Feature For DI Shot On Ektachrome

Considering shooting a feature on super 16 Ektachrome (7239, 49, 50 and 51) for Digital Intermediate. I know this film has been recently discontinued by Kodak, though I've heard there is a decent stockpile somewhere. The director and I both love the look of reversal. (I've shot several commercials on this stock. Tried and failed several times with several talented and expensive colourists to match the reversal look with negative).

Has anyone done this before? Any references? Was "A Man and a Woman" ("Un Homme et Une Femme") shot on reversal? Is this crazy given reversal's intransigence?

Any thoughts welcome

Best,

Byron Shah
DP/Los Angeles

Byron,

Have you tried 7285? It is slower than the old reversals but very sharp and an gives you an incredible look. You could always cross process and skip bleach for certain scenes.

John Babl

Byron writes:

>Has anyone done this before? Any references? Was "A Man and a >Woman" ("Un Homme et Une Femme") shot on reversal? Is this crazy >given reversal's intransigence?

"Design" by Davidson Cole, which screened at Sundance in 2002 was done this way. It was shot in reversal (sorry I don't know which stock(s). Selects with handles were transferred to HDD5 and assembled on an Avid DS. It was then filmed out on the Arrilaser recorder. This film was a VERY dark film both visually and emotionally and as a result it lended itself to the reversal stocks very rich blacks. Having said that, all I can recommend is that you remember that you don't have negative stock's latitude, so don't look for room to "fix it in post".

Also if you haven't shot reversal recently (or ever) remember to expose for the highlights and light the shadows.

Rick Anthony
General Manager
The Lab @ Moving Images
227 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017

>VERY dark film both visually and emotionally and as a result it lended >itself to the reversal stocks very rich blacks.

Did I really write that?? I know that lended I not a word. It's early.

Rick Anthony
General Manager
The Lab @ Moving Images
227 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017

Byron Shah wrote :

>Considering shooting a feature on super 16 Ektachrome (7239, 49, 50 >and 51) for Digital Intermediate. I know this film has been recently >discontinued by Kodak

Lovely stocks, especially 50 (I don't really care about the others) -- just don't let any highlights go over, remember, you can print it up a bit, but never down. I'd do it -- but it will be sad to be the last film taking that route.

Make sure also that you have a lab that will still process it, as most will be shutting down their VNF lines given Kodak's absolutely idiotic discontinuance of color reversal stocks.

(No, a couple of slow ME4 stocks don't count!)

Jeff "a sad day in Rochester" Kreines

If you have not been shooting reversal but have been shooting a lot of neg, and if you, like many, instinctively "open up just a teeny bit" when you are setting your stop, you might want to shoot a few rolls of 'chromes in a still camera "around town" just to remind yourself what happens when you expose it the way you expose neg (hey, mommie, why is the sky so white?)

It's not that shooting stills is so cheap (though it is) so much as it is so easy to do, and nothing drives home the point like looking at a thin slide. DI can do many things, but it can't put back information that is lost.

I know this sounds like a stupid suggestion - we're all grownups and we know how to do this properly, etc... I know in my case that once I get my brain programmed one way, I have to conspicuously change my "gut reaction" parameters.

Mark Weingartner
LA based
Thousands of Slides In Files

Jeff "a sad day in Rochester" Kreines wrote :

>...Kodak's absolutely idiotic discontinuance of color reversal stocks.

What's idiotic about discontinuing a dying product they would have to spend millions on to bring its processing into compliance with newer environmental requirements? With Kodak suffering under the onslaught of the digital revolution, it seems like a pretty wise--if sad--decision.

Now if you have an issue with those environmental regulations, that's another matter....

Wade "they would have become really sKerry" Ramsey

Thanks for the replies.

Reversal does take practice to shoot and light--so different than neg.

Were Hollywood studio-system features ever shot on reversal?

Mr Kreines : why the preference for 7250 (400T) and not 7251 (400D) or the 7239 (140T) or 7240 (140D)?

Best

Byron Shah
DP Los Angeles

Byron Shah writes :

>Thanks for the replies. Reversal does take practice to shoot and light-->so different than neg

It was always my opinion that experience shooting on reversal had to be one of the most solid foundations you could have in our craft - and what wonderful images!

Yours Sincerely

LAURIE K. GILBERT s.o.c.
Director of Photography
High Definition Cinematographer
Helicopter Aerial expert

Owner of :
L'IMAGE CINEMATOGRAPHY - Based In Asia, Filming The World
www.limage.tv

>...Were Hollywood studio-system features ever shot on reversal?

Technicolor experimented with it during WWII in order to economize on stock.

They shot THUNDERHEAD, SON OF FLICKA (I believe that's the one) on "Technicolor Monopack", which was actually 35mm Kodachrome with B&H perfs,

then did separations only from chosen takes.

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614

Wade Ramsey writes :

>..."Technicolor Monopack", which was actually 35mm Kodachrome with >B&H perfs, then did separations only from chosen takes.

Which, as everyone who's shot K16 or 8mm (probably everyone present) knows, the camera original is a marvel, but duplication is a problem. Adding contrast to an image is easy, removing it not so easy.

Tim Sassoon
SFD Vfx & creative post
Santa Monica, CA

Tim Sassoon writes :

>Which, as everyone who's shot K16 or 8mm (probably everyone >present) knows, the camera original is a marvel, but duplication is a >problem.

True.

But note that Technicolor Monopack was likely the precursor to Kodachrome Commercial, a low-contrast version of Kodachrome designed specifically for duplication, as the later Ektachrome Commercial was.

There was an agreement between Kodak and Technicolor (before Eastmancolor) that kept Kodak out of the 35mm color cine film market -- they could do 16mm, but not 35mm.

Jeff "them was the days" Kreines

Jeff Kreines writes :

>Technicolor Monopack was likely the precursor to Kodachrome >Commercial, a low-contrast version of Kodachrome

That's new to me. I just today saw an interesting show of dye-transfer prints from Kodachromes made between 1945 and 1960's at the Getty Museum in LA.

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/close_to_home/highlights.html

scroll down to "Americans in Kodachrome."

If you've only been shooting ECN for a while, the shadow density and saturation of (older) Kodachrome is a real shock. PS - I guess _some_ film is dead - just another week of Ektachrome motion picture film manufacturing! How different is VNF from E-6?

Tim Sassoon
SFD Vfx & creative post
Santa Monica, CA

Tim Sassoon writes :

> How different is VNF from E-6?

Well, there are no fast E-6 cine stocks... reversal is great in very low light, as you're unlikely to get milky blacks!

Jeff Kreines

Jeff Kreines writes :

> How different is VNF from E-6?

Well, there are no fast E-6 cine stocks...

I guess I meant the process itself, as E-6 isn't going anywhere soon (I've done hundreds of rolls myself in my kitchen sink). How different is it, and what happens if you cross-process? Besides clearing the Rem-Jet, that is.

Tim Sassoon
SFD Vfx & creative post
Santa Monica, CA

Here is the announcement for discontinuance of the VNF reversal films :

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/newsletters/news/

PCN040804_Q.pdf

Kodak is still exploring options of additional motion picture films designed for process E-6. No decision yet.

John Pytlak
Eastman Kodak Company
http://www.kodak.com/go/motion