Jump to content


Photo

Processing 16mm negative as positive


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 22 August 2005 - 11:13 PM

Hey guys, I'm kind of new to this forum. I'm currently shooting a feature length movie on 16mm color negative. The guys at the transfer place that I go to told me to get my negative film processed as a positive. Is their a special term for this process? I'm pretty new to this whole film thing.

-Brandon
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 August 2005 - 12:27 AM

Hey guys, I'm kind of new to this forum.  I'm currently shooting a feature length movie on 16mm color negative.  The guys at the transfer place that I go to told me to get my negative film processed as a positive.  Is their a special term for this process?  I'm pretty new to this whole film thing. 

-Brandon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Either they are pulling your leg or they are using a film-chain type of old transfer device (basically a projector and a video camera pointed at each other) that can only use prints, not negatives (unless you want to risk transferring a negative and getting a negative image on video.

For a real telecine transfer, you would process normal for negative and mark "prep for telecine" on the work order.
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 23 August 2005 - 05:57 AM

Hey guys, I'm kind of new to this forum.  I'm currently shooting a feature length movie on 16mm color negative.  The guys at the transfer place that I go to told me to get my negative film processed as a positive.  Is their a special term for this process?  I'm pretty new to this whole film thing. 

-Brandon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There is no reversal process that can be used to process a motion-picture color negative. If you want a positive image, you need to make a print.

Normal process is ECN-2:

http://www.kodak.com....4.5.16.8&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...=0.1.4.13&lc=en
  • 0

#4 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 August 2005 - 12:44 PM

Either they are pulling your leg or they are using a film-chain type of old transfer device (basically a projector and a video camera pointed at each other) that can only use prints, not negatives (unless you want to risk transferring a negative and getting a negative image on video.

For a real telecine transfer, you would process normal for negative and mark "prep for telecine" on the work order.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Yeah, I figured they didn't know what they are talking about over there, seeing that they mostly transfer super 8 and such. They are using that film-chain type of transfering with a few different techniques with taking the negative and digitaly making it a possitive in the computer. Thing is, If this way looks good I could get all my film transferred for like half of the price it would cost for the telecline. I have one roll there right now, so I'm waiting to see the final result.
  • 0

#5 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 23 August 2005 - 07:23 PM

Hey guys, I'm kind of new to this forum. I'm currently shooting a feature length movie on 16mm color negative. The guys at the transfer place that I go to told me to get my negative film processed as a positive. Is their a special term for this process? I'm pretty new to this whole film thing.


We've read the technical answer (your transfer house has no idea!) . . . but I have a different question for Brandon/Clampet15 - or anyone else in the same position.

You say you are "pretty new to this whole film thing", and you are working with a transfer house that seems to know even less about film. OK. And you are shooting a feature length movie on 16mm.

Now even if you were given the stock for free, you are looking at processing costs for - say - 20,000 ft of neg (you must have some kind of shooting ratio, I've conservatively guessed 5:1). And you must be paying the transfer place something too, however basic their service. If you are starting on film will you finish on film? - there's more cost.

My question - with due respect - is, what kind of money do people have access to, to shoot so much film with so little knowledge of how it works? How confident can you be that it will have been money well spent, where you could probably get a more reliable result on video for much less?

I sure wouldn't be shooting a feature length production until I'd done some shorter work to get more familiar with the materials I was using. I wouldn't risk my own money on it, or anyone else's.

I ask this from an environment where professional filmmakers with years of experience shooting film are turning back, sometimes with regret, to video, simply to make the dollars stretch far enough. And even where some film schools take cinematographers right through their course without touching a frame of film - because it's too expensive. This isn't a supercilious dig at beginners - I'm genuinely puzzled: what are we missing?
  • 0

#6 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 August 2005 - 07:43 PM

Hmm Dominic, I was wondering the same thing.

Along those lines, if I'm reading correctly a large red flag goes up: If said transfer house is using a "film chain type thing" and your original camera negative is going through it, you are at a MAJOR risk of damaging your film.

-Sam
  • 0

#7 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 August 2005 - 08:05 PM

We've read the technical answer (your transfer house has no idea!) . . . but I have a different question for Brandon/Clampet15 - or anyone else in the same position.

You say you are "pretty new to this whole film thing", and you are working with a transfer house that seems to know even less about film. OK.  And you are shooting a feature length movie on 16mm.

Now even if you were given the stock for free, you are looking at processing costs for - say - 20,000 ft of neg (you must have some kind of shooting ratio, I've conservatively guessed 5:1). And you must be paying the transfer place something too, however basic their service. If you are starting on film will you finish on film? - there's more cost.

My question - with due respect - is, what kind of money do people have access to, to shoot so much film with so little knowledge of how it works? How confident can you be that it will have been money well spent, where you could probably get a more reliable result on video for much less?

I sure wouldn't be shooting a feature length production until I'd done some shorter work to get more familiar with the materials I was using. I wouldn't risk my own money on it, or anyone else's.

I ask this from an environment where professional filmmakers with years of experience shooting film are turning back, sometimes with regret, to video, simply to make the dollars stretch far enough. And even where some film schools take cinematographers right through their course without touching a frame of film - because it's too expensive. This isn't a supercilious dig at beginners - I'm genuinely puzzled: what are we missing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Well, I've done work with video and film in the past. I have made a few short films on video, many music videos ect. So hope i'm not completely ignorant to the film world. But every shoot is a learning process. Basically I would have never asked about this if the transfer house hadn't misinformed me (I will reconsider using their services in the future).

Trust me though, I had thought about shooting this thing on video.... it would have saved me some considerable money. But having shot on video before, I wasn't getting the results I wanted. I ended up spending to much time in post to create a film look that really didn't look like film.

I plan on having this released on a digital format instead of having it blown up to 35, unless situation calls for. But all in all, my film will most likely be made for less than the price of a canon xl2 or other pro-level digital camcorders. So the learning experience and final product was worth it for me to shoot on 16.
  • 0

#8 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 August 2005 - 08:11 PM

Hmm Dominic, I was wondering the same thing.

Along those lines, if I'm reading correctly a large red flag goes up: If said transfer house is using a "film chain type thing" and your original camera negative is going through it, you are at a MAJOR risk of damaging your film.

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


thanks for the info. I have done transfers with them in the past with super 8 with no problem, but I'll take this into consideration.
  • 0

#9 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 25 August 2005 - 09:18 AM

You can cross process reversal (positive image) film as a negative.Not the other way around though.Think that's what they might've meant?
  • 0

#10 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 25 August 2005 - 10:36 AM

my film will most likely be made for less than the price of a canon xl2 or other pro-level digital camcorders.

Huh?

How much do you think film stock and processing costs?

Are you getting stuff for free? Are you shooting a 2:1 ratio?
  • 0

#11 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 August 2005 - 02:39 PM

Huh?

How much do you think film stock and processing costs?

Are you getting stuff for free? Are you shooting a 2:1 ratio?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well I'm shooting all short ends or stuff off of ebay that I have tested. I only do one take (unless something goes completely wrong), with practice runs before hand. I get it processed at 16 cents a foot, and get it transferred for about 12 dollars per 100'. I plan on releasing this on dvd only.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 August 2005 - 10:52 PM

You're wasting whatever money you're spending not transferring it to video on a decent telecine. I mean, what's the point of shooting in 16mm and then compromizing the image by using a film chain device to dump it to video? Isn't the point of shooting in 16mm to get better image quality? So why improve quality in one area only to take it away again in another? You're just spending more money and not getting much back in return.
  • 0

#13 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:46 AM

You're wasting whatever money you're spending not transferring it to video on a decent telecine.  I mean, what's the point of shooting in 16mm and then compromizing the image by using a film chain device to dump it to video? Isn't the point of shooting in 16mm to get better image quality? So why improve quality in one area only to take it away again in another? You're just spending more money and not getting much back in return.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yeah, I'm currently waiting to see what my test roll will come out looking like. I'm not sure if their using a 3chip camera to capture the image either.... But its starting to sound like there probably is no cheap way out of getting this stuff transfered, I'll most likely end up doing the telecline. Also, would their projector throw off the timeing of my film when it is being captured? I'm allready shooting this thing MOS wild sync, I don't need it off anymore than it's already going to be.
  • 0

#14 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 31 August 2005 - 05:55 PM

Yeah, I'm currently waiting to see what my test roll will come out looking like.  I'm not sure if their using a 3chip camera to capture the image either....  But its starting to sound like there probably is no cheap way out of getting this stuff transfered, I'll most likely end up doing the telecline.  Also, would their projector throw off the timeing of my film when it is being captured?  I'm allready shooting this thing MOS wild sync, I don't need it off anymore than it's already going to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


You might be right, depending on how primitive their film chain is the speed of the transfer might fluctuate. Proper telecine machines transfer each frame at a time so their speeds are as accurate as your camera.

If you are worried about syncing the sound then you might try slating head and tail, but then if you are using a MOS camera, the camera might be too loud for you to use the production sound and you might be only able to use it as a guide track for looping in post anyway.

A proper telecine is one of the things that makes the biggest difference to the quality of the final image. I've seen Super8 footage that looked amazing because it had been transfered on a high end shadow telecine by a talented colourist. Places you might look at for telecine are flying spot in seatlle, who will probably produce great results, or if you really must skimp, then you could transfer on the machine at tfgtransfer, which at least is a proper telecine machine even if it is years and years out of date.

However, if you are spending all that money, then I really think you should get a decent colour corrected telecine. If finishing on video it is probably one of the most important parts of the process.
  • 0

#15 Clampet15

Clampet15
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 31 August 2005 - 10:41 PM

You might be right, depending on how primitive their film chain is the speed of the transfer might fluctuate. Proper telecine machines transfer each frame at a time so their speeds are as accurate as your camera.

If you are worried about syncing the sound then you might try slating head and tail, but then if you are using a MOS camera, the camera might be too loud for you to use the production sound and you might be only able to use it as a guide track for looping in post anyway.

A proper telecine is one of the things that makes the biggest difference to the quality of the final image. I've seen Super8 footage that looked amazing because it had been transfered on a high end shadow telecine by a talented colourist. Places you might look at for telecine are flying spot in seatlle, who will probably produce great results, or if you really must skimp, then you could transfer on the machine at tfgtransfer, which at least is a proper telecine machine even if it is years and years out of date.

However, if you are spending all that money, then I really think you should get a decent colour corrected telecine. If finishing on video it is probably one of the most important parts of the process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Yeah, Shooting this thing with a MOS camera has been very interesting. Through a system of camera barneys and zooming in to stay away from the mic, I have been able to capture sound without my loud scoopic ms making its presence known. I think I will probably choose TFGtransfers just for the money saving aspect. I have enough post software to alter the colors all I need. I'm hopeing the over all sharpness and everything will turn out good from there also. Thanks.
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Opal

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS