quote:

---

CHC regularly ask collectors if they can assist with master material. ...would you allow your 35mm print to be chopped up?

---

I don't think someone is going to give up his precious 35mm print to make a digest. But there is an idea, although will look silly, but is an alternative way to get the master material.

I previously wrote a thread about: [NEW INVENTION] Direct film printer real time, no negative needed!

If super 8mm negative can be made through 35mm positive, this means CHC can use BluRay copy and edit the film into 30 minutes in a lossless file then send to Cinevator to make 35mm print.

From this 35mm digest print then CHC can create a negative for super 8mm.

How does it sound?

As I say, it will look funny because it seems we are going to watch BluRay through super 8mm. But this is the only way to keep this hobby alive.

And don't forget that the Beatles Vinyl Box set released just a couple months ago was pressed through digital file too.

So people who are buying those vinyls are actually listening CD from vinyl.... just exactly the same thing with my idea above.

Now what is your opinion?
 

---

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on January 07, 2013, 03:10 PM:
 
Well, considering all feature films are released after printing from a negative "struck" by a film recorder (i.e. Cineon or Arrilaser), what you propose is the lesser evil (but it's evil nonetheless... ).
As a point in favour of your idea may I say I succesfully tried to film an HD LCD panel fed by a bluray film (the trailer of "Saving Private Ryan") and it was stunnning. I used a Beaulieu 6008 S (not quartzed) set at 24 fps (it's OK since BD run at 24) and the standard Optivaron 6-70 at F 1.4-2. Rich contrast, gorgeous color and (most important) almost no blended frames throughout the 2'30" of its duration (just a couple). I used Ektachrome 100 D and its grain is slightly noticeable, more than the pixels anyway which are "melt" in the film texture. I guess your workflow could be even more effective, so why not? But is it film???
 

---

Posted by Oscar Iniesta (Member # 1731) on January 07, 2013, 04:15 PM:
 
Yes, you are right, the films nowadays are made that way. But I am going to tell you something, I am one of those collectors who won´t pay money for such prints. Maybe some of you don´t mind to collect prints taken from a HD screen. I think this hobby will see better times once the bad situation we live fisnih. And I want to be there looking for some of my favourite titles. Other problem is the dark future of film stocks .
 

---

Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on January 07, 2013, 04:18 PM:
 

quote:

---

And don't forget that the Beatles Vinyl Box set released just a couple months ago was pressed through digital file too.

So people who are buying those vinyls are actually listening CD from vinyl.... just exactly the same thing with my idea above.

---

Going slightly off topic here, but I'm heading somewhere with it!

It is important to note, Winbert, that the digital masters for the Beatles vinyls released last year were done with formats and bitrates that are about 25 times that of a CD, at 24 bit, 96khz and 20000 kbps, according to an article I read previously. For comparison, a CD is 16 bit, 44,1khz and 1411 kbps. BUT, the important part is: it is good enough for vinyl! It is a digital format that is good enough for vinyl reproduction, and that is a gigantic step for digital music, and I think it's great, being quite the vinyl enthusiast.

What this means tho, is that in the same way, a properly prepared BluRay copy, edited and saved at a lossless, "perfect" quality, should suffice for Super 8! Filmmaker JJ Abrams said in an interview about his film, "Super 8", that when he scanned his footage filmed with Super 8mm film, using professional cameras and film stock, the quality output "stopped" at around 950-1000p (a DVD is 576p and Bluray 1080p, for comparison) and that everything above that was simply "enhancing the grain" and making the "film" more visible, without actually improving the quality. So that means, if you have a 1080p copy of a film, in "perfect" quality, like stated previously, it will suffice for a film transfer to Super 8, just like with the Beatles remasters
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 08, 2013, 09:54 AM:
 
Thankyou for that Chris, it puts things in perspective.The real
weakness in releasing any new titles is going to be the filmstock.
In a different thread I was asking on the viability of direct
reduction from 35mm direct to 16mm, which were split for std 8,
this was done in the past, which yielded excellent results, if the filmstocks were available,it might be good news
for the std 8mm users, and cheaper than S/8 as it doesn't entail the use of an intermediate.
 

---

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on January 08, 2013, 11:00 AM:
 
35mm prints are destroyed on a regular basis at the end of their theatrical life. One more sacrificial lamb wouldn't hurt a thing for a digest project. If you are a person who can easily get one copy of a new title, a second copy is not hard to get for "chopping up".

The high costs of digests does not come from the source material, it comes from the actual editing work to create the dupe neg & sound track. Human labor is not cheap in the modern world.

Digital scanning & film printing sounds great, HD or better scanning is not cheap and there are minimums to pay regardless if you hit the footage mark or not. Film printing is not cheap period. Not to mention, no reputable lab will even print a film for someone who does not have permission or own the rights to it. Any lab that will do that type of work will charge even more than going rates driving the price even higher.
 

---

Posted by Oscar Iniesta (Member # 1731) on January 08, 2013, 04:03 PM:
 
Imagine a lab in the next years. Majors has taken the digital way to avoid paying the prints bill. So labs will loose a high percent of his work and profits. If we find a lab working in the future for a small demand, they will do any work. I find a bigger problem for future releases the continuity of film stock.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 08, 2013, 04:13 PM:
 
That's the bottom line Oscar, if theres no filmstock, the idea of
any future releases is a none starter.
 

---

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on January 10, 2013, 03:42 AM:
 
Those of us that chopped up their 35mm prints for Super 8 release did it gratis Wayne.

One of the last prints I offered to Derann for a good chopping about was the re-release of Alien when it had the extra scenes in it. I suggested putting a reel of the changed sequences together for them for Super 8 release but they didn't think it would sell.

I would have liked to have had the option of that on Super 8 but whenever I project my 35mm print I'm rather glad I didn't butcher it about.
 

---

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 10, 2013, 04:07 AM:
 
I somehow don't think that 35mm copies of these films are that
easy to come across,and like John, I don't think i would have just
handed over my pride & joy to be hacked up in the cause of an
8mm release, especially for no return.
 

---

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2