From: email suppressed
Date: Mon Apr 26 2010 - 12:39:43 PDT
Can someone explain the point of shooting reversal then making
reversal prints or an interneg then positive print, unless one wants
to mix colour and black and white? I remember a Kodak film path poster
from years ago, in which reversal-interneg-print was a not-recommended
option, and if you go that route it must be more expensive than
straight neg-pos, surely?
Most of the filmmakers, I know, in the UK anyway, shoot neg then print
to pos. I do that myself and have never had problems. Why is it
dangerous? It shouldn't be if the lab are half competent.
In London, at least for now, one can get good prints done in colour
and black and white neg-pos, and I've also had very good results from
Niagara in Toronto, notwithstanding it's a dry gate printer there.
Nicky Hamlyn.
On 26 Apr 2010, at 19:53, Jeff Kreines wrote:
> I have a feeling that digital projection using consumer projectors
> will be replacing 16mm projection more quickly than most of us would
> like -- there is very little 16mm release printing going on these
> days. With the death of reversal stocks, 16mm release prints are
> either made off of the original negative (which is dangerous and
> more expensive) or off of dupe negs -- which add two generations to
> the process (IP and dupe neg) and greatly reduce quality.
>
> DVD and BluRay are not the solution, at least not at the moment, I
> don't think.
>
> There are some very good codecs that do not need fast computers or
> hard drives to play back high resolution files at 24 fps. I like
> the Cineform codecs a lot -- and we use them with the Kinetta
> Archival scanners. You can capture at greater-than-HD resolutions
> (we use 2.4K x 2K for our smaller scanner, 4K x 3K for the big one)
> and set playback at whatever speed you'd like -- so those working at
> 12-16-18 fps can get real 12-16-18 fps projection, not always simple
> with film projectors. You also get the advantages of 10 bit log
> rather than 8 bit images.
>
> We use to travel with projectors and speakers and amps and an EQ
> with room analyzer -- a pain. I could see easily travelling with a
> bright digital projector and a small computer to feed it -- or a
> dedicated box like WDTV or similar, even Apple TV is ok but limited
> right now to 720P.
>
> For those of us wanting to use every pixel for 4:3 film projection,
> an expensive option would be to use a 1.33x anamorphic projection
> lens rotated 90 degrees, and stretch the image electronically so
> that 1920 x 1080 with squeeze projects as the equivalent of 1920 x
> 1440 through the lens. (These lenses are not yet affordable.)
>
> There will be 4K projectors from EPSON in the next year or so that
> should be in the high-end consumer price range -- these might be
> amazing.
>
> I love film projection. I wish I could foresee a long life for it,
> especially in 16mm. But Kodak seems to care only about cheap ink-
> jet printer ink these days -- IDIOTS! -- so we will have to
> improvise and find a replacement that doesn't lose the qualities
> that are important to us all.
>
> Jeff "still has many 16mm projectors" Kreines
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Myron Ort" <email suppressed>
> To: <email suppressed>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
>
>> Anyone have experience using consumer level digital projectors?
>>
>> Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed
>> than what seems to be necessary for a DVD?
>>
>> Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.
>>
>> Any recommended equipment and reasons?
>>
>> Myron Ort
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.