Re: [Frameworks] B&W innerneg

From: andrew lennox (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2010 - 20:04:29 PST

i dont have a lot of experience with optical tracks as it is so expensive.
might be good to change the title of your post to reflect that question and see
what others have to say. personally ive never heard that before. did the
person give you a rationale? optical tracks are b/w but colour emulsion is
denser so maybe it contacts the optical reader in the projector more flush than
a b/w print? just a guess, i have no idea. sebastjan processes tracks
regularly so ask him. the best person to ask would be the person you plan to
use to expose the track. i only have experience with Ray Cook at transit
audio. he'd know for sure. im not sure where you are located so probably there
is someone more local to you than ray. anyway, your project sounds
interesting. have fun!

From: Lyra Hill <email suppressed>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 6:35:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] B&W innerneg

Hi Andrew,

You make some very good points. Maintaining the lowest grain and richest
tonality is definitely my goal, so I will contact Sebastian right away. And yes,
I'm aware that my original is cross-processed super8 - that's why it's even more
important to me to keep those qualities down. (By the way, technically it's not
a blow-up - it's more of a multiplication of multiple shots in synchronization
onto 16 - think unsplit-8 frameline positioning, but with each quadrant
independent of the others and right side up.) The idea to print onto 3383 came
from the information that optical soundtracks work better on color print stock
(is that true?). And yes, the second two generations will be contact printed! :)
Again, thank you for your detailed and thorough response.


On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM, andrew lennox <email suppressed> wrote:

Hi Lyra,
>Sam is right, if you process your plus-x with D-97 and dilute the working
>solution (say 9:1 or more) and lengthen the development time that will help.
>As far as what it will look like, I think you already suggested it in your first
>email: increase in contrast and grain. i think it looks cool but it is a
>specific look. i think you said you want to reproduce the original as close as
>possible. you're gonna lose detail with every generation. 7302 is meant for
>projection so it's gonna raise your contrast in the first generation and then
>you want to use a camera stock and then print from that. that's two more
>generations and the interneg would be a camera stock that is not meant to be
>used for that purpose. im not saying dont do it, bc i do it if that is what i
>am looking for and ive seen great results in other people's work. doing a small
>test first is what i do. for me, running the job is the easy part, the real
>work is the testing. even if you go with the plus-x as the interneg i would
>still use 7366 as your master positive. it is so flat that it looks really
>terrible but that is what you want at the intermediate stage; you want as flat
>an image as possible until you get to the final release print stage (3302 in
>your case). That print will give you back your contrast and the intermediate
>stocks (7234 and 7366) will help reproduce tonality/details/grain throughout
>generations. this is just the traditional way to do it, do tests and see what
>works for you. yes, as far as i know sebastjan will sell you some 7366. i
>appreciate that money is tight but plus-x is gold now so if it were me and i
>could afford it then i would save my plus-x to shoot a new project. check with
>sebastjan to see if he will sell some 7234. i think it is around the same price
>per foot as double-x (and what plus-x used to cost) and if you can get around
>the minimum buy from kodak by buying only what you need from sebastjan than so
>much the better, right? i dont understand whether you have 300' of super 8 or
>you think the 16mm blow up will yield 300' of 16mm? also, are you gonna
>optically print every generation or just the first and then contact print the
>interneg and release prints? please say the latter :) remember that you will
>be magnifying the grain during the blow up of the first stage. and that you
>have crossed processed the super 8 as neg which should mean you already have an
>increase in grain and contrast. for future reference, the easiest approach in
>terms of grain/contrast/generations, etc. is to process your super 8 as reversal
>and then make your interneg on 7234 on the jk. but that's neither here nor
>there now. anyway, maybe tmi, sorry. feel free to contact me at any point. it
>is a long road but i think you will be glad to follow it when you see results
>and possibilities. it's interesting that this direction can solely be about
>technical reproduction or it can become a new creative direction in re-thinking
>your original film material/aesthetic/concept. i wish you luck. and do hit up
>sebastjan along the way. he does this work on a daily basis and is excited to
>work with filmmakers. finally, at the very least, im glad you dont intend to
>make the release prints on 3383. you could do a lot of hard work and the
>results printing on that stock from a bw neg never look good from my experience.
From: Lyra Hill <email suppressed>
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 11:50:13 AM
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] B&W innerneg
>Yes, this is a blow up from super8 negative (actually Plus-x reversal developed
>negative). I think I'm going to print to 7302 on the JK, then take it to an
>internegative, and use that internegative to make multiple prints with optical
>soundtracks, again on 7302. Seems as though this is the general best-quality
>On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Sam Wells <email suppressed> wrote:
>You could have the PlusX developed to a lower gamma to cut back
>>contrast build-up a bit; grain you'll have some as compared to an
>>internegative or master pos stock, but... it could look good...
>>Double X will certainly add a bunch of grain.
>>Are you asking then, what you should print to on your JK ? (not quite
>>clear to me the steps),
>>this is a blow up from the Super8 negative source ?
>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>email suppressed
>FrameWorks mailing list
>email suppressed

FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed