| Colorlab in Rockville Md, an excellent small lab that understands experimental film, and does very affordable film outs.
They can go directly to print stock for one-off prints, or to color or B&W negative. They do 16 and 35mm. Last time I checked 35mm prints from digital files were about $.50 a foot with sound. That’s really cheap — 35mm runs at 90 feet per minute. (There may be a minimum charge.)
Note that going directly to print stock won’t add any film grain to the image, which you may or may not want.
They do scans, too, and have all sorts of high end scanners including a 6.5K Kinetta Archival Scanner.
They specialize in film restoration work, so they know film well. Highly recommended. Jeff Kreines
Sent from iPhone. Hi Janis
My experience is of film to film-camera and film to digital-video-camera though I’d expect video to film would have similar requirements. For both, front projection works best. Projector and camera as far from screen as possible to produce a projected image of between 12 and 15 inches wide. The camera behind projector as far as possible with lens as appropriate. This reduces parallax and hardly any ‘hot-spot’/. Best to use a paper screen with no texture. With a film camera and using tungsten balanced film use an 81A filter (otherwise the colour will tend towards cyan), best use a camera with a mirrored shutter and variable speed. This is so you can adjust the flicker rate by eye otherwise film slightly slower than projection if possible. With a video camera set white balance manually and by eye. Adjust shutter speed until flicker is acceptable.
I hope that’s helpful
Best Wishes
Rob
Hello I have an experimental music video project which only operates with analogue/optical effects. It was all filmed with digital cameras high iso - so its veeeeery grainy (purposely so, see sample still). Now I would like to perform a final step over: Print it on 16mm (or 35mm film) and then scan it back in 2k or 4k There are three ways I imagine this can happen, tho have no previous experience:
- 16mm print out and scan back to digital: quite expensive to do, even for 4min.
- 35mm print out and scan back to digital: probably cheaper - though maybe the resolution is too good / the grain no present enough. Then again: Maybe this is just the necessary amount of information/sharpness needed to render the digital grain/artefacts clearly
- Use a Bolex or Krasnogorsk and film the digital master from a screen or projector, develop the film and scan back to digital (?): does this give you adequate quality? I'm especially interested in this technique since its the cheapest but also because i imagine the 'sloppiness' of the bolex/krasnogorsk adds a movement/breathing that could be quite interesting for e.g. the shots that were filmed on a gimbal. Questions: - has any of you experience with filming from a screen / projector? If yes, I'd appreciate some tips regarding technique.
- I guess in all the cases above it would make sense to have a digital master that is rather a little more overexposed than underexposed?
- ho do overexposures end up on the film negative/scan back? does it get more organic or does it stay rather digital in its aesthetic? I hope I could express myself understandably. Best
Janis
<Screenshot 2023-02-04 at 16.53.21.jpeg>-- Frameworks mailing list [email protected]https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
|
--
Frameworks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
