Posted by Andrew Maddison on 10/12/05 02:24

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> I'm no expert on film, but I'd say there were no 'n-th' generation
> transfer. The cost of film stock makes this ludicrous. A 35mm print of a
> feature film costs many thousands. So it makes sense to make it from an
> original 'master'. This is why there's been a dash to video projection.
> Nothing about picture quality but purely to save money. And to extend
> life. A real film is easily damaged. And frequently were.

A normal release print is normal a fair few generations of copies away
from the original negative. An interpositive is made from the original
negative, then a couple of internegatives made from that interpositive.
From=20those internegatives, several "show prints" will be struck which wil=
l
go to the prestige cinemas (Empire or Odeon Leicester Square for example).
From=20the couple of internegatives they'll also strike a few more
positives, then negatives (increasing in quantity each time). By now
they'll be high-speed printing release prints from these negatives.

They now print so fast and so many that a standard 35mm print only costs
around =A31000-=A32000 - however they print so fast that quality of release
prints has suffered in recent years. They just think that it'll do
because the person who sits in the cinema won't notice the difference and
won't complain.

I may be wrong about the number of generations a film has gone through by
the time it gets to release printing, but it's fairly close.

Andrew

--=20
---------------------------- Andrew Maddison ----------------------------
*(email)* andrewnews *(at)* resbh *(dot)* co *(dot)* uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Back to original message]