Would you still buy new commercial super 8 prints?

[Andreas Wideroe]

The Leicina doesn't have pin registration. But I did see one rare one, on this forum, a while back (apart from the new Logmar) that had pin registration.

I believe that was the Mekel camera.

/Andreas

[carllooper]

I believe that was the Mekel camera. /Andreas

Yes, that was it: the Merkel.

C

[slashmaster]

The stepper motor is one I purchased from a company called Phidgets (in Canada). They supply a USB interface and API in various languages for driving it. I made a bracket to mount it on the Bolex.

The traditional (and best) method for colour is to use a monochrome screen, with separate red, green and blue filtration passes on such, but monochrome screens are really expensive - especially 4K ones! But there are good reasons for using such. The potential issue with a colour screen is that the colour components are separated on the screen, and therefore (if in focus) would be separated on the film. This may not be overtly visible as such but might be apprehendable as a less strong colour, or indeed as separate RGB colours. Especially if using fine grain film and projecting it on a large bright screen.

Another potential issue with using a colour screen is if using black and white print film on such. Such film is only blue sensitive so would be blind to all of the red and green pixels on such a screen, so possibly causing faint lines to appear on the film. No such problem with panchromatic stock. Indeed with pan stock, your 4K screen becomes a 12K screen!

The method of separate RGB passes was invented in the days of standard definition screens where the issue of RGB separability appearing on the film was extremely visible. The higher the definition of the screen the less visible becomes such separability. But nevertheless they can be visible, if only subconsciously.

One solution around this, that I've been entertaining, is using pan stock to make colour separations off a colour screen, and then printing these together onto colour print stock (with appropriate filtration) in a contact or optical printer. On the other hand, vagaries in a camera and printer might mean there is some subtle fringing going on when doing the composite. Depending on the project that may be a cool thing or a completely undesireable thing. I was going to try this last year (as a cool thing) but still haven't got around to it. Sometimes solving something in theory means I never get around to doing it in practice. I'm often in battle with, and succumb to voices that argue: that doing something in practice is just to reach some theoretical understanding of it. So if you've already solved it in theory the practice becomes redundant (I don't agree with this but I fall victim to it). Either that or perhaps some things just require some sort of ex-theoretical motivation in order to inspire action.

One such project occurred. The theory that followed was that having built a film to digital, and then digital to film setup, it was apparent (with some nudges from Richard Tuohey) that we could just take out the entire digital part of the system (digital camera and screen) and we'd have a readymade optical printer (computer controlled frame by frame projector and bolex) and without any technical fidelity issues at all. Film to film. The project, insofar as it was independent of this technical idea, and simply required any technical idea that might be available, just adopted the optical printer as one of the paths of least resistance.

The Leicina doesn't have pin registration. But I did see one rare one, on this forum, a while back (apart from the new Logmar) that had pin registration.

C

Thanks Carl! I've learned a lot from this post. So the purpose of exposing the 3 colors separate to the film is so you don't see the 3 colored pixels. I thought it had something to do with the prism effect through the lens.

I've got idea's that sound good in theory but I still have yet to practice too. For example I've seen that some people are actually making cartoons by scratching the images into the film itself by hand. I want try making titles that way with my cnc machine, if it doesn't look good at the very least it might still be a good way to test the performance of a cnc machine. I still have a few things to learn about cnc and experiment with first but I've got my leader to try it out on and my 16mm projector to play it!

[wado1942]

Thanks Carl! I've learned a lot from this post. So the purpose of exposing the 3 colors separate to the film is so you don't see the 3 colored pixels. I thought it had something to do with the prism effect through the lens.

The colors on LCD screens aren't very pure either, so making separation masters lets you get more natural color as well.


For example I've seen that some people are actually making cartoons by scratching the images into the film itself by hand.[/quote]

I know a guy who's done that to an extent. He hand draws the subjects, but he creates background textures etc. directly on the film. It's a VERY time consuming process with lots of idiosyncrasies!

[carllooper]

Drawing directly on film is great fun. Not just drawing but all sorts of things - splashing india ink. Taking to the film with with a hole puncher. Scratching into the emulsion. The results of such can be absolutely mesmerising.

I just did a 5K digital transfer of such work (from 16mm) a few days ago, for an artist I've been working with. The film was impregnated with all sorts of patterns. Every frame was an artwork in itself. It's for mixing into a music clip (the remainder of the music clip having been cinematography shot on colour negative 500T, on Super16).

Have just finished doing preliminary digital grade on the cinematographic component of the work. If anyone is interested this is quite an elaborate process for colour negative. To get the full range of colours out of the neg, rather than something that looks like it was shot under green flouro lighting requires first removing the 'Orange Mask' from a digital capture. This is not something you can do with a single filter. Having just worked it all out yesterday (and done it) I can now give the instructions here:

1. Digitise with a blue filter such as an 80A. This just ensures one is making better use of the digital bandwidth (avoids clipping of any colour channel).
2. Convert RGB capture to CMY (no K)
3. Copy Cyan channel into a new channel called Magenta Mask
4. Reduce levels on Magenta Mask to about 20%
5. Subtract Magenta Mask from the inverse of the original Magenta channel. Invert the result and call it Magenta Repaired
6. Copy Magenta Repaired to a new channel called Yellow Mask. Reduce levels to about 20%
7. Subtract Yellow Mask from the inverse of the Yellow Channel. Invert the result and call it Yellow Repaired.
8. Remove Green and Blue from Cyan Channel to make a new result called Red
9. Remove Red and Blue from Magenta Repaired to make a new result called Green
10. Remove Red and Green from Yellow Repaired to make a new result called Blue.
11. Combine Red Green and Blue with blend mode = Screen.

The reasons for this is in the way colour negative is made. The negative consist of 5 layers:

1. Blue Sensitive Layer (becomes Yellow Dye)
2. Yellow Mask (stops blue light diving deeper into the emulsion, but lets Red and Green pass deeper)
3. Green Sensitive Layer (becomes Magenta Dye)
4. Magenta Mask (stops green light descending deeper into the emulsion, and lets Red pass deeper (and would also let blue but there is no more blue at this stage)
5. Red Sensitive Layer (becomes Cyan Dye)

But in addition to this the Masking Layers are coupled to the layer directly below them: so the Yellow Mask is coupled to the Magenta Dye layer, and Magenta Mask coupled to the Cyan Dye layer. The result (during film development) is that the Yellow Mask acquires an inverse image of the Magenta Dye layer, and the Magenta Mask acquires an inverse image of the Cyan Dye layer. Both of these need to be removed. But how? Well there is no Cyan Mask which means the Cyan channel of the digital copy is unpolluted. Since the Magenta Mask is an inverted image of the Cyan layer, one can synthesise the Magenta Mask from the Cyan layer and then subtract it from the Magenta channel! The result is an unpolluted Magenta channel. Repeat the same logic for the Yellow Mask and one has then removed the Yellow Mask, ending up with an unpolluted image. The rest is just fine tuning the image in the way you would otherwise fine tune an ordinary colour image.

Anyway - just had to get that out of my system.

C

[Will2]

I looked into making new 16mm prints from blu-rays. To do the film-out with one answer print you'd be in the $10,000 range. But of course running off prints from that negative would be cheaper, say like $2500 a pop. Don't know anyone who would want to pay that money, but maybe some collector that would want a pristine print or two so they could actually screen one without worries...

Of course you could only make one copy for your own personal backup purposes after legally purchasing said blu-ray so that makes it even more crazy of an idea. Just wish the studios would consider releasing these prints since if you could make 100 of them you could sell them for much less. Blu-Ray is a much better quality (in some ways) image and is much more likely to be copied than any 16 or 35mm print would ever be so why not make it available to people who love film?

[wado1942]

Have just finished doing preliminary digital grade on the cinematographic component of the work. If anyone is interested this is quite an elaborate process for colour negative. To get the full range of colours out of the neg, rather than something that looks like it was shot under green flouro lighting requires first removing the 'Orange Mask' from a digital capture. This is not something you can do with a single filter. Having just worked it all out yesterday (and done it) I can now give the instructions here:

Anyway - just had to get that out of my system.

C

I've been looking into this myself, so thank you! BTW, what software are you using?