sethb wrote:Very interesting and well done. One question, though -- they said that the wet gate printer used water.
I thought that these wet gate printers actually used acetone or some similar chemical, which has the same refractive index as nitrate film, and thus helps to cover scratches and other problems during the printing process. I also seem to recall that the problem with wet gate printers was that the chemical (similar to what was used in dry cleaning establishments) was banned by the DEP as carcinogenic, and could no longer be used.
So have they now adapted or improved the process to use plain water? Just curious. SETH
All Darc wrote:I do not believe a modern film duplicate printer on modern duplicate film stock, would ever render a so visible resolution loss as pointed in this Criterion video in 3:40.
Besides, there is also a density loss in thes comparison of the video above, that is not true in modern film duplication.
Modern contact wetgate printer produces very sharp images, rivaling the original negative, and no white halo around objects.
Even a fine grain from 1950's (if very well made) would not render a resolution loss that we would noticed in a 480p or even 720p video !!!!!!!!
Count generations it's not a reliable way to determine a film resolution, or resolution loss compared to camera negative. Film duplicating . The film emulsions used for duplicating make the difference, as modern fine grain film emulsions are great, and also the printer used a bit of and lab work.
Many early films have bad dupes cause they did not have or did not use good film emulsion. Fists fine grain stocks only appeared in the late 30's.
Even so... Take a look at All QUiet in The Western Front : It looks very good, and it's a lavander, but not a fine grain. It's a ortochromatic emulsion used for film duplicating in 1931 or so, but the silver grains was ver similar to a common print of that time. The lavander of that era was more to help keep the contrast low.
This Critirion video It is smelling like a agreement to promote the new film scanner !!!!!!!!
Anyway, when industry will create a good film scanner, able to handle skrunked old nitrate films and also have wet gate option ???
All Darc wrote:Scratchs are still a serious problem, even with modern film restoration. it's always better to get a clean image, removing scratchs by filling it (when scratch did not rerached emulsion) than using a digital tool.
All Darc wrote:There are some abrasion (many scratches) that are so intense that no digital tool can handle. Metropolis 16mm print with the missing scene are a example. No digital toold was able to remove the pattern of abrasions. The abrasions was printed in the 16mm, since it was originally from a overprojected 35mm print from where the 16mm was shot.
All Darc wrote:Derek, all film copy make image a bit softer, but usually not much, and certainly not the like the example the Criterion clip showed, especially about the weird halo.
All Darc wrote:Optical printer make image softer and contraster, cause projects the frame image to the virgen film using lenses.
All Darc wrote:Contact printer creates sharper images, cause the film source is in contact with the virgen film, and the light source tends to have light near parallel.
All Darc wrote:In a wet gate step contact printer, the liguid from wet gate can create a layer between the film source and the virgen film, but it a very thin layer. If make image softer is not as showed in the example, unless the printer it's not good to join the source and virgen films flat.
I presume the warped film source it's a problem if the virgen film and source film are not compressed one to each other. In cases like that it's a slow copy, frame by frame, expansive and very carrefull.
All Darc wrote:Metropolis digital restoration for the new 26 minutes footage, was very expanasive.
All Darc wrote:The abrasions on metropolis are too much intense and no digital tool can handle, cause it creates a texture an leaves no clean base of comparisom to allow remove the scratches. It will be solved only in the future, when better tools appear.
All Darc wrote:Anyway I imagine that a scan without wetgate, and a scan with wetgate, could be combined. A software would analize the image with scratches, compare with "sister image" with no scratches, and the difference would be easilly found, as have different light values. So only the area of the scratch, in the no wet gate scanning, could be replaced with the image from wet gat scratch free. But for that would require two scans, and precise alligment of both scans.
All Darc wrote:Cintel had a film scanner, or telecine, that use a alternative to wetgate. It was called Oliver, and uses refraction properties of light to certains optical devices to avoid get the light refracted by the scratch. A scratch as we see it's the refraction of light caused by the fact a portion of the film base (transparent plastic) was missing.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jameslayton and 1 guest