8mm Forum: Color correction for 16mm?

This is topic Color correction for 16mm? in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000596

Posted by Zachary Reader (Member # 2204) on November 24, 2010, 06:49 PM:

There's a film I'm considering purchasing and since its very red, I would like to buy a color correction lens. Does anyone know of a website I can get one of these?

Thanks [Smile]

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on November 24, 2010, 07:02 PM:

Zachary,

Here's a link to a review I did of Wittner-Cinetec's Color Rebalance Filter.

As I say in the review, if your print is totally red nothing will work!

Doug

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on November 24, 2010, 10:21 PM:

Just find a 50c color correction filter to attach to your lens. It will do the same thing. Here's one for $5:

http://cgi.ebay.com/KODAK-COLOR-COMPENSATING-FILTER-CC50C-CAT-149-6579-/230497388920?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35aab70978

and even a bigger one, 6 inches square:

http://cgi.ebay.com/KODAK-COLOR-COMPENSATING-FILTER-CC50C-CAT-149-6579-/230497388920?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35aab70978

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 25, 2010, 02:46 AM:

Don't waste your time.

A faded print is a faded print.

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on November 25, 2010, 05:12 AM:

Not quite Larry..... CHECK the POSTAGE CHARGE!!!
Martin

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on November 25, 2010, 11:16 PM:

I had a look at the Kodak filter mentioned by Larry and the packaging says "keep in a cool dry place", so I suppose this one would not be made of glass?

Martin - Even with the postage added, $10.99 doesn't seem excessive for a US buyer, if the product is effective!

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on November 26, 2010, 09:26 PM:

A couple other things to try to bring out color would be to use a silver screen or even a light blue bed sheet to project warming prints on.

Another alternative is find a place that sells high end telescopes and ask them what filter lenses they use to make the colors pop on distant planets.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 27, 2010, 02:28 AM:

...or just buy the DVD!

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on November 27, 2010, 06:04 AM:

Adrian,
It may not be a lot altogether but I just have a thing about excessive postal charges.... in this case $4.99 for the item and
$13.99 for postage, which makes $18.98 altogether (not $10.99!)

The "bargain" is not a bargain after all, especially asa at the end of the day the filter will not help anyway..... "a faded print is a faded print".....you cannot put back that which has GONE_ the other colours!
Martin

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on November 27, 2010, 03:58 PM:

quote:
...or just buy the DVD!

Very true Mike, when all tinkering is done, a faded print is a faded print and the best way to have perfect color is the DVD...works great for V.S. cure too [Wink]

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on November 28, 2010, 02:46 AM:

I can see no reason at all for messing around with faded prints - OK, perhaps if it is ABSOLUTELY the only way a particular title can be seen.

I would prefer film to anything digital any day, but not a print which shows such an amount of fade that one feels one needs to "correct" it.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on November 28, 2010, 07:47 PM:

Martin - I share your dislike of excessive postal charges, but as the member who started this thread is in the USA, the $10.99 I mentioned was a reference to the total it would cost him to buy the filter.

It's a personal view, but I think such filters do help in some situations if there's still some colour left. Doug's link above to the thread in which he illustrates the diffence in relation to a selection of prints seems to support this.

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on November 29, 2010, 06:08 AM:

Hi,

the above eBay-filters are "Optical Gelatin Filters" ( http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/OpticalGelatinFilters.pdf ) and hence not made of glass/plastic.

Jörg

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on November 29, 2010, 05:52 PM:

OOPS!

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on November 29, 2010, 05:53 PM:

If anybody wants a set of these filters (3) I have a set I'm not using because I actually have 2 sets.The cost is 10.00 which includes postage in USA. I take paypal.

Posted by Andy Davis (Member # 2030) on December 06, 2010, 02:01 PM:

Thanks @ Larry Arpin for simplifying the matter. I finally bit at that price (found one for $9 with shipping for 6"), and it just came in the mail. Granted, I haven't projected yet, but slapping the filter down over the film on a light table with a loup, it looks extrememly promising! I checked out my Jaws print first, which I unfortunately just showed--wish I had had this first. Then my print of Nashville, which is far more faded, and the results actually looked even better in terms of the rescue being done, if not the final result. I would wager, based on looking at the pics here, that compared to that Wittner filter, this allows more light (in color, and probably as a gel vs. glass, though correct me if that's wrong) and a less aggressive lean towards green (or the intensity of the blue), so when it is doing nothing more than removing red, the blue balance left behind is more natural than either the red or the sickly blue-green of the Wittner at it's worse--although it may work less miracles than the Wittner at its best. Maybe things will be different when I actually project, but if anyone would like to see scans of these prints, with a frame under the filter and one without, let me know, and I will get to it sometime soon.

Posted by Andy Davis (Member # 2030) on December 07, 2010, 03:04 PM:

Well, I projected the films today, and the difference from what I saw on the light table is fairly significant. Nashville looked pretty terrible. I would rather go with the vibrancy of the original faded film than muted blue highlights, which just trade one set of flaws for another.
Jaws, which has significantly more color, was a different story. I could see maybe using the filter or one similar. The color correction was great and the blue highlights fairly mininmal. The main drawback, again, was the muted quality of the image. On the face of it, the picture was quite nice, and color-wise vastly improved. With no basis of comparison an audience would be very pleased, I think. But when you pull the filter away there is such a leap in tactile vibrancy--an immediate "hey, we're watching a movie!" feeling, like it's coming off the screen, compared to the relative politeness of the filtered image. The reason I say I might use a filter to show Jaws is I did find a compromise which is probably going to sound pretty cracked-out. If you lower the filter so that maybe a fourth to a fifth of the top of the image slips over the edge of the filter, the screen gets a much-needed boost of vibrancy and warmth. Weirdly, it doesn't register that there is a band of unfiltered image at the top of the screen--it all registers as a happy cross between the "trapped in amber" feeling of the completely filtered image and the unchecked warmth of the unfiltered image. I would probably do a test of a third or so of the film to confirm that it does not produce a weird result in any scenes. The right spot is easy to find--if you slide it up and down, you get a sort of "a-ha" moment at one point.
My gel filter is already totally messed-up, scratch and mote-wise, so that may be contributing to things. Maybe I should get a glass version, but I'm not totally sold on pursuing this avenue so far. I did order a few other suggested types of gel besides the CC50C, but mainly it seems like a lighter shade of the the same color as the CC50C would be a better solution than allowing light to spill over the top of the gel...
I don't have a still camera, but again, if anyone is interested in seeing what I am talking about, I can shoot some Flip video of these tests at some point.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 11, 2010, 04:45 AM:

Zachary, I work in the Sensitometric control dept in a film lab., and I use colour filters in correcting all aspects of printing of motion pictures, and I have tried to correct the colour on faded 16mm prints at home without success. Adding filters to achieve correction is called a subtractive process, and it does just that, it may give the slight appearance of correcting the colour but also cuts down the light dramatically. It's interesting to experiment, but I've learned to live with my faded prints, and there's allways something special on seeing a film the proper way. Allan.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2