Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DIs and "show prints"

This is topic DIs and "show 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=011067

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-26-2011, 12:29 PM:

Subject says it. What is a "show print" in the context of a feature that was finished with a digital intermediate (which would be the majority these days)?

Historically, of course, an EK print or show print would be printed off of the camera negative and would have handmade changeover cues. They still have handmade (Clint Phare style) cues, which implies that they are not printed off of the same internegatives that are used for release prints, but I am confused as to what the other differences (if any) actually are? Is it just a print with no lab splices or other defects, and/or is the preprint material better than what is typically used?

And what is the current process for DIs? Does the film recorder output to an interpostive from which multiple printing negatives are made, or are multiple printing negatives made directly by the film recorder? In principle, the latter method should be more expensive and offer better quality. Finally, how many prints can be made from a single printing negative before quality begins to suffer?

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 10-26-2011, 12:54 PM:

Iʼd say Show Print means the same as Projection Print, i. e. a positive with adequate contrast and density for front projection.

You can have either internegative or interpositive, the difference lies mainly in the stock employed and its treatment. Smaller releases tend to go LED/LASER-internegative, bigger with LED/LASER-interpositives, a handful, and contact dupe negs from them. These are sent to the copy centers around the globe. Cue marks will be punched into the dupe negs. Hundreds of release prints can be struck from a single internegative since the action is continuous. There are the so-called Rock-ʻnʼ-Roll printers that allow to expose both ways, the interneg remaining laced up.

I think this is one major point motion-picture film technology entirely failed to improve upon: image steadiness. The industry never cared about better quality on the screens which eventually contributed to everybodyʼs changeover, if I may say so, to video. IMAX always had superior steadiness due to register pins with the rolling-loop apparel. Now theyʼre killing themselves all the same.