliantly colorful motion picture imagery possible.
quote: Larry Myers
As far as I am concerned, each 35mm print should be measured for resolution and it should meet a standard. A film handler should be able to reject a print because of poor resolution. In order to reject a print, you got to know what resolution is.
Are you familiar with the logistics of distruting a print inventory for a major release? Are you aware that studios will, at times, keep making changes to a movie right up until during the week it is released? I'm sure many folks in this forum have at least a couple experiences of receiving prints that were still damp. In such an environment where revisions are made up until the last minute, there would not be time for the lab to take every single print in a 3000+ print inventory and inspect them by hand for "minimum resolution."
By contrast, a limited run of 70mm prints would get more attention in the area of quality control.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-17-2006 01:34 PM
quote: Larry Myers
The figures are a standard and you can read all about it in the SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering ISBN 0-471-81880-1.
The SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering was edited by Woodlief Thomas Jr., my first supervisor at Kodak! He sometimes called on me to help in the editing process. ![[Cool]](cool.gif) Many of the chapters were written by Kodak scientists and engineers. Nice to know that the DC folks are finally learning from us film people over 30 years later! ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Film technology has certainly continued to advance since that book was first published in 1973.
Kodak published many technical papers on evaluation of image sharpness over the years. Generally, the simplistic method of looking at resolution targets has long been replaced by analysis using cascaded modulation transfer function (MTF), weighted by viewing distance and normal human visual acuity data. Key Kodak researchers in this area included C.N.(Kelly) Nelson, George C.Higgins, Daan M. Zwick, John C. Norris, Ed M. Crane, Bob Lamberts, etc. (I've had the privilege of being mentored by a few of them).
As far as the sharpness that finally ends up on a typical theatre screen, most can easily see the difference between prints made from a 2K and a 4K digital intermediate, so the sharpness of the printing/projection "system" is certainly more than good enough to maintain that differential. And most of the "films" that used 24P HD cameras fall woefully short of their 35mm film counterparts on the screen, especially visible in the lack of image detail on long shots.
As has often been stated before, sharpness loss in contact printing is due mostly to slippage of the original film relative to the raw stock as the film goes past the printing aperture. Maintaining the proper film perforation pitch relationship is the most important factor in minimizing printer slippage, NOT the printing speed. Release printing is always done by printing a short pitch (BH-1866 perfs) printing negative to a long pitch (KS-1870 perfs) print film, so even the highest speed release printing has minimal slippage.
There is a reason that the SMPTE Projector Alignment films have resolution targets that go out to at least 80 line pairs per millimeter --- because film projection should strive to be good enough to show all the information that is on the film frame. And for 70mm 5-perf, that frame is 48.56 x 22.10 millimeters in size. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
[ 02-17-2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 02-17-2006 03:45 PM
Ben Wales said earlier:
quote: Ben Wales
Ramon/Brian: Is it worth while for us to compose a list of 70mm equipped Cinemas in the UK as a starter?.
I am working on a list of places I know or visted that can still screen 70mm.
Great idea - sounds like you've already done so by now. There's also info on other 70mm venues worldwide on the web. Hard figures are the key for the economic side of the equation.
quote: Ben Wales
Perhaps some kind of 70mm Partnership programme with a Cinema and Technical Standards Body could ensure with site inspections at 70mm Cinemas could be devised?.
Brilliant idea - the key word is "partnership". Also ties in with Ramon's excellent ideas such as writing to industry Guilds and setting out Standards (of which there are several for 5-70, e.g. SMPTE Standards).
Re. letter to Technicolor, I could bring a draft to Bradford and we could agree a final version there. The task initially must be to establish technical feasibility from their end.
Certainly, they may not be able to make the required matrices - ever. Or, it may well be true that it is financially impossible.
But the only way to find out is to ask them. The other important thing I think is to initially omit the financial aspect. We can all argue that it's too expensive to do anything (try living in Ireland!). In fact, it's the return that matters. There's no problem investing STG£3 million in plant, if say the return will be STG£10 million over a period (just using these figures as a totally simplistic example).
To accurately quantify the return, many ideas can be looked at, including, can runs be made much longer for films released in this new format? Can an acceptable premium be placed on the ticket prices? There are whole areas outside the purely technical which will require detailed examination.
And don't forget the possibility that a 65mm shoot could be released both in 5-70 and IMAX. This is a potentially interesting idea, in that there could be a wider release platform available. That is worth studying properly.
I think the whole objective here should be to push forward and investigate every conceivable idea in this area. Creativity and passion can bring forth amazing surprises and breakthroughs, and everyone can get on this train. Already there have been fantastic contributions to this thread.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-18-2006 04:22 AM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
This is very interesting Stephen. I did not know the 16mm, 8mm and Super 8mm had been produced as multiple on 35mm stock.
16mm dye transfer was very common at one time, initially just one up, down the centre of a 35mm strip, with standard 35mm perforations which were used to register the film on a standard pin belt. Later the 16mm prints were made two up on specially perforated film. 8mm was much less common, I've got one example. Super-8 was only three up on 35mm stock, I believe that this was because larger perforations were needed at the edges of the stip for registration during printing.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Yes, most certainly they would not go through the cost of designing new equipment for 70mm gauge, unless they got exclusivity on the printing of the 70mm prints and the number of cinemas and films produced every year was enough to make it a feasible business. Once again, if there isn’t a plan of action for a minimum of, let’s say 5 years, and a minimum of a number of films per year, no one is going to be interested in doing anything, and this includes the exhibitors, the distributors, the studios, the hardware producers, etc. Maybe if there was a serious compromise, Technicolor might be interested. I do not know, just out of curiosity it would be interesting to know the opinion of their technicians it terms of feasibility and advantages.
I think you're correct here. If you were to offer Technicolor a proposal that was worth their while, then they would be interested. The problem is the scale of the operation which would be necessary to make it worthwhile. Technicolor is in the business of large-scale bulk printing. They would need a large volume of work to make it worthwhile. They would also want a constant volume of such work, not large order one week, and then nothing else for months. If the demand for a service varies considerably then either expensive equipmen sits unused, or customers are unhappy as they are turned away because there is not the capacity to do the work at busy times.
If you were to be able to give Technicolor a guarantee of, say, one feature per week, with several hundred 70mm prints of each, for maybe a ten year period, then there might be a chance that they would be interested, but this is orders of magnitude greater than anything that is likely to happen with 70mm in the foreseeable future. Print runs in single figures, of occasional films, at irregular intervals is about the most that can be hoped for at the moment.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Certainly the alignment of the colour separations should be perfect. When they showed the first reel of the dye transfer print of The Thin Red Line and the NFT in London, everybody was marvelled and the quality of the colours and the perfect blacks. Can you get that with positive printing?
I was also at that show at the NFT. That reel that they showed did look very good; I seem to remember that they said that it was the only print that was produced; it must have been very expensive. This print was made by Technicolor to show how good the process could look, they obviously took great gare to get the best possible results with it. It certainly looked a lot sharper than the old Technicolor prints did. As others have said, the quality of the new Technicolor prints was varyable, and did not always live up to this standard.
Look at what happened soon after this print was made, I think even before the show at the NFT; Technicor decided not to progress with dye-transfer printing, and the equipment was dismantled. If Technicolor were not able to make a commercial success of the process with 35mm, what chance would there be with the vastly smaller volumes of 70mm?
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
How long do chromogenic prints last without losing colour? Also, please, how do you think best quality positive printing prints compare to the last generation of dye transfer Technicolor prints in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness and quality of blacks?
How long is a piece of string? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) It can vary considerably. Storage conditions can make a big difference, and prints from some labs seem to last much longer than others. Prnts by Rank from the 1960s seem particurly prone to fading; surviving prints of 'Look at Life' were badly faded long ago. Look for a thread entitled 'What are the sound formats on 16mm film?' on this forum, go to the second page, and look at some pictures which I posted of film samples. Compare the ones from 'Moscow to Peking' and 'Electrostatic copying'. There's a vast diffrence between them. The 'Electrostatic copying' film would have been about 25=30 years old at that time. We do know that chromogenic print stocks have improved greatly with regard to fading.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Of course, if this becomes more of a hindrance than a benefit for 70mm to come back, I am the first one for dropping the idea. But, as I said, and out of curiosity, I would be interested to find out from Technicolor technicians what they think of the idea. Also, please, how do you think best quality positive printing prints compare to the last generation of dye transfer Technicolor prints in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness and quality of blacks (apart from the problems you mention with the bad prints)?
It simply isn't going to happen, whereas chromogenic 70mm prints could. The equipment exists, though used mainly for IMAX at the moment, the film stocks are available. An order could be placed with a lab for a run of 70mm prints today, and could be dilivered quite quickly. If you want a colour 70mm print then it has to be a chromogenic one. Release prints are not acchival elements, they don't have to last forever , and well processes prints on modern stock, stored under good conditions shoud be good for several decades. Damage to the print from bad handling is more of a problem than fading.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-18-2006 08:41 AM
quote: Brian Guckian
Great idea - sounds like you've already done so by now. There's also info on other 70mm venues worldwide on the web. Hard figures are the key for the economic side of the equation.
I could do some research in the Spanish speaking market (Spanish being my second language).
When I went to India several years ago I was fascinated by the huge amount of big 70mm theatres they had there, and the 70mm tag was profusely used in India. I have got a book on cinemas of India, which shows the amazing theatres they had there (some still survive). As you probably know, Indian audiences won’t have any Bollywood film unless is in widescreen!!! This reminds me that I saw an amazing print of Lagaan (35mm anamorphic) at the NFT. In India they used to blow-up a lot, as they did in Spain.
quote: Brian Guckian
Brilliant idea - the key word is "partnership". Also ties in with Ramon's excellent ideas such as writing to industry Guilds and setting out Standards (of which there are several for 5-70, e.g. SMPTE Standards).
Yes, this should be tied up as much as possible with marketing the venue, the system and the product. Catchy names always help!!!
quote: Brian Guckian
Re. letter to Technicolor, I could bring a draft to Bradford and we could agree a final version there. The task initially must be to establish technical feasibility from their end.
Certainly, they may not be able to make the required matrices - ever. Or, it may well be true that it is financially impossible.
Dye transfer Technicolor, when properly done, is very cinematic. It stretches out even more the difference between digital projection and film projection, because of the “physicality” of the dyes. Also, many people still relate Technicolor to very good things in cinema (remember those gorgeous musicals at MGM?)
quote: Brian Guckian
To accurately quantify the return, many ideas can be looked at, including, can runs be made much longer for films released in this new format? Can an acceptable premium be placed on the ticket prices? There are whole areas outside the purely technical which will require detailed examination.
I do not know how we can prove that prints may run longer. On one hand you have the evidence that audience’s routines have changed nowadays, and films do not last more than 2 months. On the other hand, people go to IMAX theatres to see documentaries on subjects they are not interested in just because of the thrill of the images. By finding a venue which mixes traditional commercial cinema with special venue kind of presentation one could hope that runs would be made much longer. I do not believe in the premium side. At £10 per ticket in central London, people already think it is too expensive. In Barcelona is nearly half this price and people also think it is expensive. They always come up with the sentence “for this price I get two DVDs”. I think it is much better to keep the same price and use all the available sits in the auditorium. Also, exhibitors could sell it as “get premium quality for the same price”. Think also that in big cities some people may make the effort to travel to go to the premium cinema and hence spending extra on transport. It is about getting people back to cinemas and I do not believe an increase in the tickets will get them back. Some of the old ideas of 70mm should come back. For instance using curtains and closing them after the ads, then slowly fading lights as the music starts to play (I would not play long introductory music as in the past, though, since TV generations cannot wait for that long! But a bit of introductory music whilst the lights dime and the curtains open creates a sense of expectation.)
I also think that cinemas running the premium format should have an exclusivity on at least 1 week in showing the film Some cinemas in central London still have exclusivity for some films, and there is nothing very special about their presentation at the moment. Studios may argue that this could lead to piracy, although I do not think that a 70mm print projected on a big curved screen with the soundtrack stored in a hard drive is going to be easy to pirate, is it?
quote: Brian Guckian
Re. letter to Technicolor, I could bring a draft to Bradford and we could agree a final version there
OK Brian.
quote: Brian Guckian
And don't forget the possibility that a 65mm shoot could be released both in 5-70 and IMAX. This is a potentially interesting idea, in that there could be a wider release platform available. That is worth studying properly.
True Brian, but you have to be careful here. For many years I have been a crusader against pan and scan versions on TV and video releases. As you will probably agree, you cannot compromise the frame, especially when 5/70 is going to make use of the wide picture to impress audiences. Therefore IMAX should have to frame top and bottom to show the full wide image. I do not believe in reframing pictures for different venues, it is artistically unacceptable. I saw Apollo XIII reframed for IMAX and it looked dreadful, I left in the middle of the screening with eye pain and a headache!
quote: Brian Guckian
I think the whole objective here should be to push forward and investigate every conceivable idea in this area. Creativity and passion can bring forth amazing surprises and breakthroughs, and everyone can get on this train. Already there have been fantastic contributions to this thread.
Your optimism is fantastic Brian, and so contagious! I hope Mr Thomas Hauerslev will come with ideas as well, he has done a lot for 70mm and has got a lot of contacts. Mr Pytlak is also essential and I hope he will come up with all the numbers in terms of film resolution, his article in the splendour of 70mm is very inspiring indeed. I know the president of the directors of photography in Spain, who is a Catalan like myself and I am sure he will know many people in the cinematographers world.
quote: Stephen Furley
Super-8 was only three up on 35mm stock, I believe that this was because larger perforations were needed at the edges of the stip for registration during printing.
I saw a vintage Super 8 print in dye transfer of El Cid recently, projected on a big screen, together with other examples of Super 8, and that print is the one which looked better. The colours were all there.
quote: Stephen Furley
If you were to be able to give Technicolor a guarantee of, say, one feature per week, with several hundred 70mm prints of each, for maybe a ten year period, then there might be a chance that they would be interested
Certainly the scale of work would have to be important, not only for Technicolor, but also for cinemas. In that sense, the compromise of creating a product for a minimum number of years and a minimum number of films is important. If this proved to be a successful venture, more cinema exhibitors would join into this type of exhibition. Obviously, not all films are suited for this format though, and care should be taken also in the pre-production phase when deciding which films go that way. Imagine that a film-stock company like Kodak gave some incentives to shot some films in 65mm, they would like to make sure that the film using 65mm was going to show all the benefits of the negative gauge.
We all know the problems of conversion of analog into digital and again digital to analog. I think it would make sense to keep as much film as possible within the analog domain, of course not the sequences with digital effects. I do not know if this would go down well with post-production working habits nowadays, but it seems logical to keep film in the analogic domain as much as possible to preserve its look.
quote: Stephen Furley
I was also at that show at the NFT. That reel that they showed did look very good; I seem to remember that they said that it was the only print that was produced; it must have been very expensive. This print was made by Technicolor to show how good the process could look, they obviously took great gare to get the best possible results with it. It certainly looked a lot sharper than the old Technicolor prints did. As others have said, the quality of the new Technicolor prints was varyable, and did not always live up to this standard.
Yes, it was the only print. Apparently due to release compromises they were no able to have them ready in time, nevertheless Terrence Malick wanted to have a dye transfer print. I think their comeback to dye transfer was not marketed at all, I do not recall reading any article about it here in the UK. No one was probably interested in giving costumers more quality, or maybe they thought people do not like Technicolor dye transfer, although the audiences who came to those dye transfer lectures at the NFT and the speakers did value it very much and regretted its passing.
quote: Stephen Furley
Release prints are not acchival elements, they don't have to last forever
I beg to differ here Stephen. If you want to see a 70mm of Around the World in 80 days (one of the nicest examples of Todd-AO) you can’t. It has disappeared, as simple as that, and we are not likely to ever see it again. Warner do not want to release a new print (too expensive they say) and so the only ones left are the pink ones. This is very sad, I would like to see it again in 70mm with Victor Young’s gorgeous score in six mag track. However, the dye transfer reduction prints still keep their colour.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-19-2006 06:09 AM
quote:
I beg to differ here Stephen. If you want to see a 70mm of Around the World in 80 days (one of the nicest examples of Todd-AO) you can’t. It has disappeared, as simple as that, and we are not likely to ever see it again. Warner do not want to release a new print (too expensive they say) and so the only ones left are the pink ones. This is very sad, I would like to see it again in 70mm with Victor Young’s gorgeous score in six mag track. However, the dye transfer reduction prints still keep their colour.
Sorry, but I must beg to differ with you. A release print is not an archival element, or, to put it another way, something which is not replacable should not be sent to cinemas and run through projectors. All sorts of things could happen to a release print. It could be damaged by bad handling, or by an equipment failure; it could be destroyed in a fire or flood at a cinema; it could be lost or stolen in transit, if nitrate or triacetate the base itself could degrade, if nitrate it would be just about unusable for exhibition anyway as there would be almost no cinemas that could still show it, or it could fade. There are many reasons why you must expect to have to replace a print from time to time. Of course, with the exception of the fading, all of these issues will apply equally to any type of print, silver, chromogenic or dye transfer. In the case of the fading, dye transfer traditionally had a much better performance than chromogenic materials. Dye transfer prints are not totally immune to fading, I have a few frames which spent several years on display with a fluorescent lamp behind them, and they have faded. In this case it is the magenta dye which has faded most, as often happens with printing inks on paper, and the image has turned green. Several years exposure to fluorescent light is not a situation that a film print would normally be exposed to, but it does show that dye transfer is not totally stable; it is just much more so than traditional chromogenic materials.
I've found how to copy the image links from my previous post:
The first sample is older than the second, but only by a few years.
We know that modern chromogenic print stocks are considerably better than the old ones. Given that the second sample shown above is on old type stock, and was at least 25 years old at the time, I would say that a print made today on modern stock, if looked after should last at least 40-50 years without noticable fading, possibly longer than that.
I really do feel that this is 'long enough' for a print. What is important is that the true archival elements are preserved in good condition, so that a new print, or negative, or digital transfer or whatever is required can be made when required. If this is done, the cost of a few new 70mm prints every few decades is not that great. What is expensive is when the elements have beed allowed to deteriorate to the extent that a major restoration, if that is indeed possible, rather than simple preservation is required. OK, it's Vista, not 65mm, but 'Vertigo' would be a good example. 80 days looks like being another. In many cases the owners of films don't even seem to know what elements they have in their vaults, nor what condition they are in. This is simpy bad asset management. In the past there was little incentive to look after most old films; they were not perceived as having any great commercial value. Once they had finished their cinema release the odd black and white print for television, in the case of British television on two, and later three channels, was all that might be needed, and given the quality of television, and telecine equipment at that time, nobody would notice if the quality wasn't very good.
Today things have changed; video, many more broadcast channels, several showing only feature films, Laserdisc and, most importantly, DVD have created a vastly greater market for old films, and the quality of the transfers being made has improved greatly. What we do need to ensure is that the elements being preserved are good enough not just for DVDs, but for future digital systems, and for 70mm prints of course.
A release print is not an archival element, and if you find yourself in a situation where that's all you have left, then you're in trouble, because it's not really suitable for duplicatig from, it was never intended for that purpose.
Mention was made at the NFT show of the value of the surviving Technicolor 'reference reels' when reprinting or restoring a film. Of course, if you're going to make new prints then you need to know how they're supposed to look. On more recent films, such reels do not exist of course, and so other means are necessary. This is certainly a place for digital technology. Given properly cillibrated scanning and display equipment an accurate record of the original colours can be preserved for reference purposes when new prints are made.
As to whether Chromogenic print stocks can have the depth of blacks, and intensity of colour that dye transfer ones can, I would say that with the new stocks they can look very similar, if that is the look that is wanted. I ran 'Charlie and the Choclate Factory' yesterday morning, and it struck me that the 'look' of parts of that film were very like some of the old Technicolor prints. Of course, Technicolor doesn't have to look like that; take a look at 'The Great Mr. Handel' sometime for a film that doesn't. I saw an original nitrate dye transfer print of it many years ago. By the way, the BFIs new 35mm print of this film made some years ago was quite badly scratched very soon after it was made; exhibiting prints always carries risk.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-19-2006 07:12 AM
Brian, you asked also for the negative aspects. I have given you some, so far with solution. The next ones come without solution.
I think that the art of photography on film (at least in the past) was related to printing the negative onto film, the whole process negative/positive was part of the art, and the feeling of film was preserved. This has gone now when chemically captured images get into the digital domain. I will not deny the advantages that digital postproduction gives. However, I must regret the loss in terms of the film texture and also the fact that with digital it is not so much about capturing reality through film but being able to edit that image afterwards.
Last year at the Widescreen Weekend we were given a very illustrative DVD produced by Kodak where they give accurate information about the benefits of film capture as opposite to digital capture. They did not, however, mentioned any benefits regarding film exhibition as opposed to digital exhibition. They know a lot about the business and they probably reckon that film has lost the battle in terms of exhibition because its costs and because all post production is done nowadays digitally. Once images have entered the digital domain they may remain there as well. Since the idea is to remain in the digital domain, as soon as they can get rid of the analog capture of images the best for them.
As I said, I like very much film-captured images printed onto film, without digital artefacts. But how many of us like it? Not enough, and this is the reason it will not succeed. It is a dying art, what I regret is the happiness with which some people celebrate the dying of this art.
I hope you all prove me wrong, but if the idea is to work digitally with images at any point of the process (like post-production), this will lead eventually to a complete digital process in a not long future.
It irritates me even more that institutions like the NFT are so happy that they are able to show digitally films that were never meant to enter the digital domain. One can argue that a film post-produced digitally may as well remain digital for exhibition, but films like Casablanca, Singing in the Rain, or Gone With The Wind were never meant to touch the digital domain. If people like the British Film Institution or the other Film Institutions in the world have not got the money or do not care about preserving the “film feel” what are just few of us going to do. The NFT uses two auditoriums unfit to show films, NFT2 and NFT3 are atrocious and in NFT1 and NFT3 the screen is so low that I always have to put a jumper on my seat to see the screen (and I am not short). Also in NFT1 70mm presentations are smaller than scope presentations!!! So, what are we going to do? We stand very little chance.
It also upsets me how the producers of hardware lie. They say that digital 3-D can only be shown in cinemas. This is so false! You just need to go to any 3-D forum to find out that digital 3-D is obviously easier to reproduce at home than dual 35mm polarised 3-D. I saw all the films shown in the recent 3-D season at the NFT shown in interlocked polarised and the films looked astonishing. They did not care to promote stereoscopic cinema in the past because of the extra cost of having another projectionist and the extra cost of an extra print and this is the reason it disappeared in the 50s. Single strip processes in the 80s (polarised) looked good as well, but the studios just did not put any interest in it. And now they are trying to come back again with 3-D, for how long? Anyway, as I said, no serious film director is going to agree shooting a film flat to have it “redecorated” with fake 3-D gimmicks.
It is very sad that film is dying such a mediocre death. I wished film had died in full 65mm/70mm form, at its best.
As I said, once you create a digital intermediate you might as well remain in the domain, and they will try and capture images digitally as well. The resolution is not yet there but there is no denial they will get there.
The majority of cinemas in London are unfit to show films, there are plenty of bad conversions. I very rarely go to the pictures nowadays since it is a very sad affair, with small screens, poor presentation, load of munching, crunching, talking, mobile phones, people getting in and out when the film is shown, …
As I said, I hope you prove me wrong.
This is very depressing, sorry. Yesterday I got through different forums on film-tech and I noticed how many projectionist are so enthusiastic about 2k projection and the digital projectors.
I would like to add also that although digital imaging has improved a lot and many things would not be possible without it, I can still tell when something has been added digitally, like in Gladiator. Many filmakers have abused the digital effects ad nauseam, like our friend George Lucas who has got enough lack of taste as to make millions out of rubish like The Phantom Menace.
Anyway, I still keep the positive approach though!
[ 02-19-2006, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic