info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Concert for Bangladesh(1972) 16mm to 70mm Blow-up?
251 views
Skip to first unread message
cinemad
Jun 25, 2013, 3:17:01 AM6/25/13
to
An article in an 1972 American Cinematographer states that initially Film Effects
made a 65mm Interpos from the 16mm Eastman Color neg. Eastman didn't have enough available stock of the 65mm 5253 Intermediate film so they made all the prints from a
16mm Color reversal Intermediate.
Another source states that all the 70mm prints were made from the original 16mm Camera negative direct to 70mm prints.
Does anybody know the true story here?
Regards,
Peter Mason
made a 65mm Interpos from the 16mm Eastman Color neg. Eastman didn't have enough available stock of the 65mm 5253 Intermediate film so they made all the prints from a
16mm Color reversal Intermediate.
Another source states that all the 70mm prints were made from the original 16mm Camera negative direct to 70mm prints.
Does anybody know the true story here?
Regards,
Peter Mason
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2013, 10:07:03 AM6/25/13
to
and the opticals don't look like crap as they would if they were done to a
16mm CRI.
Optical blowups directly from a 16mm conformed negative to a print are
expensive. Fine idea if you're only going to make one or two prints, not
such a good idea if you're making hundreds. And of course optical effects
make it that much more expensive.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
cinemad
Jun 26, 2013, 4:14:07 AM6/26/13
to
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 00:07:03 UTC+10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> cinemad <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >An article in an 1972 American Cinematographer states that initially Film Effects >made a 65mm Interpos from the 16mm Eastman Color neg. Eastman didn't have enough available stock of the 65mm 5253 Intermediate film so they made all the prints from a >16mm Color reversal Intermediate. >Another source states that all the 70mm prints were made from the original 16mm Camera negative direct to 70mm prints. > >Does anybody know the true story here? I don't know, but I see a bunch of optical effects when I watch that film, and the opticals don't look like crap as they would if they were done to a 16mm CRI. Optical blowups directly from a 16mm conformed negative to a print are expensive. Fine idea if you're only going to make one or two prints, not such a good idea if you're making hundreds. And of course optical effects make it that much more expensive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Accrding to the article which was in the May 1972 Amwerican Cinematographer
> cinemad <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >An article in an 1972 American Cinematographer states that initially Film Effects >made a 65mm Interpos from the 16mm Eastman Color neg. Eastman didn't have enough available stock of the 65mm 5253 Intermediate film so they made all the prints from a >16mm Color reversal Intermediate. >Another source states that all the 70mm prints were made from the original 16mm Camera negative direct to 70mm prints. > >Does anybody know the true story here? I don't know, but I see a bunch of optical effects when I watch that film, and the opticals don't look like crap as they would if they were done to a 16mm CRI. Optical blowups directly from a 16mm conformed negative to a print are expensive. Fine idea if you're only going to make one or two prints, not such a good idea if you're making hundreds. And of course optical effects make it that much more expensive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Magazine only 12 70mm prints were made from the 16mm CRI.
There was a 2 month delay in getting the 65mm 5253 stock from KODAK for the 65mm Interpos and Interneg(Similar to the 70mm Blow-up for GWTW where a camera negative film, Eastman Color 5251 was used for the 65mm Interneg.)
Does the current DVD of for CFB look grainy?
Regards,
Peter M
used for the 65mm blow-up internegative.)
Scott Dorsey
Jun 27, 2013, 8:59:22 PM6/27/13
to
cinemad <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Accrding to the article which was in the May 1972 Amwerican Cinematographer=
>=20
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 you 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, the financial limitation is the direct blowup to
print.
>There was a 2 month delay in getting the 65mm 5253 stock from KODAK for the=
> 65mm Interpos and Interneg(Similar to the 70mm Blow-up for GWTW where a ca=
sound into theatres. So even if the blowup looks pretty lousy, people weren't
going to the theatre so much for the picture as the sound.
>
>Accrding to the article which was in the May 1972 Amwerican Cinematographer=
>=20
>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 you 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, the financial limitation is the direct blowup to
print.
>There was a 2 month delay in getting the 65mm 5253 stock from KODAK for the=
> 65mm Interpos and Interneg(Similar to the 70mm Blow-up for GWTW where a ca=
>mera negative film, Eastman Color 5251 was used for the 65mm Interneg.)
Remember that in this era, 70mm mag was the only way to get clean multichannel
sound into theatres. So even if the blowup looks pretty lousy, people weren't
going to the theatre so much for the picture as the sound.
cinemad
Jul 1, 2013, 4:35:08 AM7/1/13
to
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= >=20 >Magazine only 12 70mm prints were made from the 16mm CRI. Okay... so it was shot on 5247 and not on reversal stock.
Actually it was shot on 7254, the 5247/7247 emulsion wasn't introduced until 1974 and CFB was shot in 1971.
> cinemad <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Accrding to the article which was in the May 1972 Amwerican Cinematographer= >=20 >Magazine only 12 70mm prints were made from the 16mm CRI. Okay... so it was shot on 5247 and not on reversal stock.
In your earlier post you stated there were lots of opticals in the film. Were you talking about lap-dissolves or other kinds of opticals?
Regards,
Peter M
Scott Dorsey
Jul 2, 2013, 9:30:53 AM7/2/13
to
>> 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.
>
>Actually it was shot on 7254, the 5247/7247 emulsion wasn't introduced unti=
print gets made one frame at a time in an optical printer from the 16mm neg.
Each print requires another run through the optical printer with Bill Palmer
or someone else just as highly paid standing by chewing his nails.
>In your earlier post you stated there were lots of opticals in the film. We=
film and I realize I may have been conflating some of it with the Woodstock
film.
> 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.
>
>Actually it was shot on 7254, the 5247/7247 emulsion wasn't introduced unti=
>l 1974 and CFB was shot in 1971.
Yuck! Same comment applies, though, camera negative gets conformed, blowup
print gets made one frame at a time in an optical printer from the 16mm neg.
Each print requires another run through the optical printer with Bill Palmer
or someone else just as highly paid standing by chewing his nails.
>In your earlier post you stated there were lots of opticals in the film. We=
>re you talking about lap-dissolves or other kinds of opticals?
I remember seeing multi-panel frames but it's been 40 years since I saw the
film and I realize I may have been conflating some of it with the Woodstock
film.
cinemad
Jul 9, 2013, 4:25:27 AM7/9/13
to
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= >=20 >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 you 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 them optically so as to retaiin the correct geometry in the print?
Regards,
Peter M
Scott Dorsey
Jul 9, 2013, 10:52:48 AM7/9/13
to
>> 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=
> in the May 1972 Amwerican Cinematographer=3D >=3D20 >Magazine only 12 70mm=
> 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.
cinemad
Jul 10, 2013, 3:37:27 AM7/10/13
to
On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 00:52:48 UTC+10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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. --scott --
Using the latest generation of Intermediate film (Kodak 5242) I'm reasonably certain that going through 2 generations of 42 would probably look better than a print off a first generation CRI.
> 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. --scott --
Regards,
Peter M
Derek Gee
Aug 20, 2013, 6:03:42 PM8/20/13
to
"cinemad" <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa1c78ca-a761-41c4...@googlegroups.com...
have been done from the original 16mm negatives, not the 70mm blow up, so
the DVD shows more picture than the original release prints.
Derek
news:fa1c78ca-a761-41c4...@googlegroups.com...
>Does the current DVD of for CFB look grainy?
>
>Regards,
>Peter M
It's a little grainy, but not objectionably so. The restoration appears to
>
>Regards,
>Peter M
have been done from the original 16mm negatives, not the 70mm blow up, so
the DVD shows more picture than the original release prints.
Derek
cinemad
Aug 28, 2013, 3:22:39 AM8/28/13
to
On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 08:03:42 UTC+10, Derek Gee wrote:
> "cinemad" <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fa1c78ca-a761-41c4...@googlegroups.com... >Does the current DVD of for CFB look grainy? > >Regards, >Peter M It's a little grainy, but not objectionably so. The restoration appears to have been done from the original 16mm negatives, not the 70mm blow up, so the DVD shows more picture than the original release prints. Derek
I'm wondering if they made a 16mm Interpositive from the original 7254 Eastman Color Neg. Wouldn't be difficult going from thr original camera negative with all those joins?
> "cinemad" <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fa1c78ca-a761-41c4...@googlegroups.com... >Does the current DVD of for CFB look grainy? > >Regards, >Peter M It's a little grainy, but not objectionably so. The restoration appears to have been done from the original 16mm negatives, not the 70mm blow up, so the DVD shows more picture than the original release prints. Derek
Regards,
Peter Mason
Scott Dorsey
Aug 28, 2013, 10:19:58 AM8/28/13
to
>> "cinemad" <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fa1c78ca-a761-41c4-=
>86d3-382...@googlegroups.com... >Does the current DVD of for CFB look=
> grainy? > >Regards, >Peter M It's a little grainy, but not objectionably s=
>o. The restoration appears to have been done from the original 16mm negativ=
>es, not the 70mm blow up, so the DVD shows more picture than the original r=
>elease prints. Derek
>
>I'm wondering if they made a 16mm Interpositive from the original 7254 East=
>man Color Neg. Wouldn't be difficult going from thr original camera negativ=
>e with all those joins?
Nahh, not if they were good. Scanners today are pretty amazing.
>86d3-382...@googlegroups.com... >Does the current DVD of for CFB look=
> grainy? > >Regards, >Peter M It's a little grainy, but not objectionably s=
>o. The restoration appears to have been done from the original 16mm negativ=
>es, not the 70mm blow up, so the DVD shows more picture than the original r=
>elease prints. Derek
>
>I'm wondering if they made a 16mm Interpositive from the original 7254 East=
>man Color Neg. Wouldn't be difficult going from thr original camera negativ=
>e with all those joins?
Nahh, not if they were good. Scanners today are pretty amazing.
cin...@hotmail.com
Nov 27, 2019, 1:53:13 AM11/27/19
to
Concert for Bangladesh. The GWTW 7omm print would have looked much
better thru 5253. They used 5251 camera negative instead which was much grainier and its gamma was .65 rather than 1 for the 5253. The result a low contrast grainy image.They should have waited for the 5253.
Peter M
c
0 new messages