SCANS FROM S.8 KODACHROME FRAMES

[mattias]

Someone is probably gone slap me for this one, but post like the one above is probably more fun to write than what it is to read.

i doubt if babelfish has "fun" while working, but i hear you. ;-)

/matt

[audadvnc]

A council to the Kodak? Savings on the Ektachrome line (stopping the production of some not indispensable Ektachrome)

Halting the production of Super 8 Ektachrome probably would gain Kodak nothing; it's produced primarily for other formats, and its introduction to Super8 is a low cost way to leverage their existing assets and production process.

Conversely, with Kodachrome they need an entirely different production line; there is almost no crossover between Kodachrome and any modern stock. Since S8 is such a small part of the modern market, the benefit of K40 continuance is hugely offset by the high costs of running the unique production process it requires.

[Mitch Perkins]

Therefore, when the Kodak will stops the production of the Kodachrome, it will lose its becomes attached users that will buy in mass Fuji film... Optimal politics (kill) of the Kodak.

I plan to use the incredibly beautiful, newly available neg stocks almost exclusively, but haven't checked out the 64T yet.

I think that nobody of we desires to invest time, hard work and money in the realization of films that irremediably they will be lost in very little decades...

Think again. Here's a hint: Woody Allen.

Want another? Martin Scorcese.

How 'bout this - Digital master.

HTH,
Mitch

[Poliestere]

Hi Mitch,

I know the dispute of Martin Scorsese with the Kodak...But he can save her films printing they on 3 master b/w (Estar base) with color separation (this method save the color film for about 500 years in normal condition of storage- domestic storage-). Unfortunately, I can not make it...

How 'bout this - Digital master.

Also the "solution" to pour the images of the film on digital media (how DVD) to the aim to conserve in the time the images, does not resolve the problem, why the digital media are subject to fast obsolescence: for example, within a pair of years the DVD to blue laser will enter in commerce, than working it on a different wavelength from actual DVD, it will not be compatible with these (even if the first models will be equipped with two pick-up, one for the wavelength of the red, the other on the blue, but in little years will be available single pick-up for the blue) and in any case specialist of the field have already anticipated the dead of the DVD, that it will happen to the maximum between 15-20 years, in favor of other supports that will consent the recording of one greater amount of data: the future blue DVD will be able to contain about 50 GB of data, and difficultly it will be improvable, therefore it will be passed to mass memories (for example, already today the smart card contain to 1 GB, and with the current technological progress between 15 years they will be able to contain also 500-1,000 GB...) and in order to record on these memories other standards video of the future will have to be used, standards incompatible with the precedent standards, therefore to think to save the images impress on the film on digital supports for a long period of time (at least 70-80 years) in economic way it is a impracticable deed.

The Kodachrome instead succeeds very well in this deed, without that we make null, without that degrades the quality of the images, as among other things happens in the digital (every time who make an sampling in digital, necessary when is passed from a standard video to an other standard, unavoidablly there is an loss of information, therefore the quality of the image diminishes every time...).

Digital is optimal for short and medium period, for a long period the better media is always the film. 8)

[John_Pytlak]

As Poliestere notes, film has a proven "track history" of good long term storage properties when processed and stored properly, so most archivists prefer film images to digital data files for long term storage. Film provides a "man readable" image that does not require compression or encoding schemes that compromise image quality, and may not be readable in the distant future. There are countless examples of film producing very usable images for many decades, and many examples of relatively recent obsolete digital formats that are in jeopardy of not even being readable or decypherable in the future.

Yes, film dyes do fade with time or long term exposure to light. Yet, the archival community has developed procedures and standards to greatly reduce the rate of fading, and to restore faded images. You just need to turn on your television set or buy a DVD of a classic film to see how successful they have been. Better yet, catch a 70mm screening of "Lawrence of Arabia" (produced in 1962), or "The Sound of Music" (1965), "Hello Dolly" (1970) or "Patton" (1970), all of which have had very good looking prints in circulation in the last few years.

[Poliestere]

Fully agreed with you, Mr. John. 8)

[tlatosmd]

Better yet, catch a 70mm screening of "Lawrence of Arabia" (produced in 1962)

I suppose the reason we can is that they found the original silent negatives back in, what, the late 80s, and completely re-dubbed them in English because all available copies were cut down to something like an hour or so, beside physical aging of the copies.

I found it quite intriguing they had to go through such lengths for the English version as the complete German version ran in a neat transfer for decades on German TV. They even used the complete German multi-track dub for the German DVD, restoring it in Dolby surround as well which is rare (on most DVDs of classic films (up to about the late 70s), the English sound is in stereo or Dolby surround, while German is mono).

They de-noised the German dub, placed everything appropriately in a 3D spectre, added modern digital effects like echoes and reverb, yet they didn't actually add frequencies missing as due to the contemporary 1960s German dubbing technology (a very specific audio character that actually has kind of a nostalgic vintage charm, even when noisy and in mono, I've found I can semi-synthetize it by using so-called presence pre-settings in wav editing tools).

[David M. Leugers]

Better yet, catch a 70mm screening of "Lawrence of Arabia" (produced in 1962), or "The Sound of Music" (1965), "Hello Dolly" (1970) or "Patton" (1970), all of which have had very good looking prints in circulation in the last few years.

How right you are John! You can add the restored 70mm print of "Spartacus" starring Kirk Douglas to that list. I saw it about ten years ago and it blew me away. Living just south of Dayton, Ohio, I was able to see the Cinerama showing of "How the West Was Won" at the Neon movie theatre before the owner sold the setup to a buyer in California a few years ago. Seeing a true large format film is a sight to behold. With the new Kodak camera and print films available today, the grandeur of 70mm would be well worth the price of admission.


David M. Leugers