 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2005Kodak to Ilford : Alternative Products.
Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to Ilford products? http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/kpie3.pdf > Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart > simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to Ilford > products? > http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/kpie3.pdf GIven that it is Ilford who put out the chart I would guess they are simply trying to get you to switch to their film at the same time you switch to their paper. I would guess the Ilford will be gone before Kodak stops making BW film. Scott >> Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart >> simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to Ilford [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would guess the Ilford will be gone before Kodak stops making BW > film. Thats debateable. Kodak seems to want to get rid of film as soon as possible. Unfortunately they can't do it until the rest of their business becomes profitable. Mike a écrit : >>>Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart >>>simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to Ilford [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > possible. Unfortunately they can't do it until the rest of their business > becomes profitable. And will it ever do ?  SignatureClaudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch > Mike a écrit : > > Kodak seems to want to get rid of film as soon as > > possible. Unfortunately they can't do it until the rest of their business > > becomes profitable. > > And will it ever do [Kodak become profitable in non-film]? If it doesn't there won't be a Kodak around to do the getting rid of. For the usual hem-&-haw: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/ap/business/mainD8DCTGKG2.shtml -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm > > Mike a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If it doesn't there won't be a Kodak around to do the > getting rid of. Kodak said the exact samething in fact, that if they are not making most of their income from digital by 2007 it won't matter if film is still around or not. Scott > > Mike a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm All Kodak has to do Imop to win me is sell an affordable printer on par with a desktop Durst Lambda maybe 16x20 capable and have it sell for under 3k with prints having a lifespan of traditional chemical prints or better, something I can attach via Fire wire or USB-compatible with OSx. Something I can use regular old RA-4 paper with. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > >> Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart > >> simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to Ilford [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > possible. Unfortunately they can't do it until the rest of their business > becomes profitable. You could well be right, I am thinking Ilford will be the next to go after Agfa, but maybe not. You are right that Kodak really wants out of the film business ASAP. Scott >>> Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products >>> or is this chart [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of their business > becomes profitable. Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion picture film. While the industry has been experimenting with digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters they are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and film makers still like working with film. Ilford is a much smaller company than Kodak and can operate profitably with a smaller market. Remember, Kodak was a behemoth depending on enormous markets for its operation. Even by cutting its losses there is no way it could make up the lost revenue from photographic materials. Its stock holders expect a certain return and that in turn is generated by the revenue from sales. Kodak has been scrambling to find a new business or businesses to supply that revenue and IMO has been reasonably successful at it. Ilford, OTOH, can probably maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing the remaining market for conventional photographic materials, which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great rush to digital finishes there will remain a stable market for conventional materials, which, while much smaller than the original market, will still be substantial, and probably sufficient to support some smaller players. Remember, Ilford needs less to continue at its old level than Kodak. I agree that Kodak will probably eventually discontinue or sell its film business but not in the immediate future. If it does, the most likely buyer would seem to be Fuji, who has been their chief rival for some time now. Fuji does not seem to be interested in abandoning the chemical photographic business but their interests in it are in areas that have remained fairly stable, certainly more so than Kodak's, namely motion picture materials and photofinishing equipment and supplies where it has been the low-end amateur stuff that is the rug pulled out from under Kodak. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There > continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion > picture film. While the industry has been experimenting with > digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters they > are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and > film makers still like working with film. Boy are you in for a surprise, all the US movie houses are switching over to digital projection, and fairly soon. There is a huge waist of money in making optical prints, something like $2B/year. The cost to replace all the projectors is estimated to be around $6B. This year the movie producers and the theater owners came to an agreement on how to pay for all of this. The sanders are in place and the hardware is being worked on as I write this. As for film makers liking to work with film, not so much. Currently almost all movie footage is scanned and edited digitally, "filming" in digital removes this step. > Ilford, OTOH, can probably > maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing the > remaining market for conventional photographic materials, > which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great rush > to digital finishes What makes you think the rush to digital will finish? It would appear that not only has the decline of film not slowed down yet it is speeding up. Scott Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly. If they stop using film, no more theatre-going for me. Besides, the movies now are crap anyway.... > > Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There > > continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Scott UC spake thus: > Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly. True that. The only film I've seen that was done digitally (produced digitally but projected conventionally on film) was Spike Lee's "Bamboozled". A great film, but it looked like crap, like a huge television screen, with visible scan lines and all. Signature... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient." (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS) > UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > film, but it looked like crap, like a huge television screen, with > visible scan lines and all. Well it might be the only film that you knew was shot digitally, did you see that last of the Star War movie? It is coming there is no doubt. http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CWAM0O0MRIAR4QSNDB CSKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=173601111&pgno=2 http://www.techweb.com/wire/hardware/173601376 http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173402813 Scott Scott W spake thus: >> UC spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well it might be the only film that you knew was shot digitally, did > you see that last of the Star War movie? No, I generally avoid overhyped, commodified, product-tie-in, mass-culture stuff like that. Signature... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient." (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS) If the links are in response to my query thanks, I will read them over. I have no doubt the industry will convert to digital eventually, maybe even soon, mostly because it is cheaper to distribute electronically and probably more secure (remains to be seen). So, we will see fancy television at the theater. This thread is now so extended I am not sure where I read certain things so I will respond here. I've not seen enough digital stuff in commercial theaters to form an opinion of its overall quality. Its also a new process so problems causing poor quality will likely disappear in the future. As far is poor quality film presentations, those have been with us forever. There are problems everywhere, poorly maintained equipment, incompetent projectionists (where they even exist now), poorly installed or maintained sound equipment. I've also seen many very poor prints, some from quite respectible labs. I remember seeing one movie at our large theater ( 20th Century Fox) which was printed out of focus throughout. Easy to tell, the film grain was sharp. I hasten to say this was not a Fox picture nor a product of Deluxe labs. I don't see as many bad prints now as in the 1960s-1980s but there are still plenty. Partly this is likely due to the enormous number of prints made for general release. Its interesting to compare this stuff to prints from the 1940s which were consistently good. Converting from film to television may help. When this happens it will substantially reduce the market for color film. I don't have statistics on how much of Kodak and Fuji output goes to the movie business but with the switch to digital by snapshooters its likely substantial. If that goes away both companies are likely to discontinue color film. Ilford is in a somewhat different place since they do not make color film. I think there will be a continuing albeit small market for conventional B&W material and, with the demise of the big guys (Kodak and Agfa) there will be enough to support a smaller company, or maybe a couple. Keep in mind that Kodak was perfectly enormous. A market too small to justify their interest in it may still be large enough for a much smaller company to find profitable. This may all be wishful thinking on my part, I hope not. Digital has many advantages over conventional silver based photography, but I enjoy working with it and digital is too, what shall I say, routine. Artists interested only in producing a product won't care, any medium that works is OK, but I've spent a lot of time and effort to learn the "magic" of silver based photography and am reluctant to let it go. As far as movies go I am more concerned with the quality of the drama than the medium. To me its amazing what the practitioners in the old days did with astonishingly clumsy equipment. Yours for a Movieola at midnight... -- Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Hear hear! ************* > If the links are in response to my query thanks, I will read them > over. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Richard Knoppow > dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Artists interested only in producing a product won't care, any > medium that works is OK, but I've spent a lot of time and effort to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > old days did with astonishingly clumsy equipment. > Yours for a Movieola at midnight... As things become "easier", its easier to forget how magic is created. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Ilford is in a somewhat different place since they do not make color > film. I think there will be a continuing albeit small market for > conventional B&W material and, with the demise of the big guys (Kodak > and Agfa) there will be enough to support a smaller company, or maybe a > couple. It had better be a couple. Ilford once said they planned to be the last man standing making B&W materials: to be the last soldier standing after a battle is not counted as victory. From Pyro to Pyrrhus. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm > It had better be a couple. Ilford once said they planned to be the > last man standing making B&W materials: to be the last soldier > standing after a battle is not counted as victory. It beats being dead. > From Pyro to Pyrrhus. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > In article > <_p2ef.9355$AS6.907@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> From Pyro to Pyrrhus. I quote George S. Patton: Its not my job to die for my country: its my job to make the other poor damn bastard die. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >Digital has >many advantages over conventional silver based photography, but I enjoy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >learn the "magic" of silver based photography and am reluctant to let >it go. November 16, 2005, from Lloyd Erlick, Once again I completely agree with Richard. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >> Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There >> continues to be a good market for film, particularly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > hardware is > being worked on as I write this. I think you mean standards. If they are being worked on they do not exist yet. In digital TV we still do not have a "standard" more like 31 of them. > As for film makers liking to work with film, not so much. > Currently > almost all movie footage is scanned and edited digitally, > "filming" in > digital removes this step. Digital editing has been around for a long time. I am concerned with what the results look like on screen. You will find that even stuff shot digital is often processed to make it look like film. >> Ilford, OTOH, can probably >> maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott You sound very definite, what is the source for these statistics? I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie industry is control of distribution particulary reducing pirating. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie > industry is control of distribution particulary reducing > pirating. Actually the strongest reason for going digital is a direct editing process. You don't need to edit a film on a computer and then try to stick the negatives back together in the proper order to create a print. Distribution is also much easier. The compressed video can be encrypted and sent over the Internet, satellite or optical disk. The problem is that the current projection systems don't have the resolution of film. This problem will disapear in a few years when Organic Light Emiting Diode (oLED) technology becomes common. Current display screens are limited in size, number of pixels and cost. oLED screens can be manufactured in a process similar to printing with an ink ject printer. The problem with oLED screens is that they have a relativley limited lifetime, but in 5-10 years it will be cheap enough for a movie theater to close for an afternoon, roll up and remove the old screen and unroll and install a new one. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication. > This problem will disapear in a few years when Organic Light Emiting > Diode (oLED) technology becomes common. Current display screens are > limited in size, number of pixels and cost. oLED screens can be > manufactured in a process similar to printing with an ink ject printer. They already are, in cell phones. They will be common very soon in computer LCD type screens- they will also drastic lower the cost of producing laptops and other screens.-From what I have heard. > The problem with oLED screens is that they have a relativley limited > lifetime, but in 5-10 years it will be cheap enough for a movie theater > to close for an afternoon, roll up and remove the old screen and unroll > and install a new one. > Geoff. The next greatest American thing-the disposable Laptop. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >They already are, in cell phones. They will be common very soon in >computer LCD type screens- they will also drastic lower the cost of >producing laptops and other screens.-From what I have heard. It'll be a while I think. Here's the ultimate LED/LCD for the photographer : http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20051028/index.html SignatureJohn > >They already are, in cell phones. They will be common very soon in > >computer LCD type screens- they will also drastic lower the cost of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20051028/index.html Interesting for 7k you can have a LCD screen that will display Adobe 1998. Course I don't have that kind of money to bandy about, but interesting none the less. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie >> industry is control of distribution particulary reducing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You don't need to edit a film on a computer and then try to stick the >negatives back together in the proper order to create a print. There's one huge benefit in particular for theatregoers, too: chain theatres often instruct their (poorly trained, poorly paid, often incompetent, often absent during much of the run of a film in states that permit that) projectionists to adjust the projectors so that the film is slightly out of focus (too far from the light source) to reduce the risk of heat damage to the film. If you know what a properly focused 35mm print can look like (gorgeous, of course) and are conscious of this issue it's tremendously obvious that *most* films shown in *most* theatres these days are in fact significantly out of focus. With digital projectors this simply isn't an issue. This means that the end-to-end performance of the projection system -- whether the native resolution of 35 or 70mm film or the current digital projectors is better being left largely by the wayside -- is often far better for a digital system simply because such systems aren't deliberately adjusted wrong. That said, a few chains have started to put in low-end digital systems recently out of frustration with waiting for the technology for the higher end systems to mature and become less expensive. On a screen the size of that in most real movie theatres, even chain ones, I think that such systems don't have enough resolution to lok good (on the other hand, for the 70" square screen at my house, a 1024x768 projector looks terrific -- it's all a function of just what you're adking the system to do). The real systems intended for theatre use are very, very good. The Pixar films often show them off very well. If you're in New York next time a Pixar film is in the theatres try to catch it at the big Loews' on 42nd Street that's in the same building as the Chevy's restaurant, but make sure you see it *in the digital theatre* (sometimes they show the same film in analog and digital); it's a great way to see what high-end digital projection systems can do. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky > >> I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie > >> industry is control of distribution particulary reducing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of focus (too far from the light source) to reduce the risk of heat damage > to the film. Utter bullshit. Focussing moves the LENS, dumbass, not the film. Shut the f.ck up unless you know what the hell you are talking about. > If you know what a properly focused 35mm print can look like > (gorgeous, of course) and are conscious of this issue it's tremendously [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be > abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky >Utter bullshit. Focussing moves the LENS, dumbass, not the film. Shut >the f.ck up unless you know what the hell you are talking about. Have you ever adjusted a large theatrical projector? The film transport can be moved relative to the light source -- I've done it myself -- and this, of course, changes focus because it _also_ moves the film relative to the lens. It works very much like adjusting the upper bellows on a condenser enlarger. If you don't believe that chain theatres often run films slightly out of focus to avoid burning prints, go find someone who works as a projectionist in such a theatre and ask him. You seem to have the idea that foul language and LOUD UPPERCASE TYPING somehow establish that you're right. Has it ever occurred to you that, even though you sometimes _do_ have useful things to say, your obnoxious SHOUTING AND f.cking SWEARING ALL THE TIME really just give most people here the idea that in fact you're unable to tell whether you're right or wrong, but, gosh, you sure are loud about it. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky Utter bullshit. > >Utter bullshit. Focussing moves the LENS, dumbass, not the film. Shut > >the f.ck up unless you know what the hell you are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be > abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky > Utter bullshit. Who loves ya, Peeps? > > >Utter bullshit. Focussing moves the LENS, dumbass, not the film. Shut > > >the f.ck up unless you know what the hell you are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be > > abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky > If you don't believe that chain theatres often run films slightly out of > focus to avoid burning prints, go find someone who works as a projectionist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > here the idea that in fact you're unable to tell whether you're right or > wrong, but, gosh, you sure are loud about it. Ignore or kill file the trouble makers and they go away. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Be sure first to ignore those who post utter bullshit. > > If you don't believe that chain theatres often run films slightly out of > > focus to avoid burning prints, go find someone who works as a projectionist [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >Have you ever adjusted a large theatrical projector? I don't know about the other guy, but I have (I own two of them and have also run many different types of setups: carbon-arc, xenon, 16/35/70mm, etc). >The film transport >can be moved relative to the light source -- I've done it myself -- and >this, of course, changes focus because it _also_ moves the film relative >to the lens. It works very much like adjusting the upper bellows on a >condenser enlarger. Yes, this is called focusing the lamp. Normally, you remove the lens and get the adjustment in the ballpark, then you replace the lens and tweak it. Then you re-focus the lens with film in the machine. No big deal, and no loss of image focus. >If you don't believe that chain theatres often run films slightly out of >focus to avoid burning prints, go find someone who works as a projectionist >in such a theatre and ask him. I have worked as a projectionist for about seven years on a special-event/part-time basis and have never heard of this. Yes, it's true that de-focusing the LAMP reduces the chances of causing "arc-burn" to a print (which is normally only an issue with B&W silver prints and/or very large lamps), but this has nothing to do with the LENS focus and, thus, the focus of the image on the screen. If the on-screen image is out of focus, then either a) the operator is incapable of adjusting the "focus" knob; b) the scene in question was shot or printed out of focus (which sometimes happens); c) the theatre is using crappy lenses or (more likely) the "operator" is also the popcorn girl and she has smeared greas on the lenses and/or port glass; or d) the projector gate is adjusted improperly and is not holding the film flat and parallel to the lens. >>If you don't believe that chain theatres often run films slightly out of >>focus to avoid burning prints, go find someone who works as a projectionist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >silver prints and/or very large lamps), but this has nothing to do >with the LENS focus and, thus, the focus of the image on the screen. I first read of this problem in an article on the quality of projection at the "premium" theatres in New York City (now down pretty much to just the Ziegfield since the Astor Plaza closed) when compared to chain theatres around the city. It didn't make much sense to me, either -- why not just refocus the lens appropriately, whatever position the lamp and film gate are in relative to the rest of the assembly? So I asked an acquaintance who worked as a projectionist at a chain theatre while he was in school. He said that at the theatre he worked at, the lenses for various formats are in fixed-focus adapters that supposedly allow the swapping of lenses to accomodate different formats with no refocusing required. He claimed -- and maybe this is false -- that the lamps were, at the dictate of management, sufficiently defocused to avoid burning prints that it was not possible to adjust the lens adapters to give correct back focus for all formats on all projectors, resulting in slightly out-of-focus images projected on the screen. At least that's how I've always understood what he said, but perhaps he was blowing smoke at me or I failed to understand something. I can try to dig up the article in question; I think it was in the New Yorker. I just ordered their archive DVD... I'll dig a bit when it gets here. Whatever the cause, I notice serious focus problems at chain theatres all the time, even in chains' "flagship" theatres like the AMC 25 or the giant Lowes across the street from each other near Times Square. In those same theatres, the digital projection systems are almost always in perfect focus and well maintained -- though there was a period about two years ago when the one at the Lowes had several stuck red pixels, and management didn't understand the problem well enough to give refunds or get things fixed in a timely manner. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky >He said that >at the theatre he worked at, the lenses for various formats are in >fixed-focus adapters that supposedly allow the swapping of lenses to >accomodate different formats with no refocusing required. [snip] OK, I can see where there might be confusion: lenses usually have "focus rings" which allow them to register properly in the lens holder of the projector. (Side note: a good theatre should be able to project at least four different aspect ratios: 1.33/1.37, 1.66, 1.85, and 2.35/2.40:1; this requires up to four different lenses, depending on the screen configuration.) With the exception of one particular make of projector (Kinoton), these do not assure precise focus when the lens is inserted. They simply get the lens focus in the ballpark for the start of the show; it must then be tweaked by hand (almost all cinema lenses are f/2.0, and longer lenses give greater depth of field). The type of film stock and the gate tension also affect the focus of the screen image. All projectors have a normal "focus" knob to adjust the position of the lens relative to the film plane. >He claimed >-- and maybe this is false -- that the lamps were, at the dictate of >management, sufficiently defocused to avoid burning prints that it was >not possible to adjust the lens adapters to give correct back focus >for all formats on all projectors, resulting in slightly out-of-focus >images projected on the screen. It sounds as if that theatre was managed by some dim bulbs (no pun intended). >Yes, this is called focusing the lamp. Normally, you remove the >lens and get the adjustment in the ballpark, then you replace the >lens and tweak it. Then you re-focus the lens with film in the >machine. No big deal, and no loss of image focus. Just to be sure I grasp the issue, a defocused lamp with a correctly focused lens should give uneven illumination -- not poor image focus. Is that correct? It's been about 15 years since I spent any time tinkering with a 35mm projector. I wish I had the opportunity to do it again, though I think I'd be a lot more scared that I'd break something than I was in my callow youth. :-) SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky > > > [a whole bunch of stuff that makes no sense] > > [revelation and return to reality] > Just to be sure I grasp the issue, a defocused lamp with a correctly > focused lens should give uneven illumination -- not poor image focus. > Is that correct? Depends on the _lamp_ defocus. You can get one or more of: 1) a dim image 2) a bull's eye, dark corners bright center 3) a nice picture of the lamp filament The lamp is not focused/collimated on the image but on the back of the lens. Lamp focus should have _no_ interaction with film focus. I imagine a projector can be made where they interact but it makes no sense, I don't even see where such a design would lower product cost. Moving just the film gate would effect only the film focus, not the lamp focus. It [can] also affect the film format to be illuminated. Condenser focusing that moves the film gate is easy to see on the large[er] Beseler enlargers. Beseler calls this 'the cone of light' design. The light cone from the condenser to the lens stays the same. The negative is inserted into the cone at various points: small negatives near the tip of the cone and close to the lens; large negatives at the base of the cone, close to the condenser and far from the lens. The condenser lenses are designed to project a cone that is the same angle as the covering angle of the lens. Getting a slightly fuzzy movie theatre image on the screen is a matter of millimeters. My guess is that the management installed a fixed focus system so that the projector was never out of focus and instead ended up with a projector that was never _in_ focus: a common engineering conundrum. Condenser focus may have been clamped down to keep the popcorn girl from moving the condensers and burning the film. I doubt the theater management cares about film fade but I am sure they care if they lose business because their picture is dimmer than the competition. This sounds like a none-too-intelligent newspaper reporter was informed by a none-too-cognizant popcorn girl. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >Lamp focus should have _no_ interaction with film focus. I imagine >a projector can be made where they interact but it makes no sense, >I don't even see where such a design would lower product cost. > >Moving just the film gate would effect only the film focus, not the >lamp focus. It [can] also affect the film format to be illuminated. On the old Zeiss and Kodak 35mm projectors I tinkered with on a few occasions, the film gate could be moved forward or back by a good centimetre or so. Since I read that article years ago and inquired with my friend the mall-multiplex "projectionist" I've always assumed that the focus problem being described was caused by moving the film gate forward, away from the light source, close enough to the rear lens element that for some lenses (e.g. lenses mounted in the adapters he described) it'd be too close to the rear element to make sharp focus possible. If that doesn't square with how big projectors are used in practice -- then it doesn't, of course. It all seemed pretty plausible to me at the time. >This sounds like a none-too-intelligent newspaper reporter >was informed by a none-too-cognizant popcorn girl. Now, here's what bothers me: I think the New Yorker article in question was written by one of the film department folks at Tisch -- I remember recognizing the name when I read it. Those folks certainly know how taking -- and projection -- equipment works and is used. I'm not sure the article was in the NY'er; it might have been in _New York_ which is of course a much less credible publication in general. When that DVD gets here I'll see what I can find and see how it squares with my memory. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky > film department folks at Tisch ... Those folks certainly know how > taking -- and projection -- equipment works and is used. An optical engineer knows as much about directing movies as a movie director knows about optical design. And that's as it should be. IME, artists have some really wild ideas about how and why things work. And engineers and scientists have some really embarrassing ideas about art SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >> Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There >> continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Boy are you in for a surprise, all the US movie houses are switching > over to digital projection, and fairly soon. There is no huge conversion going on. Why? Theater owners will not pay for it, as there is NO savings for them, and the movie studios are reluctant to pay for the switch as well. On top of that, projection technology is changing very rapidly, making the equipment installed two years ago obsolete. Derek > > Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart > > simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to Ilford [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Scott Your nuts at least I hope you are!! If I had to rely on Kodak solely for B&W film I would cut my throat or start making wet plates. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Your nuts at least I hope you are!! If I had to rely on Kodak solely for > B&W film I would cut my throat or start making wet plates. > -- You may well be right but Ilford has had problem in the past, I don't think it would take a lot to put them under, Kodak has pretty deep pockets. Also at some point in time Ilford might dicide they just want to do ink jet paper. Scott > > Your nuts at least I hope you are!! If I had to rely on Kodak solely for > > B&W film I would cut my throat or start making wet plates. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Scott Anybody that cares about the future of silver paper should be buying Ilford -Imop, last year I bought 600 bucks worth of 4x5 and 8x10 film when the company first announced bankruptcy & I just bought a 16x20 box of Multigrade VC chosing it over other papers and will buy more when needed as needed, although one can't predict the future I say to hell with the big yellow fodder in regards to B&W if they can't stick with and support the roots of photo then to hell with them. (end of rant). Ilford is a known, they have good QC and a dependable quality product unlike some. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or > is this chart simply to provide a guide to those who wish > to switch from Kodak to Ilford products? > http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/kpie3.pdf Its just a guide for former Kodak users who are looking for replacements for discontinued Kodak papers. If Agfa really does go out of business I would expect to see a similar chart for Agfa papers. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com Unlike the previous chart, this one also list comparable films and chemicals as well as papers. >> Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart >> simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for discontinued Kodak papers. If Agfa really does go out of business I > would expect to see a similar chart for Agfa papers. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.