[Tig] Emulating Print Transfer Functions

domenic rom domrom
Sat Mar 1 02:21:17 GMT 2003


I feel so old reading this thread. I lived through this nonsense so many
years ago.

There is a certain beauty to the transfer of a print but at the end of the
day the loss of detail and the limited range of correction doomed it. I
remember being in sessions with filmmakers who would be mortified at the
image being lost. It caused many long discussions and finger pointing.

We played with low con, CRI and IP. There is no doubt IP was the best next
to the original negative.There was a learning curve with transferring  IP
but in the end the filmmaker was happier and the product looked better.

When we transferred 60 minutes from print we started using low con. We would
have two sets made, one normal printing lights and one cutting the lights by
I think it was two points to give us more range. We would cut back forth
between the two and sometimes even go to the A/B rolls to pull a shot that
really lost detail. Those were the days.

Domenic Rom
The Lab at Moving Images

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Lingelbach" <caltech at calarts.edu>
To: "S. T. Nottingham III" <nottinghams at earthlink.net>
Cc: "Erik Anderson" <eriktig at webllama.net>; <tig at tig.alegria.com>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Tig] Emulating Print Transfer Functions


> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:52:05PM -0800, S. T. Nottingham III wrote:
>
> > Now I admit, if that
> > harsh/hard look is what the director wants, then you could go that
route.
> > However, in more than twenty years of transferring feature material for
> > video release, every time the issue of print transfer reared it's ugly
head,
> > we were able to prove decisively that an IP yielded much more
satisfactory
> > results.
>
> it is exactly because the director wants the look of the print:
> extremely black blacks, and the ability to have the highlight
> detail preserved in a curve that the print already provides.
>
> I think we're just not defining the argument here, that we're not
> saying print makes a better transfer, it makes a different
> transfer with loss of detail, but with addition of some other
> sometimes desirable effects.  Another effect I hadn't mentioned
> is that if it's a print done well from a clean negative dirt in
> transfer is obviated.  (i know these days with PTRs etc. dirt
> isn't very much a factor anyway.)
>
> And when I was saying sky detail I meant the kind of sky with
> clouds \:   ..to reiterate, it is available (the cloud detail) in
> the negative but one must apply a curve to the response to get
> it, and it becomes somewhat easier to work with a print that has
> the curve built-in.  But it is very much the artifacts and edgy
> inky grainy look you can get from a print that can be sought
> after by director/DPs and colorists.
>
>






More information about the Tig mailing list