Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: CPC London making film prints

This is topic CPC London making film 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=012354

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-18-2018, 12:52 PM:

Our theater got an email noting our continued use of 35mm projection from CPC London

https://www.cpclondon.com/35mm-prints

DIRECT TO PRINT

35mm Film prints for cinema projection

We print directly from a data source: DCP, DPX, Pro-Res and even MPEG4.
No picture, sound or subtitle negatives are necessary and no need for colour matching.
Subtitles, security watermarking and even 3D-prints are possible.
Excellent quality. Super fast delivery.

Member of Disney Studio Content Security Program

How It Works

The workflow for a 35mm Film print.

Prepare

source

Follow our guidelines on preparing the media. Deliver the media to our lab or upload it to our server
2

Film

recording

Our Film recording machines put picture, audio and subtitles onto 35mm film
3

Film

processing

The exposed material is then put through our in-house processors
4

Quality

control

Each reel is checked visually in real time for any picture or audio defects
5

Packaging delivery

Each print is securely packed and shipped worldwide via DHL or your preferred courier

Thoughts?

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 10-18-2018, 01:17 PM:

I've run a few prints made from this process and have mixed feelings about it. They're sharp and rock steady, but the contrast just doesn't do it for me - they never look quite right. Prints made off of Digital Internegatives from an Arrilaser 2 (for example) yield much more pleasing results in terms of color and contrast.

I'd like to see more examples though. The prints I saw were made from DCPs, not DPX files, so that could make a difference.

I actually had a print made from a SD video source by this company and that looked fantastic for what it was (a weird film/video hybrid). And for things like title cards and replacement footage it's a fantastic service.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 10-18-2018, 02:02 PM:

This sounds like the Cinevator which was used by Technicolor, Burbank back in the day. I had a 12 inch reel (4" core) of faded Eastman that had been color corrected and transferred to a hard drive run through that process. That was 8-9 years ago and the price was 2K+.
It was worth that for me.

Posted by Emiel De Jong (Member # 4225) on 10-20-2018, 03:28 AM:

Interesting site and I like that Dolby Digital processor sitting there on top of the flatbed editor screen. The idea of printing business cards in the form of pieces of film, with the voice of George Eastman on the soundtrack, is fun. Only they should be more careful with the use of the word "celluloid", as in: "Black and White celluloid film has a proven lifespan of in excess of 500 years" [Big Grin]

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 10-21-2018, 02:20 AM:

Sounds like this is the company that made special one-off 35mm prints of Moana and Beauty and the Beast for the Kodak Center's presentations of those films for Kodak's remaining employees and their families back in 2017.

I never got to see these prints in action, and as far as I know, no one has seen or heard of them since. I can confirm that their local contract projectionist ran them, but they probably got vaulted somewhere where only top men can find them!

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 10-21-2018, 01:44 PM:

Their setup makes sense if you are only making a few prints from a digital file. The fact that you can print right to print stock with a sound track saves a lot of money. The cost of colour interneg is now through the roof! also you save on not having to make a optical neg. Bill Morrison did 35mm prints of Dawson City Frozen Time this way.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-21-2018, 03:03 PM:

Interesting - laser film recorders must now be fast enough that direct filmout to release print stock is economically viable for one-off prints or small runs. The last time I was seriously involved with these technologies (late '00s), CRT and laser filmout recorders typically took 2-4 days (depending on the model and resolution) to print a 2,000ft reel. Given the capital cost of them, this still made burning an interneg more cost effective than direct filmout to prints, even for small print runs. Most of them didn't even have the LUTs and other configurations needed to expose high contrast print stock.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-21-2018, 06:53 PM:

Other than stuff like policy snipes and the like, I fail to see the point of this. Wouldn't a film producer want picture and track negatives for archival purposes? And, at that point, the cost of printing that negative conventionally should be very small. Anyone who really cares about "the film look" is probably already shooting on film.

I don't mean to dump on this too badly, and I am glad that the service is available, but I'm not really sure where it fits into the marketplace.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-22-2018, 12:34 AM:

It would be interesting to know what kind of process they're using.

State-of-the-art Laser Printing will yield a very high-end product especially using 4K sources. CRT scanning made use of high-end CRT tubes also being used in high-end CRT projectors. Supply of new CRT tubes is drying up and now a specialty industry.

The results I've seen from LCD-based film-printers are less than stellar. AGFA used to produce a few models based on that technolog, but I think nobody else jumped on it.

A Norwegian company called Cinevator offers a "real-time" film printer, based on a LED light source and DLP. I've not seen the results of this technology myself.

Regardless the technology, this kind of film-printout services will remain a niche. It's not like you can send a DCP of a commercial release to them and get a 35mm version back, you need the proper keys and therefore the authorization of the studio for this. And even if it works, it would probably still be cost prohibitive. After ordering 10 or so prints, you probably could've afforded a digital setup. [Wink]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-22-2018, 07:53 AM:

Agreed, and I'm wondering what the market for this service essentially is.

The only one I can think of is the small band of projectorsexuals who wax lyrical about the wonders of "celluloid," and believe that anything is better seen on 35mm, regardless of how the footage was originated and post-produced, or the quality of the installation and projectionist presenting it. In other words, the "it's cool if you don't understand it but I think I do" crowd.

By the same token, there has recently been a tsunami of fanboys on the usual online haunts celebrating the relaunch of Ektachrome. I doubt if 99% of them will ever buy a roll, let alone figure out how to do E6 processing (or find somewhere that can still do it for them for less than the price of a second mortgage). No-one gives 35mm slide shows or plays Super 8 home movies on an Elmo anymore, so anyone originating images on film now has to scan them. Why on earth would you use dense, high contrast reversal film, when (for 35mm stills) a $300 scanner will give you pretty impressive results from b/w negative or C41, but you're looking at $2K minimum for something that will reveal even a fraction of the black detail in Kodachrome or Ektachrome?

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 10-22-2018, 09:43 AM:

CPC London is using the Cinevator. Lots of indy filmmakers are using it. Whether they shot on film or not things are coming from a digital file.

Regarding Ektachrome in Super 8... its $60 CND a roll! for like 3mins before processing and scanning costs.

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 10-22-2018, 10:40 AM:

Regarding price, I can say that it is the same amount or less to have prints made this way than a normal release print from an IN ... it's a very cheap service.

Hey, I still shoot (and watch) slide film! There's still some of us left.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-22-2018, 11:35 AM:

I do slide shows, too. I miss Ektachrome (and Kodachrome). Fuji Provia works OK, but it isn't the same look.

From a larger market perspective, though, the biggest market for reversal is probably for motion-picture film to be used by movies, TV shows, and commercials when they want to achieve a "home movie" look. Modern color negative looks 'too good' for this purpose, even when shot on 16mm or 8mm. Also, architectural photography, if they can get it made in 120 and 4x5" formats.

But, for motion-picture prints, the market seems to me to be mostly made up of the following:

- reprints of older titles originally printed on film (for which printing negatives already exist)

- prints of new titles made by people who value the photochemical process and its unique look (and who wouldn't want a DI)

Neither of these is served by the Cinevator process.

In the past, it would have made sense for exhibition of video material in venues only equipped for 35mm, but the number of people who need that must be pretty close to zero now.

I could see maybe doing it for trailers to be shown in a film program or something like that, though.

Again, I am glad that the service exists, but most of the needs that it fills are probably better filled by other services.

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 10-22-2018, 01:25 PM:

Kodak is making Ektachrome 100 again in Super 8, single perf 16mm, and as 135-36 still film (though the big dealers like B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, etc. are reporting the latter as back-ordered until sometime in December).

Scott wrote: "I do slide shows, too. I miss Ektachrome (and Kodachrome). Fuji Provia works OK, but it isn't the same look."