Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DTS and 16mm exhibition

This is topic DTS and 16mm exhibition 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=006348

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 07-09-2004, 06:52 PM:

To date, I know of one filmmaker who has used a DTS track on their 16mm film (which does not allow the back-up optical track if the DTS system was to fail).

I'd be curious to hear from people out there why the option for using DTS with 16mm has never been fully realized. Did it ever have the potential to refuel the 16mm format as an option for exhibiting works of independent film?

(I guess a bigger question might be if Kodak is committed to continue manufacturing 16mm film, or is it just a numbers game at this point. Or another even bigger question....maybe a philisophical so don't feel you have to rise to the bate...is the film/video thing just about "resolution". Video will never look like film but it may very well become cheaper.)

Don't feel you have to deal with the above parenthetical comments, unless you're interested that is.

Alain

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-09-2004, 07:00 PM:

DTS 16mm has been used on quiet a few film festival presentations and several stuent productions

I believe Kodak is still very commited to making 16mm stock I know they sponsor some of the student film stock requirements at York University here in Toronto
But that said Kodak is a business and eventually a business desision based on the numbers will be made

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 07-09-2004, 07:50 PM:

It's not just a question of resolution. Even if video had the same resolution right now of film, it still wouldn't look like film because there are still issues of latitude, color gamut and contrast which need to be addressed. Film looks like film because of the way it reacts to light. A TV camera reacts differently, even if its HDTV. Because of that, it requires a different mindset when it comes to lighting things. Film is capable of handling a wider range of tones and colors than television. It's why we run into problems sometimes when transferring film to video. It even treats motion differently, unless you shoot your video in 24p. Eventually technology will get us to the point where we'll be able to shoot a motion picture on something that has the look of film but doesn't use a bunch of photosensitive chemicals glued to plastic, but we aren't there yet, so 16mm is going to be used by film students for a long time to come, because of its cost and the lower expense of equipment rentals. There are some really fine film stocks out there that hold up extremely well on the big screen, when shot on 16mm. Kodak's still working on producing a digital replacement for film, but it's still only a dream. As for the question of DTS, I think it's a combination of factors. Positives? It sounds wonderful. Negatives? Not everyone is equipped to run it, and it's a bit more demanding to shoot, post and mixdown a high quality multichannel track than one that's going to printed in mono optical. It's just cheaper and easier to do it in mono and unless that beautiful Dolby 5.1 track is absolutely essential artistically to the success of the film, why go to the trouble? It's an artistic and technical decision as well as a financial one.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-09-2004, 11:38 PM:

Doesn't NFL Films still shoot a ton of 16mm?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-09-2004, 11:55 PM:

The impression I've had is that DTS-16mm is not intended for mass use. It's targetted at student filmmakers and special venues, and not at "wide releases" (if you can even call it that).

I don't think "not fully realized" is very fair; I think DTS-16 gets about as much use as it was intended to...

--jhawk

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2004, 05:14 AM:

I think the answer to Alain's point about the death of 16mm as a significant scale release print format has all to do with economies of scale. I certainly agree that DTS potentially offers a solution to the sound quality issue which put it at a massive disadvantage compared to 35mm, even on smaller screens.

But the multiplex revolution of the '80s and '90s increased the amount of 35mm throughput so much that the cost per foot of release printing went significantly down; and as the use of 16mm in other markets gave way to video (e.g. educational films and high-end TV production), less and less of the stock was being manufactured and handled by labs and so the cost per foot went up. When I send archive duplication work to labs, having a 35mm print contact struck from a colour interneg (and, if applicable, track neg) is about 60-70% of the cost of the same job in 16mm. Once you start getting into the realm of more complicated work (e.g. optical reduction or enlargement, step printing, dye fading correction), that gap gets even bigger.

We are now at a stage whereby runs of 1,000 prints plus for major titles in 35mm are routine (in 1971, a British trade paper estimated that the average Hollywood feature was released in 40-50 prints; in 2000 the figure was said to be 300) and labs use high-speed contact printers that can hammer through a million feet per day. Even those working on a much smaller scale get some of the benefit of this huge increase in the world's throughput of 35mm. Add to the fact that most of those cinemas which did use 16mm can either no-longer do so or have a projector gathering dust in a corner which would need extensive servicing before it could be used again, and there simply is no business case for trying to bring back 16mm as a mainstream distribution medium. I know of only one venue (part-time) in the whole of the UK which is 16mm only, and the last I heard even they were in the process of installing 35.

Furthermore, the dreaded d-cinema is likely to eclipse 16mm in terms of resolution and colour depth far sooner than it is 35. It is now seriously being suggested that HD is likely to knock Super 16 out of the market for TV production within the next 2-3 years. If so, that will remove its last major revenue-earning market, which I guess will leave archives as the only major users of the format. As things are and all other things being equal, I'd usually prefer to see a digibeta tape of a high-end transfer projected through S-XGA than a scratched and knackered 16mm print; and 99% of the 16mm prints in distribution here are now scratched and knackered. Sadly, therefore, I can't see any prospect of 16mm ever being revived as a mainstream distribution format for feature films.

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 07-10-2004, 05:34 AM:

NFL Films is the world's largest user of 16mm film, Steve. They're here in NJ, just outside Philadelphia.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-10-2004, 08:08 AM:

16mm film sales are actually increasing, due to the popularity of Super-16 origination, including for HDTV and low budget feature films:

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

quote:
With 16 mm film, you've got it made.
Creatively, technologically, and economically, our state-of-the-art stocks deliver greater flexibility, and control than ever before. Discover why 16 mm film is the perfect choice for your next project.

...Kodak introduced 16 mm motion picture film and equipment in 1923 as an inexpensive amateur alternative to the 35 mm film format. Compared with 35 mm film, the 16 mm format offers advantages such as smaller, less-expensive cameras and lower film stock and developing costs. Because of these factors, the 16 mm format was quickly adopted for professional news reporting, corporate, and educational applications.

...Ken Burns produced the Oscar ® -nominated Brooklyn Bridge, and 18 other documentaries since beginning his career in 1979. In this interview, Burns talks about his experiences with film and electronic capture.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/filmMaker/neverDieAlone.jhtml?id=0.1.4.3.8&lc=en

...Never Die Alone Opted for Super 16 mm
Dickerson and Libatique explored a resurging approach to producing independent features for Never Die Alone. They opted for the Super 16 film format, which provided both cost benefits and creative flexibility.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/filmMaker/dicksonBilly.jhtml?id=0.1.4.3.4&lc=en

...ONE TREE HILL
Remember the stories propagated by CBS Television engineers about Super 16 mm film image quality not being good enough for airing in high-definition format? You can forget them. One Tree Hill is artfully produced in Super 16 film format by Billy Dickson, ASC.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/sabol/index.shtml

quote:
Interview with Steve Sabol of NFL Films

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/news/nflFilms.shtml

quote:
NFL Films operates a 200,000-square foot facility in New York, housing state-of-the-art television and motion picture studios. The NFL Films archive is the largest sports film library in the world with over 100 million feet of 16 mm film.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/july99/nfl.shtml

quote:
The combination of 16mm and Super 16 footage was rushed to a waiting private jet for processing at NFL Film headquarters, in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. By the following afternoon the entire batch of film had been developed and printed, ready for editing. The footage was then used to produce official highlight films for the Super Bowl contenders and several special programs aired on broadcast and cable television. It is also the official archives for the National Football League.
The NFL Films archives contain hundreds of thousands of feet of film going back to the early part of the twentieth century. During the regular season NFL Films assigns at least two cinematographers to document each game. One is at field level and the other in a fixed position high in the stands at midfield. The number of cinematographers present is determined by the importance of the game. As the season progresses, several cameras will be used on important games, placed in strategic locations around the action. However, for the biggest game of the year, Steve Andrich, vice president/cinematography, NFL Films, wants every nuance captured on film.

"We assign each cameraman to cover specific parts of the game from selected points of view, but mostly we leave it to them to use their expertise and their experience to come back with exciting shots that capture the essence of the game," Andrich says.

NFL Films has developed a recognizable visual style. "Most people recognize us for the slow motion and the up-close, tight shots," says Andrich. "It's been described as 'athletic ballet'. It's the kind of thing you don't see unless you see it in slow motion."

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-10-2004, 08:59 AM:

Most of the british detective serries (Morse for an example) are shot useing the Panaflex 16 camera in super 16
Film is an international standard so transfers to the video language of each country is a none issue
The AE serries Hornblower was shot on 16 using arri 16SR cameras

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2004, 07:26 PM:

Agreed, 16/S16 is still alive and well (just) as an origination medium. But the issue Alain raised in kicking off this thread is specifically related to exhibition:

quote: Alain LeTourneau
Did it [DTS 16] ever have the potential to refuel the 16mm format as an option for exhibiting works of independent film?

I suppose we need to be clear exactly what Alain means by the term 'independent', but I'm going to guess that he means small print runs of arthouse movies. When I first worked in cinemas in the late '80s/early '90s, yes, 16mm would have been the natural format for this kind of stuff. I showed 16 regularly in a whole load of fleapits and university film societies. But the massive increase in 35mm printing that started to take hold around that time gradually pushed 16mm out of the market for release printing. I think it was 1995 that the British Film Institute (the largest distributor of arthouse/rep product here) announced that it would no longer strike any new 16mm prints. Their rationale was that most of the venues which screened 16mm also had 35mm capability by that stage, and those which didn't could almost all be helped round the problem in some way.

For a long time there are going to be venues which will want to continue an active 16mm capability due to special circumstances - in our case, for example, because our archive has a lot of 16mm viewing copies. But, given that 35mm has now become the de facto cinema release format and that the economic factors which maintained 16mm as a 'semi professional' exhibition format no longer exist (i.e. video and increased 35mm usage have between them filled the niches in the exhibition market which 16mm previously occupied), I honestly can't see DTS 16 making much of a difference.

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 07-11-2004, 08:02 PM:

First off, thanks Leo and others who took the time to respond thoughtful to my query.

By "independent" I mean the films distributed by places like CFMDC in Canada, Lux in the UK, the coops in France, Canyon Cinema in SF, FMC in NYC, and MoMA's print collection of 16mm films. Not to mention the scores of filmmakers who self-distribute their work.

In addition to this are the documentaries and ethnographic films made over the last 50+ years in the 16mm format.

I'm not referring to televsion shows shot on 16mm (and never intended for theatrical distribution), nor 35mm reduction prints made by distributors like Swank and Criterion for the College Circuit or what remains of it in the states (which ain't much).

There is a rich history here. 1000s and 1000s of films represent independent film history. From Man Ray's Kodachrome home movies shot in the 1930s, to Morris Engel's documentaries, Timothy Asch's ethnographies of the Yanonami Indians, the work or Leacock, Maysles Brothers, Pennabacker, and the huge body of work of experimental films (Remember Stan Brakhage). These examples do not even touch all the narrative films shot in 16mm for theatrical release....Jon Jost, Caveh Zahedi, Andrew Bujaksi, Yvonne Rainer, Robina Rose (to name a few) are names not known by everyone but worth knowing about.

And people continue to shoot and finish in this format.

While the back end costs are indeed getting closer if you compare Lab rate sheets for 16mm and 35mm services, the front end cost do not compare. 35mm rawstock is still twice (or more) the cost of 16mm and one gets almost 1/3 less film (16mm 100' = 2:47; 35mm 100' - 1:07) to use. These front end costs stack up. And getting your 16mm or super 16mm material on to 35mm is a costly affair.

I would love to see 16mm revived given its history of providing a format for independents to use, and it's hallmarks of lightweight equipment and ease of use. I realize what is stacked up against the format and it is most likely the case that the format will fade as a choice for acquisition and exhibition before it can see its 100th birthday.

Maybe if DTS had been an option in 1985 things might have been different?

Best,
Alain

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 07-11-2004, 10:53 PM:

quote: Alain LeTourneau
maybe if DTS had been an option in 1985 things might have been different

This may well have already been thought of, as there are very few ideas which are original. It has always seemed to me that adding DTS to a 16mm release print wouldn't be too difficult.

The two possibilities would be, for the time code to be recorded on separate sprocketed tape and for a double system (band) projector be used, or for it to be recorded on the com-mag track on the film. This would not require modification to a standard projector, only that the mag output be reconfigured.

The sep-mag option has the advantage in repect that a standard optical print could be used and the optical sound track would still be available. The down side is, that the print would have to conform to the DTS sound element to maintain sync, similar to any other sep-mag presentation.

Maybe I'm dreaming as there could be unforeseen complications, (if there are, I'm sure we will be informed), but I can't see any reason why either alternative wouldn't work. Reluctantly however, I have to agree that the digital alternative these days, is probably more practical with comparable screen results.

It would however, be an interesting exercise, to lock a 35mm and 16mm double system projector together and dub the time code from the 35mm track to the 16mm sep-mag tape. If possible, dubbing audio to the edge track would help.

The next step would be to check the completeness of the 16mm print of the same title against the 35mm print from which the time code originated. Modification (editing a few frames from the print or the tape) could be required to maintain sync. If audio was dubbed at the same time on to the edge track, syncing it to a 16mm print would be an easy task on a Steenbeck or something similar, using the audio as a guide.

In theory, the output from the sep-mag tape would run the DTS disk in sync with the 16mm print.

Note, that I suggest this as an experimental exercise only and do not advocate commercial piracy of intelectual property. If permission was obtained from the appropriate licence holders however, it could provide an alternative with upgraded audio in a situation where 16mm only is an option. Naturally, it does require the installation (maybe temporary) of a DTS sound system.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-11-2004, 11:47 PM:

I still deal a lot with 16mm (and even super-16). While I don't see shooting with 16mm dying out anytime soon...as a projection medium...most projector manufacturers have turned their back on it.

Both Kinoton and Ernemann offer 16mm in addition to their 35mm projector. I can honestly say the Kinoton FP-38E is the best 16mm I've ever seen or heard. However, the cost of the thing does not make 16mm the economical format anymore.

The value priced 16mm projectors from companies like Eiki and Elmo were not discontinued in the face of customer demand...the demand for 16mm projectors has fallen off the chart in their traditional venues (educational). If you have a high-end screening room, then the Kinoton offering will do you. But, by the time you set up an FP-38E (the basic model...they go up from their) you are talking about a $50,000+ machine. Compare that to a typical cinema projector and you have anything but low-cost.

As to DTS...if you have a Kinoton...then go with the pulse-tach route. That is, connect the DTS up via their time code box and skip the sep-mag thing all together. That is, treat the DTS unit as a dubber, not run it via a dubber.

Steve

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-12-2004, 12:31 AM:

16mm film sales are actually increasing

Negative. But what about print stock?

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 07-12-2004, 03:26 AM:

quote:
connect the DTS up via their (Kinoton) time code box and skip the sep-mag thing altogether

Will the feeding of just time code to a DTS unit run a theatrical disk? I have assumed, maybe incorrectly, that title and reel information would also be required before a disk will play. Is there is a way of cheating this and just feeding timecode?

Part of my reason for suggesting the sep-mag route, is the ease of checking on an editing bench, the 16mm print against the audio track (recorded on the edge track from the 35mm element) for sync. You can't do this using just a stream of time-code. The 16mm print has no sync reference except for it's image and mono audio.

I realise that the pulse tach method is used with success but usually in a production environment where the picture and sound elements are new and intact. My suggestion is to cover a situation where there is a requirement to marry a DTS disk with a standard 16mm release print which may not be in mint condition nor complete.

In using the pulse tach method in such a situation, one would only have to strike a few splices in the 16mm print, not a totally unusual occurence, and a sync problem would occur that would be an absolute nightmare to solve.

The sep-mag route enables the time code to be edited against the picture to ensure continuous sync prior to screening. (pulling the audio up into sync at a film splice, will similateously pull the time code up as well). Four plate 16mm Steenbecks are pretty cheap these days to hire or buy.

[ 07-12-2004, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Warren Smyth ]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-12-2004, 05:30 AM:

For the reasons mentioned (video distribution of industrial and educational films, and 35mm being used for more art venues), 16mm print film sales continue to decrease. But 16mm origination is growing again. The new sharper and finer grained Kodak VISION2 films have been especially welcomed.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-12-2004, 12:01 PM:

Why would you put the possessive of the Time code box on Kinoton? It wasn't in my statement. It is DTS that makes the box (as does Jim Ketchum, I believe).

As to potential sync problems...sure one may need to slug the film if there is picture damage...but, then again, with sep-mag...if the mag track is damaged, one would need to also make the picture mate up with it.

If keeping sync in the face of long term use and abuse is your priority then having the optical soundtrack carry the time code info is the way to go. You can't have it all ways.

Steve

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 07-12-2004, 06:11 PM:

In response to Steve Krause:

As you (and John Pytlak) point out 16mm origination has increased. I'm almost certain that this is in reference to color negative and the new Vision2 family of filmstocks only.

What about....

B/W negative and reversal (7231, 7222, 7265, 7266)? Or color reversal (now down to 7285 and 7270)?

I would guess that sales of the above camera stocks are dropping?

As for print stocks, John Pytlak does mention that sales volumes are dropping.

B/W and color negative print stocks are one thing, but...

7399 - the last color MP is now gone

7361 - the last B/W MP is on FTO and may soon follow the path of 7399.

As an aside, I have to respond as a filmmaker if I can take this space to do this on a "projectionist" list, and since there is a continum - I both shoot and project films.

What is at stake here is the head end production and post-production processes. The traditional ways of working with film are being placed under erasure. I lament the loss of film handling in post if the option to print no longer exists.

It seems now that all working methods must be reduced to the screen I'm staring at now, and this I feel is rather unfortunate. One tool for everything! Data entry, email, spreadsheets, word processing, audio and video editing, accounting, etc., etc.

As soon as the old guard dies off at the film schools across the world the sweeping changes will become complete and a new breed of imaging experts will reign.

And with this new technology comes the throw-away mentality that rules in this market. Ah, that machine is 2 years old and this program isn't back compatible and so and on and so forth.

I heard once that there has been something like 75 video formats since 1956. Well, even if this number is off I would guess it's easily reach 30.

I shoot with cameras made in the 1960s and 1970s.

I have 2 Steenbecks (one from 1976 and another from 1978) and both run exceptionally well since they've been well taken care of. Since 1996 I've had 6 computers and I'm usually 3-4 years behind the (consumer) technology wave.

Maybe I should have been born in 1963, instead of 1973.

Thanks for the lively discussion, and all comments on DTS and 16mm. I've learned a good deal here.

Alain

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-12-2004, 06:24 PM:

Color reversal will go away within a year, though the processing chemistry will be around for another six months. There's a letter about this on the Kodak web site. Personally, I don't see much reason to be upset about this, considering that the color reversal stocks haven't really improved at all since the late 1970s, while the technology for color negative has improved tremendously over the last 20+ years. Fuji killed reversal years ago, although Kodak probably kept it for NFL Films, which shot reversal until the mid '90s (does anyone know why?), and some military and NASA facilities which used (use?) it.

B&W reversal is now made in the new B&W facility (John P. can give more detail, I'm sure). Supposedly it looks the same as or similiar to the old Plus-X reversal and Tri-X reversal. I haven't seen it.

No idea on B&W negative, but I'm sure that it will remain available.

I wouldn't be too worried about 16mm, as long as color and B&W negative remain available, as well as intermediate stocks, sound recording film, and print stock. I can't imagine that any of these would go away anytime soon. There are too many Bolexes/CP-16s and classroom projectors that are readily available relatively inexpensively to people who want to experiment with film.

Even if Kodak were to kill 16mm, I'm sure that there would be third parties which could slit and reperforate 35mm or 65mm stock for 16mm use, just as is done now for double-8 and double-super-8 (both of which are long dead formats which weren't anywhere near as popular as 16mm when they were new). Heck, people are still shooting 9.5mm. I can't imagine why, but it's good to know that the film and lab service are still available (at least in a limited way).

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-13-2004, 01:14 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood's sepulchral voice of doom
Color reversal will go away within a year, though the processing chemistry will be around for another six months.

Crumbs, I think I've still got a couple of rolls of S8 reversal in the freezer. So we've got about 18 months to expose & develop it?

Is Kodak going to provide negative stock for S8? If so, it will probably be roughly twice as expensive to get to a positive print, I suppose. S8 is so much more fun, because you can pick up the cameras so cheap & take them around like crash cameras. Duct tape them to a prop plane flying stunts w/passengers! Throw one to somebody from a Mardi Gras float to take your picture, & if they don't throw it back, no biggie! Send one down a guy wire from a tower! You're certainly a little more cautious with 16mm cameras! Some of the last S8 cameras had extremely fast lenses & good optics!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-13-2004, 05:40 AM:

Kodak has a variety of films available in Super-8, including two of the new Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films, 7218 (500T), and 7217 (200T). Most transfer the images to video or HD video. Very popular for music videos:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/film.jhtml?id=0.1.4.4.10.4.4&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/index.jhtml?id=0.1.4.4.10&lc=en

quote:
From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 60's, Super 8 film is alive and well and making it possible for virtually anyone to bring the unmistakable "look and feel" of real film to the screen.

As students of the art, many of today's professional filmmakers created their first films with Super 8. Thirty years later, this small-gauge medium still provides an easy, inexpensive way for students and enthusiasts to work at film resolutions and color depths that still are unmatched by the latest video technologies. Not surprisingly, the magic of Super 8 has even found its way into some of today's hottest music "videos."

Whether you're a devotee of the format, or just a little curious, visit our pages and find out all there is to know about Super 8.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-13-2004, 06:30 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Heck, people are still shooting 9.5mm. I can't imagine why, but it's good to know that the film and lab service are still available (at least in a limited way).

Yes, and they're throwing us archivists a lifeline by still doing so. We don't make preservation dupes on 9.5 anymore. We get optical blowups to 16 done when necessary for preservation, and a Rank transfer done if the original element is in good shape and we just need access copies without the need for theatrical presentation. But these enthusiasts are continuing to provide a supply of spacing, cores, splicers, rewinders and all the things we need to carry out routine conservation on 9.5mm elements.

quote: Alain LeTourneau
What is at stake here is the head end production and post-production processes. The traditional ways of working with film are being placed under erasure. I lament the loss of film handling in post if the option to print no longer exists.

My guess is that the option to print will exist for many years to come, but that for theatrical presentation of 16mm originals, blowing up to 35mm will increasingly become the norm. Lab prices for this have been inching down in recent years, and I hope they keep going down. OK, on a smaller screen a contact printed 16 shown on a high-end and well maintained projcetor might just have the edge. But a well struck 35mm blowup will certainly look better in a larger auditorium, the print will be less vulnerable to dirt and scratching, you can put a better soundtrack on it with existing mainstream technology and the equipment in the theatre is likely to be in better shape. In a few years time and if 16mm is still alive and well as an origination medium, I expect we'll be seeing high definition TV or electronic (of some description) plus 35mm as the two principle ways of showing it.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-13-2004, 10:54 AM:

" CFMDC in Canada" who is that
DTS time code is printed directly where the optical track would be and it is the same as 35mm timecode with rell ID
As for the DTS timecode converter the DTS unit is set to read SMPTE time code and the JSK box spits that out from the biphase

Posted by Alain LeTourneau (Member # 2175) on 07-13-2004, 04:32 PM:

I might have screwed up the acronym. By CFMDC I ment...

Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Center.

Since 1969 I believe.

Alain

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-13-2004, 06:06 PM:

John P.,

Can you speak to the realities involved in slitting and perforating 16mm film stock? One might imagine that it would always be possible to take a roll of 35mm stock before it is perforated, slit it once again, and then run it through a 16mm perforating machine, such that one could expect 16mm film stock to always be available as long as 35mm stock of the same type is, long into the forseeable future (perhaps at an extra handling fee if sales volumes are really low).

Is that the case, or is the manufacturing more complicated?

--jhawk

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-14-2004, 01:36 AM:

John, the 9.5mm material still being produced in France isn't even a motion picture stock. Somebody over there buys Fuji slide film in unperforated rolls, they then perforate it in that width as triple 9.5 on an old Pathescope perforator, slit it, and sell it in 500 foot rolls. Velvia, Provia and RTP II are all available, though I have heard that the tungsten stock is being dropped.

There is somebody who imports the film into England, and sells it in various forms. 9.5mm cameras never had a standardised loading system, There were 'P' and 'S' thpe chargers, which were quite similar to the Fuji Single-8 cartridge, a few cameras, such as the Pathe Baby, and the Midas, (a combiined camera and projector) took their own design of chargers. These all took about 30 feet of film. The Pathe Webo A took a 50 foot magazine, which also contained the intermittant movement, and there were several camaras which took 50 foot or 100 foot spools. All of these chargers, magazines are made of metal, and re-usable, and re-loads are available for all of them. Empty ones are quite easy to obtain. It is also possible to buy 500 feet on a core, and cut it to whatever length you require. The cores seem to be standard 2 iinch 16mm ones, which have been turned down on a lathe. The stock is E6 process, and processing is available in both England and France. I doubt if the total production is more than a few tens of 500 foot rolls per year, it may not even be that much, and certainly nobody is making lots of money out of it, but it's still practical, even on this scale. I see no reason why something similar shouldn't be done with 16mm at some time in the future. Yet again, it's easy to improvise with something simple like film.

Somebody else was producing black and white reversal film, which I believe was made by reporforating and slitting 16mm material. I'm not sure if this is still available. A number of perforators for various formats exist in priivate hands. No, I don't have one at home, but there are people who do.

Super-8, and for that matter Fuji Single-8, is more of a problem, due to the non-reuseable cartridges which these formats use. A re-useable cartridge has been proposed in the past, but the cost of tooling up to produce one, in the small quantities fequired, would be very high.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-14-2004, 05:35 AM:

Are those 50-foot cartridges still the only means of loading Super 8 into a camera? Given that, as John points out, it is being used more and more in the semi-professional domain, I'd have thought that there would have been a demand for a greater continuous shooting capacity than 50 feet by now.

quote: John Hawkinson
Is that [slitting and perforating 35mm into 16 without much difficulty] the case, or is the manufacturing more complicated?

The only complication I can think of is that, of course, this whole operation has to be done in total darkness. But lab technicians manage to lace up far more complex film paths in total darkness and with almost 100% accuracy, so I can't see that this would be too much of a problem. The only significant one I can think of would be getting hold of the hardware.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-14-2004, 05:56 AM:

There used to be a 200 foot disposable Super-8 cartridge, which fitted on top of a small number of camera models, but I haven't seen them listed anywhere for some years.

There was also double Super-8, in 1-4 format, which came on 100 foot spools and was turned over and run through the camera again, like the old Regular/Standard 8mm. Some Bolex H-8 cameras were converted to this format in the '70s. Neither of these was ever very common.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-14-2004, 12:39 PM:

Typically, Kodak motion picture film is slit to the final width directly from the "wide rolls", which are about 54 inches wide. Each wide roll yields 83 16mm strips, or 38 35mm strips, or 20 65mm strips, or 19 70mm strips. Sales volume and customer need are the primary determinants of which film formats are stocked.

"Legacy Formats" are served by companies specializing in finishing and packaging film for these niche applications.

Here are the current format specifications available from Kodak:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/desc.pdf

quote:
Table of Descriptions of Specification Numbers for Kodak Motion Picture Films

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizesP.shtml#p

quote:
Motion picture film emulsions are coated on a 54-inch-wide continuous web of film base. These 54-inch rolls constitute the master stock rolls that are slit into strips during the finishing process. Each master roll is assigned a number; each strip also has a reference number (see Figure 39). After slitting, the strips are perforated and cut to the designated lengths. KODAK Motion Picture Camera Films are then wound onto cores or spools, the outer ends secured, and depending on format, some are put into black plastic bags. Then they are packaged into cans or plastic boxes (16 mm only), and sealed. The bags ensure that the film fits snugly into the container, as well as further protecting the film from light. Some 35 mm KODAK color print film is packaged in compression boxes with individual strips up to 6000 feet long. Each roll of film in compression boxes is in an airtight vacuum bag.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-14-2004, 02:46 PM:

John...I am I to understand that Kodachrome is to be no more? It has got to be one of the most amazing film stocks ever. Heck there is even a song about not taking one's Kodachrome away. The E-6 films (Ektachrome) was never one of my favorites....sure they did well in low light but I never really liked the results.

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-14-2004, 04:16 PM:

KODACHROME films are still available, but the number of labs who run the process is getting smaller.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 07-18-2004, 12:59 AM:

Now that A&I has stopped, the number of Kodachrome processors is down to five worldwide according to http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1147&pq-locale=en_US

URL currently lists:

Qualex, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA
Dwayne's Photo Service, Parsons, KS, USA
Kodak, Lausanne, Switzerland
Horiuchi Color Lab, Tokyo, Japan
KJ Imaging, Tokyo, Japan

Wouldn't be surprised if not all of them processed movie film.
http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/ServicesPage10.html claims

quote:
NOTE: KODAK is now using Dwayne's Film Lab for their USA K-14 processing.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-18-2004, 01:18 AM:

But I thought Qualex was Kodak. Is it no longer EK owned? [Confused]

I saw one reference that said they were shipping it all to the Swiss Kodak lab but maybe they have made a newer arrangement.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-19-2004, 02:48 PM:

http://www.photomarketing.com/dailynews/wklynews.asp?dt=7/14/2004

quote:
Kodak closing eight labs because of decline in film processing

Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, N.Y., will close seven film processing labs around the country and an eighth lab will close in January, verified Kathy Rauschenberg, director, Public Relations, Kodak Digital and Film Imaging Systems. Rauschenberg says the reason is partly because traditional photofinishing is declining. In addition to the closings, there will also be some changes in the amount of turnaround time for traditional photofinishing, she says.

"To reduce costs and remain profitable, we are moving our customers to a two-day delivery, six-day pickup," Rauschenberg explains. "As a result of those two factors we are able to consolidate the volume in fewer labs."

The remaining wholesale labs can handle both the traditional photofinishing, Rauschenberg says, as well as handle any growth in digital printing.

Regarding the change in service for customers, Rauschenberg says Kodak did some analysis and found fewer than 30 percent of consumers who ordered the overnight processing service actually picked up their prints the next day.

"We don't feel like the move to a two-day turnaround will affect consumers greatly. We feel they will still be satisfied with the service they get," she explains.

Rauschenberg noted the Perfect Touch Processing service has always been a two-day service and that will not change. Perfect Touch Processing was launched last year, she says.

"I think the changes represent the company's need to accelerate growth for our digital products while examining how the traditional business is going and making changes appropriately," Rauschenberg explains.

Among the eight lab closures was the company's Fair Lawn, N.J., facility, which is known as Kodak's last Kodachrome processing lab. Kodak representative Charles S. Smith advises, however, seven-day processing service of Kodachrome will be uninterrupted. "Kodak has entered into an agreement with an outside lab to provide the service," he explains.