British Kinematography (1951)

PRODUCING FILMS FOR 16 MM. RELEASE 05 DISCUSSION jn T. Ruod considered the economics ion of 35 mm. or 16 mm. He pointed ^proximately the same amount of equiprequired, but that 16 mm. equipment portable. He suggested that when 16 -ts only were required, it was better to r-. ix in 16 mm. Mr. i.lEvers differentiated between studio and ocation production, and between entertainment gifts and films of an industrial or scenic nature. | e portability of equipment and of film stock ght make 16 mm. advantageous. Mi". Ronald Riley mentioned that in a recent oreign location there had been a choice between .'echmcolor and Kodachrome. Production costs .light have been doubled by the use of Techniolor the additional costs including, of course, he technicolor crew. Mr. George Sewell stated that his work lay argely in factories. A large proportion of his quipment consisted of lights; the proportion epresented by camera gear was insignificant, and n the main, the amount of equipment was com)arable, whether for 35 mm. or 16 mm. fn echnical films, however, 16 mm. equipment was inch more lluid and subjects might be more iccessib'.e than with cumbersome 35 mm. equipnent. Mr. R. H. Cricks suggested that greater use hould be made of reversal. For a single copy, eversal processing had obvious advantages ; for a undred copies, negative / positive might be preerable. At what point did reversal processing ease to be superior ? Mr. Leevers pointed out that there was, in this ountry, only one laboratory undertaking reversal >rinting. His own impression was that the reersal process was capable of producing an excel.nt original and it was possible to get satisfactory Lupes, but the process constituted, in effect, a evelopment, printing and re-development process one emulsion, and very exact control was tecessary at every stage — far more exacting beause the three stages were combined in the one lm. Mr. Sewell agreed that reversal duping was apable of a fair number of copies ; the crux of he problem occurred when a large number of re ersal dupes was required from a Kodachrome >riginal, but it was possible to get fifty or sixty opies without degradation. There was one respect in which reversal duping howed an advantage: " sparkle " was inevitable n any negative /positive process, and was exceedngly difficult to eliminate. In reversal, on the |>ther hand, the effect appeared as black spots, vhich were not so offensive. Mr. E. M. Greenwood objected that the only olour processes so far considered were Techni;olor and Kodachrome. He submitted that in view of developments now taking place in other colour processes, such processes should be taken into consideration. Mr. Cantlay, stressing that the proposed investigation must have a scientific basis, objected that the 35 mm. and 16 mm. films were shown at different light intensities, and could not, therefore, be accurately compared. He mentioned the difference in procedure between making reduction prints from a 35 mm. negative and by contact from a L6 mm. negative ; the latter, he stated, was used almost exclusively by one of the largest laboratories. Referring to Mr. Greenwood's remarks, Mr. Leevers stressed that there was no intention to restrict the investigation to the colour processes mentioned. Replying to Mr. Cantlay's earlier remark, he agreed that the demonstration was not scientifically correct but was submitted for the purpose of formulating ideas for discussion. Mr. Cantlay mentioned a problem relating to the choice of method of producing prints : that the owner of a film might initially order only a few prints, and continue to place small orders. If an idea were first given of the total number of copies likely to be required, the production of a If) mm. negative could be considered in the first place. Mr. Davidson pointed out that the majority of laboratories were prepared to supply either optical or contact prints, as required. Mr. Walter Lassally raised the problem of the production of prints from sub-titled originals ; ninety per cent, of sub-titling became illegible. He asked what was the best method of producing prints from a sub-titled 35 mm. copy? Mr. Davidson stated that in superimposing titles in Chinese it had been necessary to use a black mask. He agreed that the results were rarely satisfactory. Replying to enquiries, Mr. Davidson explained the difference between photographic titling and sub-titling produced by etching. Mr. Sewell stated that certain founts of type were not suitable, the serifs and finials causing difficulty. Mr. Davidson pointed out that only one fount of type was available. Mr. Cricks mentioned that at least one laboratory was capable of superimposing sub-titles optically during contact printing. Mr. Leevers recalled that it had been previously recommended that a dupe should never be made from a show copy. Mr. D. G. Daggett, commenting on the high quality of the 35 mm. enlargements, asked for an explanation of " sparkle." Mr. R. H. Bomback explained that it was due to dust on the film printing through, although Mr. Sewell pointed out that it might be due to the emulsion. He pointed out that in reversal the eifect was to cause black spots, which would be less noticeable. Mr.