Jump to content




Photo

Direct to print vs internegative


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Juha Mattila

Juha Mattila
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 03 November 2015 - 06:29 PM

Hello!

Have anybody made comparison whit these two? I have never knowingly seen direct film print made by Cinevator. How much it differs from using internegative? Does internegative give more organic look to the final print than direct printing? Although from DI to internegative film looses great deal of organic look comparing to analog neg to pos process. Its actually striking to see these side by side. Analog process is so much better. Anyway I wonder how big difference does these two modern process have?

 

Thank you fore any input!


  • 0




#2 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2372 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:33 PM

Well, nothing stops you from taking your cut negative and striking a print off it. The problem is, how many times do you want your original negative dragged through the printer?

The purpose of the internegative is to be your final negative. You will do a scene by scene color correction from your camera negative to the internegative. You'll also put a sound track onto the internegative as that's where it resides. Basically, the internegative is your final print negative, it's where everything marries together.

Most films will then create an IP off that IN. That IP is what they'll use for making prints. You can skip that process if you plan on only making a few prints. It's only there for protection of the IN, which should be saved because that's your "master".

With DI, the grain structure is more highlighted and needs "calming" which leads to heavy noise reduction. This makes the image softer, which then is printed back onto film and can look strange.

Prints struck off the IN look great, the grain structure is quite amazing because it's not only the camera original grain and color, but also the print grain and color. Every print stock has it's own inherent look, which a lot of people try to mimic in post.
  • 0

#3 Juha Mattila

Juha Mattila
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 04 November 2015 - 03:25 PM

Hi Tyler,

 

Actually i meant to ask about DI rout. Difference of printing digital file to internegative with Arrilaser or positive with Cinevator. Sorry about confusion.


  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 November 2015 - 04:46 PM

I wouldn't say that going to an IN and then print is more "organic", it's just another generation removed than going direct to print.  But certainly there is an archival advantage to making an IN and storing that, plus you made need another print someday.  But if you are sure you just need one print, then the only question for me is the "look" of an Arrilaser versus the Cinevator in terms of contrast, sharpness, etc. and not having used a Cinevator, I can't answer that.


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2372 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 November 2015 - 11:38 PM

Actually i meant to ask about DI rout. Difference of printing digital file to internegative with Arrilaser or positive with Cinevator. Sorry about confusion.


Got ya.

I don't know anything about the cinevator.
  • 0

#6 Juha Mattila

Juha Mattila
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 05 November 2015 - 08:02 AM

With DI, the grain structure is more highlighted and needs "calming" which leads to heavy noise reduction. This makes the image softer, which then is printed back onto film and can look strange.

 

Are you suggesting not to use any "calming" with DI if your goin to print it to film? Not that im fan of a grain reduction in any how. I love grain, but i also love fine grain look of low speed film, but it is different story when you reducing grain in DI.

 

I got this super8 project in relation wihich i have post here before. Im still trying to find out the best way to blow-up K40 to 35mm. Problem is that K40 was created for projection. Scaning it is bit problematic, but analog wetgate blow-up is far to expensive for me. I gues i need to do warious tests whit scans and printings. Using Cinevator is quite cost-effective so i will give it a try.

 

My goal is to get as close as possible (economically and technically) to have same look on 35mm print that i have when i project my K40 on screen. There is just something magical about projected K40, saturation of colors, luster of grains, methapysical glow...


  • 0

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2372 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 November 2015 - 02:31 PM

Yea, I mean with low-grain stocks you can get away with no noise reduction. The only problem comes down to digital artifacts, but you can't help that with super 8. It's always going to look better projected then scanned unfortunately. Super 8 blow up to 35mm is so rare, I can't imagine anyone having that setup naturally and willing to strike a deal price wise. If your lab has a cinevator, that to me seems like the best option for super 8 because it can only resolve 2k anyway.
  • 0

#8 Juha Mattila

Juha Mattila
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 05 November 2015 - 06:54 PM

Andec in Germany have super8 blow-up to 35mm, but the cost is 8.5€ (9.25$) per meter. Too expensive for me. Maybe if i have a shorter project. Firs have SD scan - edit - cut the super8 leaving onely what is going to be on print (almos like neg cut) - blow-up - neg cut - print... Actually 16mm print would do me fine but it would be approx same price and there is no direct digital printing on 16mm, not that i know anyhow.

 

it's not only the camera original grain and color, but also the print grain and color. Every print stock has it's own inherent look, which a lot of people try to mimic in post.

 

I hope that projected print stock will restore some magic of K40.

 

"My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected onto a screen, come to life again like flowers in water."
- Robert Bresson


  • 0

#9 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1524 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 05 November 2015 - 07:01 PM

Juha,

That quote from Bresson is...astonishing.  I wish more people on this forum were interested in what he might have meant.  Were able to entertain what these words might be able to do...

 

Thanks.


  • 0

#10 Juha Mattila

Juha Mattila
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 06 November 2015 - 09:25 AM

Yes, its my favorite quote from him and he have lot of great aphorisms. Bresson is so unique character in cinema world. He was jansenist, outsider, some sort of mythical figure and he loved Bond movies, specially For Her Eyes Only. Used only 50mm lens (actually there are at least two shots where he used tele-lens: Lancelot: moon shot and Une Femme: scarf flying shot) He was very "deceitful". One couldnt never tell hes true motives. Anne Wiazemskys bio Jeanne fille is very enlighting reading. She paints a picture of this middle-aged guy who is desperately in love whit hes 18 yers old "model". There is also lot of funny stories, like when Mr. Bresson is trying to make contact whit hes other "model" donkey Balthazar, but Donkey just turns his head and ignores Bresson who says sadly: "He dosnt care about me". I have always think that he was kind of cool hearted genius who had a mystical connection whit hes "models". According Wiazemskys book the reality was quit different but then again when watching Balthasar and Wiazemsky on screen you can feel mystical connection between them and camera. So at the end one is not sure anything about Bresson intentions. Was he really in love whit Wiazemsky or was he just trying to get the performance he wanted.

 

"Choose your models well, so they lead you where you want to go."

-RB


  • 0

#11 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 393 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:41 PM

We had cinevator prints made for one country so that they could add subtitles.

It looked awful!!!!

Prints made from the Arri laser negative looked swell though...
  • 0

#12 Juha Mattila

Juha Mattila
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 07 November 2015 - 01:56 PM

We had cinevator prints made for one country so that they could add subtitles.

It looked awful!!!!

Prints made from the Arri laser negative looked swell though...

Damn! I was really hoping it would be decent cos its so affordable. I will make some tests...


  • 0


The Slider

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Technodolly

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

The Slider

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineTape

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Pro 8mm

Aerial Filmworks