8mm Forum: Put your money where your mouth is

This is topic Put your money where your mouth is in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002252

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on August 23, 2012, 11:39 PM:

Well tomorrow I will stand up in front of industry Hollywood studio folks, and archivists and give my presentation on An Easy and Affordable 35mm desktop printer I am one archivist who is committed to film and not afraid to dive into the shark tank of digital guys and say so...My hope is that other archives will be inspired to continue using film...NOW if I could only convince the studios that it was beneficial to release super 8 prints of their new releases [Razz]

Posted by Panayotis A. Carayannis (Member # 1220) on August 24, 2012, 12:59 AM:

I wish you all the luck!

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on August 24, 2012, 01:40 AM:

Kodak just came out with a new archive film that's supposed to last over 100 years. It looks like they're introducing it at the same event. Good luck Dino!

Kodak Introduces New Film Aimed at Archiving

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 24, 2012, 02:38 AM:

Best of luck Dino,common sense dictates that Hollywood won't
put all their eggs in one basket and we would hope be looking
to the future.Which in the long run would surely be beneficial to
the private collector.

Posted by Jerome Sutter (Member # 2346) on August 24, 2012, 09:52 AM:

Dino, I wish you all the luck in the world. We have to take a stand on this. Digital is okay for home video, not for theaters.

Posted by Janice Glesser (Member # 2758) on August 24, 2012, 12:17 PM:

Fingers and toes crossed Dino [Smile]

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on August 24, 2012, 12:26 PM:

Best wishes for a convincing and successful presentation this afternoon, Dino!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 24, 2012, 01:12 PM:

Great good luck Dino!

There's no better person to broach this subject with a potentially skeptical audience than someone who really knows and loves film and can brief people on all the technical points of film as well as the pros and cons of film vs. digital.

No need for fingers crossed, you're the man!

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on August 24, 2012, 02:53 PM:

Got get em Dino! You'll show them! [Eek!]

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on August 24, 2012, 05:16 PM:

I'm with you too Dino...go get 'em! I'm sure you will do just fine! Hopefully common sense will prevail.

Bill [Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on August 24, 2012, 06:29 PM:

All the best Dino.

Reading through your topic it sounds good. The idea of digital files to 35mm negative can guarantee long term storing. I am sure you will find plenty of interest in it.

Graham.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on August 24, 2012, 07:41 PM:

All the best with your presentation Dino. I can think of no better ambassador for film than yourself.

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on August 26, 2012, 12:46 AM:

I am happy to report that the presentation went well, and I had some interesting data to give them based on the costs involved putting together my presentation. It costs me $425 to make my archival negative, and one light check print that I screened, and $2000 to make my 2K scan of the negative, and subsequent DCP...The sad thing was that while the DCP (of the scanned 35mm negative) looked great, the print (from the same 35mm negative)looked terrible...I think the labs are cheating now and running prints at like 480 fps, which is kind of like recording a VHS at SLP instead of SP....Hopefully I will be able to do the presentation again in Seattle at our December conference and I can point this out, as I did not figure it out until after I presented. ,, I did speak with Kodak and will be trying out their new stock on the printer soon...

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on August 26, 2012, 01:28 PM:

Dino-What was terrible about the print? Who printed it? Why didn't you complain and have it re-printed? Sorry for so many questions.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on August 26, 2012, 02:04 PM:

Well done Dino! [Wink]

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on August 27, 2012, 12:06 AM:

Larry
In regards to the print it was made by DeLuxe and since this is very much a test project my first viewing of the print left me unsure of whether the bad quality was in the print or the negative...It was only once I had the negative scanned that i was able to tell definitively that the print was made poorly.

The defects that were in the print were in regards to focus, since it is soft, and the gamma since there were blown out parts with little to no detail.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on August 28, 2012, 12:38 AM:

Dino-Is the original source material film or something shot from a digital camera? When I was at the DI company I was working for the RED files had very little or no info in the light areas. Skies were usually blown out. Or the print may have been timed wrong. Can't explain the focus unless I knew more.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on August 29, 2012, 11:16 AM:

Deluxe's days are numbered if they can't make an impressive-looking print as a sales advertisement.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2