From: Jim Carlile (email suppressed)
Date: Thu May 01 2008 - 14:44:40 PDT
yeah but if negative film is already available as it is, why would anyone
want to process reversal as negative just to get a print, which was the original
concern? It would defeat the purpose of using reversal.
In a message dated 5/1/2008 2:40:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:
It would look bad, and there would be some film speed problems as well that
would need to be compensated for. The advantage to reversal is that you have
a projectable print, otherwise you might as well just go with negative.
I just shot a piece for a short I am making which was a hi speed shot at
360fps for which I used 7266 that we cross processed to negative, I rated at
140iso and workprinted, looks like Tri-X no problems with muddiness or grain
buildup..
-Rob-
Robert Houllahan
email suppressed)
Filmmaker / Cinematographer
VP Cinelab Inc.
__________________________________________________________________ For info
on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.