|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Archival Prints
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-06-2004 12:02 PM
quote:
I'm sure that there's a cost to retrieve the neg from the vault, inspect it, make timing corrections (and maybe print test footage) for overall fading that might exist, etc. I still have a hard time believing that it cost $5k to make that print, though. Maybe John P. or someone else familiar with lab procedures can tell us what is actually involved in making such a print.
It really varies, depending mainly on what you're making that print from. If a full-scale preservation job has been done by an archive and they have a set of preservation master elements made from whatever original elements they acquired, then it's simply a case of striking a print from the interneg and (if applicable) soundtrack neg. This will be a considerably more expensive than a new release print of a major title would be, simply because of the economies of scale which apply if you're only doing one. I would have a hard time believing that a 8,000 foot (90 mins approx.) b/w print would cost $5k, but for a three-hour long colour print with subtitles that figure would represent a bargain.
If full-scale preservation work has not been done, then an archive is looking at carrying it out as you describe. In this scenario the cost and time involved in arriving at a print can skyrocket. But, as Robert points out, the issue often isn't as simple as that.
quote:
Probably the most significant factor in the "value" of an archival print is that many cannot be replaced at any cost.
Imagine a scenario in which an archive acquires the cut camera neg, various intermediate and sound elements, plus an original release print in reasonable condition. Let's say for argument's sake that it's a 1950s acetate IB print with minimal VS, nowhere near autocatalytic. Given the archive's spending priorities, it decides not to create preservation dupes immediately. Instead, the originals and intermediates go into temperature and humidity-controlled vaults under a 'master status' rule, i.e. they can only come out to be duped. The print, however, is put into circulation.
That print is stored in a cool, dry vault when not in use; it's probably been ultrasonically cleaned and has certainly been carefully examined and minor repairs carried out by an archive technician. So the consequences of writing it off in a projection booth accident really are very serious. If it's the only surviving release print known to be extant, then that film cannot be seen again until archive funds permit a full-scale preservation job and a new print to be made. The bill for that can easily top $50k for a 90-minute black-and-white film.
That having been said, I do not support the 'no platters under any circumstances' rule, for two reasons. Firstly, it discourages archives from building a relationship with the arthouse cinemas they supply to ensure high quality print handling and presentation. Access officers tend to get into the mindset of thinking 'well, just as long as they're not using a platter, everything's fine.' Never mind the fact that their two-projector installation is badly maintained, the running spools are bent and have sharp edges, the projectors piss oil all over the place... just as long as the evil turntables are nowhere in sight, everything's fine. Secondly, a carefully handled print shown from the platter will not receive any more wear and tear than one run on changeovers, IMHO. Though I admit, the risk factor is higher - misthread a single reel and you've only damaged 2,000 feet, but misthread a platter and there goes the whole print.
But there are circumstances where it's not really a problem. I'm thinking about a film festival in a temporary venue which quite simply cannot equip itself for changeovers, and a title of which the archive has more than one reasonably good print. Sometimes the access officers of major archives tend to lose sight of the fact that their institutions preserve films for people to see, and I feel strongly that a screening should only be refused on technical grounds if, after weighing up all the relevant factors - not just whether it's going to be run on a platter or not - there is a significant risk of damaging a rare or unique viewing copy.
Related to which, there was a panel at last year's Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) conference, chaired by Katie Trainor of the Jacob Burns Center in New York (the others were John, Matt Kunau, Chapin Cutler, Anne Morra of MOMA and yours truly), discussing this very question. It provoked what I thought was a very interesting and constructive discussion on the technical presentation of archive prints. The conference organisers did video it, and I hope that the tape will eventually be available to the AMIA membership and beyond.
quote:
A couple of years ago, someone at Universal had the last viable 70mm print of Spartacus shipped to a theatre for a single day's booking without realizing what was in store.
The last viable print of your restoration? There's one in the UK, or at least there was one last summer, when Darren last showed it at City Screen. There were a few tramlines on it and the reel ends were a bit tatty, but it was certainly watchable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-08-2004 04:22 AM
If and when things get to the point of being able to make a 4k digital master, and projecting it, for the same or less money than doing the same thing using film, then digital might be able to help. I think most of us are convinced that this ain't going to happen in the immediate short-term, though.
quote:
I do support the stance that no "archival print" will be allowed on a platter. If your venue chooses to run these types of prints then have 2-projectors...it really is that simple and quite honestly not THAT costly.
I agree that in most cases it is technically possible to do. That having been said though, I once did run some festival screenings in a university student union 'cinema' (i.e. a dual-use lecture theatre): the projection box was a broom cupboard that barely fitted the projector, tower and workbench, and getting a second machine in there would have been just impossible without major building work. But a more common scenario is a multiplex which agrees to give a few of its screening slots over to festival screenings or one-off cultural events. Its operators are almost always going to lose money by doing so, and if they are ordered to lose even more money by installing a second projector, they'll probably walk away.
In this scenario I think you need to weigh up the potential risk to a print vs. the cultural benefit of screening an archive title to an audience who might not otherwise have the opportunity of seeing it. Their taxes pay for the public sector moving image archives, too. If I were an archivist in that sitaution I would probably not allow a rare or unique print to be run there (e.g. a '50s IB print). But if we were talking about one that is replaceable, then I would check the venue out and if their film handling and maintenance standards appeared to be high, I'd want to allow the screening. One way of getting round the heads and tails issue might be to ask that the venue leaves them on when making up the print, and douses the picture for 30 seconds or so in between each reel. That's not ideal, but better than vetoing the show, IMHO.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-08-2004 04:36 AM
The National Film Theatre recently did a few screenings of 'classic' films on digital. I wasn't able to get to see them, but the promotional material was along the lines of 'It's often very difficult to find good prints of the films we want to show, if they were available in digital form ...'. Of course, there was no mention of who is going to transfer all these old films to digital, nor who is going to pay for it.
Making a *good* digital transfer, especially of an old film, where the available elements may be problematical, is never going to be a trivial matter; it's always going to involve a lot of work, and therefore it's always going to be expensive. Setting aside a few good prints of a film, and keeping them in good condition for festival screenings is a heck of a lot cheaper. Even a few thousand pounds to make a one-off print, is going to be a lot cheaper.
Which old films are worthy of the digital conversion? Who makes that decision, and on what criteria?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 02-08-2004 09:51 AM
One of the major problems with the distribution of classic films in a digital format is that, unlike what we consider to be "archival" prints, meaning a print which has either survived from the original release, or re-printed from a proper dupe (or original) negative which has been approved by someone involved in the production...
more and more as we lose the original directors, DPs, art directors, etc. and the studios or rights holders tend to be extremely lax in regard to the creation of new dupes without any sort of reference...
these new digital entities would have very little (or no) relevance to the original work as created.
There are already too many video and lab technicians who feel that they are somehow prepared, or are authorities in the re-creation of the original look and feel of a work, without having the slightest idea what they are doing.
I fear that we are going to see many, many more throngs of townspeople rushing through towns with raised torches in broad daylight, and cars driving with their lights on during a sunny noon.
One of the most important aspects of an archival print is authenticity allowing a modern audience to view that same film (properly re-printed) as was viewed half a century ago or more.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic