From: Nicholas Hamlyn (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jan 12 2006 - 14:17:25 PST
On 12 Jan 2006, at 01:30, Mark Toscano wrote:
> Pip -
> i see no specific *preservation* advantage to shooting
> negative over reversal. so lots of filmmakers are
> left with reversal originals now and have to make
> internegatives to preserve the films. first of all,
> to preserve negative-shot films, one needs to make an
> IP and then *another* IN from the IP, to be able to
> print.
In other words the print we eventually see is fourth generation? But
equally, I remember a Kodak processing routes chart/poster, where the
ideal was indicated to be a print from the original neg, and a print
from reversal original via interneg was second best (a dotted line on
their chart).
>
> as for regular ol' printing, many of these filmmakers
> have already made internegs over the years, and in
> fact it's the repeated printing of internegs over the
> repeated printing of reversal originals that has saved
> the originals from excessive wear.
Surely this only applies if you are making dozens of prints? I can see
why big movies are printed from internegs, but how many experimental
filmmakers make large enough numbers of prints of a given film over the
years to warrant printing from an interneg rather than the original
neg?
Nicky Hamlyn.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.