This is topic Archival Prints in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005826
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-06-2004, 12:43 AM:
What are archival prints? I've run more than a few. They come with very specific instructions...that the heads and tails may not be cut, not run on automated equipment, that the projectionist be present at all times, absolutely NO damage of any kind and if there is, expect to pay a LOT of money. None of the ones I've run had been through a projector before, and looked much better on the screen than the typical new print. Most come from and return to a different address than other prints that come from the studio. What is the normal purpose of them, are they really special prints or what?
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-06-2004, 06:53 AM:
I think your post answers its own question. Keep'em off platters and they are more apt to remain in good shape longer. No, not because platters are inherently bad but because the realities of the real world out there. Especially on a print that is going to visit many theatres. Building & unbuilding over and over with the way many people treat film is a nightmare for any print.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-06-2004, 07:05 AM:
Out of curiousity, what does it cost to make a one-off print (EK print, probably) from an older negative? I know that the mass-produced prints are usually under $.10/foot for lab costs (~$1500 or so for a print), but I assume that one-off prints are significantly more. Assume that the print doesn't need to be re-timed (hence, no need for a new answer print, etc.).
For a recent screening of an archive print of Silent Running, Universal required that we insure the print for $5000. I'm curious if the print actually cost that much to make. It was a beautiful print from Foto-Kem on acetate base 5386. It had handmade Clint Phare cues, so I assume that it was an EK print.
The only strange thing is that they wanted it returned heads-out, which seems odd. I can only guess that it was an attempt to discourage people from running it off of shipping reels.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-06-2004, 07:21 AM:
Any guess why they would choose acetate over polyester? I would think for that kind of special venue print, they would want to avoid the possibility of VS attacking it in the future. Of course tri-acetate survives brakage a lot better....nice clean tears when it is pulled beyond its tinsel strength -- a blessing in the event of a mishap. Where as we know what happens when poly is pulled....it ain't a pretty sight mama.
I bet with the insurance of $5000 on a print that cost, what, $2000 at most, Universal accountants were wishing a 24 wheeler would run over it while in your possession, Scott.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-06-2004, 07:28 AM:
I guess they should be disappointed that I sent it back in perfect condition (save for a light base scratch in part of one reel that was there when I got the print). The odd thing was that the actual print rental cost was cheaper than the usual rental fee for similar titles.
I'm sure that there's a cost to retrieve the neg from the vault, inspect it, make timing corrections (and maybe print test footage) for overall fading that might exist, etc. I still have a hard time believing that it cost $5k to make that print, though. Maybe John P. or someone else familiar with lab procedures can tell us what is actually involved in making such a print.
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-06-2004, 08:45 AM:
Probably the most significant factor in the "value" of an archival print is that many cannot be replaced at any cost.
Dye tranfer prints, older black and white titles created when the print stock had a higher content of silver, and 70mm prints from negs which have not been recently printed can be extremely expensive.
A couple of years ago, someone at Universal had the last viable 70mm print of Spartacus shipped to a theatre for a single day's booking without realizing what was in store.
The "projectionist" ran one machine with the 35 rollers in place and the other with the rollers properly removed, leaving lovely green railroad tracks on every other reel.
Since the neg had last been printed at a facility which has since stopped printing large format, the cost for a single print, once timing is properly set was over one hundred thousand dollars.
This holds true for 35 prints which must be created from negs held in storage and which also be correctly set up and timed. The initial corrected print of a 35 feature can easily hit 15-20 thousand if done properly.
RAH
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-06-2004, 08:52 AM:
One would hope that, given this initial setup expense, the studio would be wise enough to strike a number of prints for the very eventuality of unexpected damage like you described. I presume that subsequent prints would be less expensive if made at the same time.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-06-2004, 12:02 PM:
quote:
I'm sure that there's a cost to retrieve the neg from the vault, inspect it, make timing corrections (and maybe print test footage) for overall fading that might exist, etc. I still have a hard time believing that it cost $5k to make that print, though. Maybe John P. or someone else familiar with lab procedures can tell us what is actually involved in making such a print.
It really varies, depending mainly on what you're making that print from. If a full-scale preservation job has been done by an archive and they have a set of preservation master elements made from whatever original elements they acquired, then it's simply a case of striking a print from the interneg and (if applicable) soundtrack neg. This will be a considerably more expensive than a new release print of a major title would be, simply because of the economies of scale which apply if you're only doing one. I would have a hard time believing that a 8,000 foot (90 mins approx.) b/w print would cost $5k, but for a three-hour long colour print with subtitles that figure would represent a bargain.
If full-scale preservation work has not been done, then an archive is looking at carrying it out as you describe. In this scenario the cost and time involved in arriving at a print can skyrocket. But, as Robert points out, the issue often isn't as simple as that.
quote:
Probably the most significant factor in the "value" of an archival print is that many cannot be replaced at any cost.
Imagine a scenario in which an archive acquires the cut camera neg, various intermediate and sound elements, plus an original release print in reasonable condition. Let's say for argument's sake that it's a 1950s acetate IB print with minimal VS, nowhere near autocatalytic. Given the archive's spending priorities, it decides not to create preservation dupes immediately. Instead, the originals and intermediates go into temperature and humidity-controlled vaults under a 'master status' rule, i.e. they can only come out to be duped. The print, however, is put into circulation.
That print is stored in a cool, dry vault when not in use; it's probably been ultrasonically cleaned and has certainly been carefully examined and minor repairs carried out by an archive technician. So the consequences of writing it off in a projection booth accident really are very serious. If it's the only surviving release print known to be extant, then that film cannot be seen again until archive funds permit a full-scale preservation job and a new print to be made. The bill for that can easily top $50k for a 90-minute black-and-white film.
That having been said, I do not support the 'no platters under any circumstances' rule, for two reasons. Firstly, it discourages archives from building a relationship with the arthouse cinemas they supply to ensure high quality print handling and presentation. Access officers tend to get into the mindset of thinking 'well, just as long as they're not using a platter, everything's fine.' Never mind the fact that their two-projector installation is badly maintained, the running spools are bent and have sharp edges, the projectors piss oil all over the place... just as long as the evil turntables are nowhere in sight, everything's fine. Secondly, a carefully handled print shown from the platter will not receive any more wear and tear than one run on changeovers, IMHO. Though I admit, the risk factor is higher - misthread a single reel and you've only damaged 2,000 feet, but misthread a platter and there goes the whole print.
But there are circumstances where it's not really a problem. I'm thinking about a film festival in a temporary venue which quite simply cannot equip itself for changeovers, and a title of which the archive has more than one reasonably good print. Sometimes the access officers of major archives tend to lose sight of the fact that their institutions preserve films for people to see, and I feel strongly that a screening should only be refused on technical grounds if, after weighing up all the relevant factors - not just whether it's going to be run on a platter or not - there is a significant risk of damaging a rare or unique viewing copy.
Related to which, there was a panel at last year's Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) conference, chaired by Katie Trainor of the Jacob Burns Center in New York (the others were John, Matt Kunau, Chapin Cutler, Anne Morra of MOMA and yours truly), discussing this very question. It provoked what I thought was a very interesting and constructive discussion on the technical presentation of archive prints. The conference organisers did video it, and I hope that the tape will eventually be available to the AMIA membership and beyond.
quote:
A couple of years ago, someone at Universal had the last viable 70mm print of Spartacus shipped to a theatre for a single day's booking without realizing what was in store.
The last viable print of your restoration? There's one in the UK, or at least there was one last summer, when Darren last showed it at City Screen. There were a few tramlines on it and the reel ends were a bit tatty, but it was certainly watchable.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-06-2004, 05:41 PM:
The "archival" prints I've received were all new, unused, some on acetate but most on polyester. We last ran "House of Wax" 3D three years ago with one of these. The color, sharpness and general appearance was incredibly better than previous prints and those were all good prints. The most noticable difference was that it was not as dark. The side by side images seemed to be little less dark so that the overlaid picture was about right. W.B. also provided a small roll to use for set-up.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-06-2004, 07:08 PM:
Leo,
First off...I've yet to see the installation that couldn't put in 2-projectors for festival.
I do support the stance that no "archival print" will be allowed on a platter. If your venue chooses to run these types of prints then have 2-projectors...it really is that simple and quite honestly not THAT costly.
I agree with you that just because one has 2-projectors that does not guarantee the print will be safe. For me, it falls into the "necessary but not sufficient" category when dealing with archival or rare prints. And I mean 2000' reels; not any sort of building up with these prints. They should always have that "new" feel to them.
One of the issues with the platter theatres is the cutting of the heads/tails and how that operation is carried out and how they are returned. There are numerous discussions here on just what is good enough on build ups and tear downs and how heads and tails are to be removed and re-attached. All of those discussions and opinions are moot if there is a 2000-foot (600m) reel clause. There simply is zero cutting of anything.
Now a theatre that has shown itself to damage prints should also be denied films regarless of how many projectors they have pointing at the screen.
Steve
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-07-2004, 05:25 PM:
Timely topic...given these enormous costs - and I know I'm stepping on eggshells when I say this - but is this an area where digital will have a role in the future?
It seems more viable (if not necessarily that cheaper)to project from a digital source ultimately derived from a 2K or 4K master also used for DVD re-release, TV showings etc.
On the other hand, if we want to continue screening film on film, are there ways of reducing these penal costs in terms of materials restoration and handling? Is there a project that could be initiated to deal with this and come up with innovative solutions?
What happens in the projection room of course is a priority for everyone.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-07-2004, 09:36 PM:
I'm not sure how digital would help. My understanding is that it costs upwards of $100-150k to produce a digital master which is suitable for theatrical projection with DLP. That's pretty expensive when compared with the $2-5k (or more, occasionally) per 35mm print that might have to be made once every few years.
Also, I would think that the people who normally attend repertory film screenings are not the kind of people who would have any interest in watching "films" screened using (essentially) a big-screen TV.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-08-2004, 04:22 AM:
If and when things get to the point of being able to make a 4k digital master, and projecting it, for the same or less money than doing the same thing using film, then digital might be able to help. I think most of us are convinced that this ain't going to happen in the immediate short-term, though.
quote:
I do support the stance that no "archival print" will be allowed on a platter. If your venue chooses to run these types of prints then have 2-projectors...it really is that simple and quite honestly not THAT costly.
I agree that in most cases it is technically possible to do. That having been said though, I once did run some festival screenings in a university student union 'cinema' (i.e. a dual-use lecture theatre): the projection box was a broom cupboard that barely fitted the projector, tower and workbench, and getting a second machine in there would have been just impossible without major building work. But a more common scenario is a multiplex which agrees to give a few of its screening slots over to festival screenings or one-off cultural events. Its operators are almost always going to lose money by doing so, and if they are ordered to lose even more money by installing a second projector, they'll probably walk away.
In this scenario I think you need to weigh up the potential risk to a print vs. the cultural benefit of screening an archive title to an audience who might not otherwise have the opportunity of seeing it. Their taxes pay for the public sector moving image archives, too. If I were an archivist in that sitaution I would probably not allow a rare or unique print to be run there (e.g. a '50s IB print). But if we were talking about one that is replaceable, then I would check the venue out and if their film handling and maintenance standards appeared to be high, I'd want to allow the screening. One way of getting round the heads and tails issue might be to ask that the venue leaves them on when making up the print, and douses the picture for 30 seconds or so in between each reel. That's not ideal, but better than vetoing the show, IMHO.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-08-2004, 04:36 AM:
The National Film Theatre recently did a few screenings of 'classic' films on digital. I wasn't able to get to see them, but the promotional material was along the lines of 'It's often very difficult to find good prints of the films we want to show, if they were available in digital form ...'. Of course, there was no mention of who is going to transfer all these old films to digital, nor who is going to pay for it.
Making a *good* digital transfer, especially of an old film, where the available elements may be problematical, is never going to be a trivial matter; it's always going to involve a lot of work, and therefore it's always going to be expensive. Setting aside a few good prints of a film, and keeping them in good condition for festival screenings is a heck of a lot cheaper. Even a few thousand pounds to make a one-off print, is going to be a lot cheaper.
Which old films are worthy of the digital conversion? Who makes that decision, and on what criteria?
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-08-2004, 09:51 AM:
One of the major problems with the distribution of classic films in a digital format is that, unlike what we consider to be "archival" prints, meaning a print which has either survived from the original release, or re-printed from a proper dupe (or original) negative which has been approved by someone involved in the production...
more and more as we lose the original directors, DPs, art directors, etc. and the studios or rights holders tend to be extremely lax in regard to the creation of new dupes without any sort of reference...
these new digital entities would have very little (or no) relevance to the original work as created.
There are already too many video and lab technicians who feel that they are somehow prepared, or are authorities in the re-creation of the original look and feel of a work, without having the slightest idea what they are doing.
I fear that we are going to see many, many more throngs of townspeople rushing through towns with raised torches in broad daylight, and cars driving with their lights on during a sunny noon.
One of the most important aspects of an archival print is authenticity allowing a modern audience to view that same film (properly re-printed) as was viewed half a century ago or more.
RAH
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-08-2004, 10:07 AM:
Oh, but Bob, you know these films can be improved upon! Even exhibitors can do their part. For instance, Loews Cineplex Pipers Alley in Chicago (yes, I am naming names) routinely edits out reel-end fadeouts / fadeins on their platter-builds thus correcting the glaring errors of the filmmakers. And typically 12 frames across ordinary reel breaks. Nothing wrong with picking up the pace a bit!
**ducks**
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-08-2004, 11:59 AM:
Before the days of platters editors used to try and put a fade on the start and end of each reel in order to minimise the consequences of a botched changeover. Nowadays they seem to avoid putting fades at reel ends like the plague, presumably because so many projectionists will simply chop them off rather than risk cutting the film out of rack.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-08-2004, 12:46 PM:
Mr. Harris said :
quote:
This holds true for 35 prints which must be created from negs held in storage and which also be correctly set up and timed. The initial corrected print of a 35 feature can easily hit 15-20 thousand if done properly.
and;
quote:
more and more as we lose the original directors, DPs, art directors, etc. and the studios or rights holders tend to be extremely lax in regard to the creation of new dupes without any sort of reference...
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but is this an area that could be looked at? Is there some way of recording a suitable reference, such that re-printing becomes easier?
I do agree that digital technology superimposes many more layers of variability, whereas with film, many of the parameters are "locked in" so to speak.
The sad thing is that no film should ever have to be re-printed, but that's the story of our lives I guess.
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-08-2004, 02:32 PM:
The re-printing or manufacture of new prints is not a negative attribute if the prints in question are properly produced.
And, no...
there is no way to create a record of what a film should look like with the exception of reference prints, which have been vaulted after approval and saved for future needs.
In reality this only holds true with viable prints in either black and white or dye transfer.
Separation masters do not answer back in any real fashion as they are generally created as a one-lite element and not properly color timed.
This means that for any films printed in Eastman Color only, the only use of a reference print created before LPP stock is continuity, track, printer functions and overall density.
RAH
Posted by Joe Schmidt (Member # 822) on 02-10-2004, 02:53 AM:
As one who has substantial experience with archival prints, my view is that in no way should they be allowed anywhere near a platter system, and I wholeheartedly agree that a competent projectionist, such as all of us in Filmtech are, must be required to be in attendance in the booth at all times.
Many years ago, the famous theatre organist Gaylord Carter whom I had the great privilege to know personally, actually had his own projectionist who travelled with him, along with the print, to the silent screenings all over. This was mandatory, and it was in the contract.
Apart from the fact that prints are expensive, and in some cases irreplaceable at any cost -- as has been pointed out -- when prints are damaged by platters or dummies, even if they can still be run the presentation gets incrementally worse as the damage builds. Suppose, for example, your IB tech print gets sprocket printed on the soundtrack. And when I read what happened to the 70mm Spartacus print I was almost ready to cry.
A properly cared-for print, competently projected, can be run hundreds and even 1000+ times and still be just like new.
There are a number of things I read about in FilmTech that make me very depressed, and that's why I don't visit too often.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-10-2004, 08:53 PM:
AFAIK, all modern color print stocks are now available only on polyester base. Kodak converted all color print production to very stable ESTAR base a few years ago, about the time VISION Color Print Films were introduced.
I have ESTAR base color print samples that have been run up to 70,000 times at theme parks in loop type transport systems.
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-11-2004, 08:02 AM:
I'll add something to John P's comments re: estar...
Finally having access to what we believe is a totally inert base stock, and by this I mean inert in terms of vinegar problems and shrinkage, has changed my personal position on certain archival necessities.
Where in the past, I was a firm believer that every film needed the production of black and white separation masters, the ability to create interpositives on estar stock has created a situation in which films with lower budgets may comfortably get along with multiple (testeda and geographically separated) estar interpositives -- a less expensive solution to a desire of archival "permanence."
My comfort levels with the new Kodak color stocks are so high that I have no problem currently recommending the production of multiple IPs as opposed to sep masters, as long as we know that all elements will be properly archived.
RAH
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-11-2004, 09:48 AM:
I'm curious as to whether separation masters are ever produced on films shot today... and if not, when the practice was stopped.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-11-2004, 11:43 AM:
My comfort levels with the new Kodak color stocks are so high that I have no problem currently recommending the production of multiple IPs as opposed to sep masters
Wow. Can you elaborate a bit on the basis of your confidence given the number of surprises we've had in the past? Perhaps you're right but there was a time when triacetate was held in high regard and then came vinegar and the base has proven in some cases to be less stable than nitrocellulose. How can we be sure that polyester won't fall apart in fifty years, perhaps as the result of some normally found impurity. And accelerated life testing on color dyes goes only so far.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-11-2004, 02:08 PM:
Well, concerns over the long-term stability of polyester apply just as much to seps as to coupler/tripack elements - the base is the same. So the issue boils down to emulsion stability. Given that the most recent original and intermediate emulsions have only been around a few years at most, I guess that all we have to go on are accelerated aging tests and the belief that Kodak et al have identified and addressed the issues which caused the 'pink peril' of the '60s and '70s.
I too, instinctively feel a bit cagey about moving on from the 'tried and tested' separation route. But given that being able to spend £20k for lab work on preserving an industrial promo represents the limit of my experience and Robert is regularly able to deploy multi-million dollar budgets on high-profile feature restorations, I also feel instinctively inclined to defer to his judgement. But a little more information on why his view has changed would, I'm sure, make for very interesting reading.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-11-2004, 08:45 PM:
One advantage I've heard for always making B&W separations is that they must be recombined to produce the duplicate negative used for printing. With color elements, it's sometimes too easy to grab an archival element and recut it, or use it to the point of visible wear or damage. The cost and time to recombine separations make them more likely to stay in the vault and not "wander" or get "repurposed" or worn out.
Certainly Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film 2242 on ESTAR base can be used as part of a comprehensive strategy for long-term storage. The archival community now has clear direction on what "proper storage" is, e.g., SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131, standard IT9.11, and numerous technical papers by Kodak, the RIT Image Permanence Institute, UK Birmingham, and others. Hopefully the days of storing valuable elements in an unconditioned shed under the Hollywood sun or in a damp warehouse are long gone.
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-12-2004, 08:05 AM:
While the obvious "advantage" of seps is that they are a supposedly unique element which must be re-combined to create something useable, this hasn't protected the seps in the real world.
I have seen more sep masters which have been created improrperly via either poor processing or with three records made of a yellow, a cyan and a cyan...
or optical aberrations, or most usually...
the green record used to produced black and white dupe negs and found with multiple scratches and damage.
When produced and accessed by modern studio professionals who actually know what they're doing, seps are fine, but historically this has not been the case in all too many situations.
This isn't even getting into the cases of vault geniuses coming up with three nitrate (or safety) negatives or positives and deciding that they don't need more than one...
RAH
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-12-2004, 08:30 AM:
I guess successive frame seps might be a way of safeguarding against these abuses...
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-12-2004, 08:40 AM:
AFAIK SE seps have only been produced for animated films and a test by Stanley Kubrick.
John can probably give this group pages in regard to processing at the requisite gammas, etc. (for each record) which, unless digital seps can be created to comp back accurately, doesn't bode well for SEs.
RAH
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-12-2004, 09:05 AM:
The technique for optimizing color duplication using B&W separations is detailed in the Kodak paper "Techniques in Color Duplication" by Gale and Kisner, SMPTE Journal, December 1960, Volume 69, pages 874-881. It details laboratory procedures of adjusting the B&W processing gamma and deciding curve placement of the scene information. My "Laboratory Aim Density" (LAD) control method is based on the techniques outlined in this landmark paper.
Unfortunately, Mr. Harris is all too correct in the "horror stories" that sometimes have occurred with B&W separations that were never "proofed" for quality before being put in the vault, or where elements were lost, damaged, or misidentified. Sequential (SE) separations lose the ability to individually optimize the contrast for each record, and the contrast mismatch that might be unnoticed with animation is not easily addressed with live action.
Here is the technical data for each of the films that constitute preservation elements:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2374.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2378.shtml
And the techniques:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h61/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h44/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage1.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml
http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm
Again, B&W separations should be part of a comprehensive preservation strategy, as should properly stored color intermediate film elements, and the original cut negative.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-12-2004, 09:23 AM:
...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.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-12-2004, 09:35 AM:
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.
Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 02-12-2004, 10:08 AM:
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?
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-12-2004, 10:15 AM:
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
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-12-2004, 12:24 PM:
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."
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-12-2004, 01:42 PM:
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.
Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 02-12-2004, 08:34 PM:
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 ...
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-12-2004, 11:42 PM:
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.
Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 02-13-2004, 12:52 AM:
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.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-13-2004, 06:14 PM:
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!
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-16-2004, 10:37 AM:
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
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-16-2004, 12:05 PM:
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?
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-16-2004, 12:16 PM:
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.
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-16-2004, 08:08 PM:
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
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-16-2004, 09:05 PM:
Are 65mm laser recorders even available? I thought most were still CRT recorders.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-17-2004, 07:48 PM:
Is laser really better? What do you make of those CELCO ads that show comparative output from laser and one of their CRT-based units and the latter seems to have better definition?
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-17-2004, 08:51 PM:
Surely it depends on the pixel size of the CRT and the beam width of the laser...
--jhawk
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 02-18-2004, 08:00 AM:
The point here is that with a native format of VVLA, it makes no difference whether the recorded IP is Vista or 65mm.
One still must create the printing neg. The only difference between a 65mm dupe derived from a 65 element and a Vista element would be an extremely slight -- to my eye not noticeable -- difference in contrast as a result of the optical generation from Vista as opposed to 65.
Even this can be made a part of the process by lowering the contrast of the IP in relation to any perceived buildup in the optical, which is nil.
Before creating final dupes, we went through a proper testing process via which a Vista IP was both optically and contact duped to a printing neg.
With the newest incarnations of Eastman interdupes, there was no difference to the naked eye. Might one be measured? My feeling is that if you can't see it on film, it doesn't matter.
We will use densitometer readings to verify what we see over a lightbox to confirm that we are actually seeing something.
Film doesn't lie.
RAH
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-18-2004, 09:01 AM:
It now seems to me that archive prints really are limited circulation, conditional use prints. Something truly archival would rarely leave the vault, and certainly not to be shipped to a theater for any reason.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-18-2004, 09:13 AM:
Here is CELCO's laser vs. CRT comparision. I have no idea what to believe but it's interesting nonetheless.
http://www.celco.com/TechnologyComparison.asp
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-18-2004, 08:53 PM:
One advantage of laser recording is more light, so that a slower (e.g., Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film 2242) can be used, rather than a faster (i.e., slightly more grainy) camera speed film used for CRT recording.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2