|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Film stocks of animated features?
|
Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-21-1999 04:50 PM
"The Iron Giant", the only animated feature I've run, seemed more difficult to focus because the grain was less apparent. (Has anyone else had this problem?) At first I thought this might just be due to the intense color saturation characteristic of animated material, but then I got to wondering what was the film stock used to photograph the animation cels?Photographing animated features sounds like an ideal situation for the use of an ultra-low-speed, ultra-fine-grain camera negative stock, because (1) the area of illumination is very small, permitting a concentrated light source; (2) the exposure can be as long as desired, because the cel ain't going nowhere. Does anyone know what kinds of stocks are used, what ASA, etc? I was just wondering: what kinds of amazingly sharp pictures could be achieved, using a camera film that is as low-speed and finegrained as print film?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 09-21-1999 09:48 PM
Animation can be transferred to film in a variety of ways. Traditional cells can simply be exposed onto a color negative stock with sufficient speed for the light available from the animation stand, say an EI-100 tungsten balance film. Or (as Disney usually did for most of their classic animation), sequential separation (R, G, B) exposures can be made onto a single strip of black-and-white camera negative film like 5231 (great for archiving the image).If the animation output is from a digital file (as is now often done for "ink and paint" steps), the output can be recorded onto a camera negative film using a CRT recorder like a Solitaire, or onto a very fine grain (but very slow) color intermediate film like 5244 using a laser recorder like the Kodak Cineon Lightning laser recorder. I'm sure that I'm forgetting several other workable methods, but my point is that depending on the method chosen, the image structure (grain and sharpness) and color reproduction will depend on the method chosen. Let us know if you find out what method was used for "Iron Giant". ------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-22-1999 02:40 AM
Remember to only hit the "submit" button only once! If nothing happens, just reload the film-tech page you want from your bookmarks. Your post will be there.Anyway, my copy of Iron Giant is so sharply in focus and clear on screen that it physically hurts. Which leads me to another question: When we get kids movies, they stay forever, whether they do any business or not. We still have Inspector Gadget and it was released a very long time ago, probably about 11 years (it seems). The movie is doing NO business, especially with the little tykes in school now. Does Disney make exhibitors sign ridiculously long contracts for their ridiculous movies? If I ever build a theatre, there will be NO kid movies allowed in the building! Also, if you are not old enough to walk in yourself, you can't get in (no babies)!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Ferreira
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 203
From: Conway, NH, USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-22-1999 08:29 AM
I didn't think of it at the time when it was (jokingly?) suggested that the sound be cranked to put babies to sleep, but at our theater we always strongly recommend against anyone bringing infants into the DTS auditorium. When the theater first opened, the management was told by a pediatrician that the sheer volume and probably the bass could cause severe damage to a baby's underdeveloped eardrums. It certainly makes perfect sense, and who am I to second guess a trained medical professional? Of course, when you tell this to someone with an infant, they look at you as if to tell you to mind your own business anyway. What it all comes down to is three things-
1-A lot of people are too selfish to do things that their kids may enjoy, as evidenced by the parents who take their kids to see Stigmata, when the kids are crying that they'd rather see Inspector Gadget.
2-Many parents are too cheap to hire a baby sitter.
3-Some parents are stupid enough to think that a one year old will be entertained by a 90 minute movie. I've often thought that if I were to play the appropriate film, Family Planning would make an ideal promotional partner for an in lobby display.
Of course, this is straying extremely far from the original thought of this thread.Tom Ferreira ------------------
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
, but I was responding from home, using a modem, and the forum did not send the usual acknowledgement. So I grew impatient, and hit "Submit Reply" again, and again. Somehow, the connection was very slow last night.
Printer-friendly view of this topic