British Kinematography (1951)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

96 BRITISH KINEMATOGRAPHY Vol. 18, No. Hissey commented that the effect was aggravated by optical printing. Replying to a visitor, who objected that the discussion was being extended to 35 mm. production, Mr. Leevers pointed out that account must be taken of the large number of films shot in 35 mm. and released in 16 mm. Mr. Bomback enquired the reason for the preference for working in 35 mm. Mr. Leevers suggested that among other factors were facilities for optical work in 35 mm., which could otherwise be produced from 16 mm. only by enlarging to 35 mm., optical printing, and reducing to 16 mm. Mr. Greenwood, agreeing that lack of 16 mm. equipment was a serious disadvantage, mentioned also the limited choice of stocks as compared with 35 mm. There had not, he said, been the same development in positive and negative stocks, for which reason it was customary to shoot 16 mm. on reversal stock. Mr. G. Craig disagreed with this view and said that, so far as Kodak materials were concerned, Plus-X picture negative was available in 16 mm., although Super-XX was available only as a reversal stock, since the coarser grain of a faster film tended to rule it out. As regards positive films, there was no restriction whatever ; exactly the same materials were available in 16 mm. as in 35 mm. The same applied to duping negative; the fact that duping positive film was not available was due to the extremely limited demand. A satisfactory master positive could be produced on one of the regular positive materials. The real shortage of choice in 16 mm. lay in sound recording films, in which 35 mm. offered a wider variety. Mr. \V. S. Bland expressed preference for the method of making a 16 mm. sound track by direct recording and contact printing. He agreed, however, that the obstacle mentioned by Mr. Cantlay, of uncertainty as to how many prints would be required, made this method at times uneconomical. Although in his own Company's laboratory optical reduction of high quality was the rule, certain customers showed a marked preference for direct recording. The ultimate quality obtainable by direct recording was governed by printer design. Mr. Leevers expressed the view that contact printing was in general superior to optical reduction, and Mr. Bland thought there was less consistency in the latter process, particularly at lower sound levels. He mentioned that with variable area recording the fine grain sound recording negative gave vastly improved results over the former No. 5301. Mr. Leevers spoke of his own uneasiness in recording a 35 mm. master track compensated for 16 mm., unless he was able to specify the laboratory where it was to be handled. Replying to Mr. Bomback, Mr. Leevers amplified his views by explaining that while the signal-to-noise ratio might be low, some concern was expressed with regard to intelligibility of speech and absence on distortion ; these factors were no doubt due to sal many 16 mm. prints being projected in noisy. auditoria. Mr. A. M. Smith, disagreeing with previous]! speakers, said he had found optical reduction! generally more consistent than contact printing. A visitor pointed out that in reducing to 16 mm. [rem a normal 35 mm. track there must inevitably be high frequency losses in processing. Furthea difficulties might be caused by inferior loud! speakers and acoustics. Direct recording or re-1 recording gave an opportunity to adjust frequency! response and equalise to bring up the mid-1 frequencies. Mr. Leevers raised the point that variable] density recordings were less liable to distortion in; optical reduction than the area system. Mr.j Bland, pointing out that this factor was depenJ dent upon the optical reduction printer, stated] that on the type of printer which produced twoj tracks, side by side, there was great freedom fromj distortion. A more serious cause of distortion ill the variable area track was the uneven illumina-j tion of the reproducer slit, which was probablyj one of the most serious variables that had to be] overcome. In his view, too, optical reduction, j besides being " bassy," usually showed some] flutter. Mr. Leevers suggested that in many] optical printers the exposure along the slit varied] over wide limits, which fact naturally produced] some distortion in the track, but to a negligible! extent in the case of a density track. He suggested that where the majority of release! prints were required in 16 mm. but the track was! to be recorded in 35 mm., the recording might be! compensated for 16 mm., which would normally] give satisfactory reproduction in the type ofl theatre in which the 35 mm. would be commonly! shown, although it might be rather fatiguing toj listen to for any length of time, due to the pre4 emphasis of the high frequencies necessary to] secure subsequent 16 mm. copies. A visitor referred to the difficulty of securing a! consistent series of prints in Technicolor from Kodachrome by means of reduction. He preferred the method of re-recording to a negative and contact printing. Mr. Leevers agreed that a master positive track for use with Kodachrome! must be specially produced. Mr. P. G. Chase expressed preference for direct 16 mm. recording, although an obstacle was the small number of recorders available. He had.1 found in the case of tracks for Kodachrome that a difficulty was the inadequate contrast in an areaj track. It had been stated, he said, that a minimum density of 1.6 was necessary to produce a fairly silent background, and he had received tracks with a density of only 0.5. Of two optically reduced tracks he had recently received, one showed a density of .99 and the other of .68.