cinemad <
cin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 28 June 2013 10:59:22 UTC+10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> cinemad <
cin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Accrding to the article which was=
> in the May 1972 Amwerican Cinematographer=3D >=3D20 >Magazine only 12 70mm=
> prints were made from the 16mm CRI. Okay... so it was shot on 5247 and not=
> on reversal stock. Then a CRI was made from the camera original (probably =
>the original was A-B rolled into a single A roll CRI and then 12 individual=
> blowups were done from the CRI to print stock.) It used to be possible for=
> this to be done, although it's a very expensive way of doing the job and y=
>ou have all the print slip from the CRI generation reducing your sharpness.=
> The image quality limitation here is the contact printing to make the CRI,
>
>Wasn't the usual procedure when making CRIs from original negs to print the=
>m optically so as to retaiin the correct geometry in the print?
Not a matter of geometry so much, just that the image is flopped right to
left when a contact print is made, so if you have a B-wind camera original,
you'd normally get an A-wind print with the emulsion on the opposite side for
projection. If you make an A-wind CRI through contact-printing, you get a
B-wind print. Projectionists don't like B-wind prints but more importantly
you can't splice the CRI back with the rest of the camera originals because
it's flopped. So if you want a B-wind CRI from a B-wind original, you have
to go with optical printing.
BUT... if you're going to be blowing the CRI up anyway, there's no reason to
do that, because you can flop it in the blow-up process.
So... if I were doing it, I'd do the CRI as a contact. (If possible I'd
do it on a step printer for best possible sharpness but that's unlikely.)
However, the chance anyone will ask me for a 16->70 blowup today is very
slim. And there's no more CRI material anyway so today we get an extra
generation anyway.