35/32mm to 4K Film Scanner at CinePost

This type of internegative was created to help expedite the mass duplication of 16mm distribution prints by studios and educational film distributors. We devised a way to scan them by modifying or 35mm gate. The sprocket size and spacing is that of 16mm but in 35mm stock.
35/32 was used for printing & processing ease and cost. Putting a 16mm neg on a Panel Printer, which could run forward and backward, allowed you to simply turn the 35/32 film stock around after pass #1 and print back the other direction - along the other (unexposed) side of the film stock. If you're 16mm neg was 1000' long, you only had to process 1000' of 35/32 instead of 2000' of 16mm. A high speed 35/32 projector allowed you to QC both passes at one time. The slitter removed 1mm from both edges and 1mm from the middle. There is still room for a soundtrack, which was printed simultaneously with the picture neg.

[@camerahut3071]

This is lovely and so wholesome

[@speakeasyarchives8764]

Great video!!!!

[@PedroL.Rosario]

wonderful!

[@srfurley]

I thought 35/32 mm was in 1-3 format; I’ve never seen it in 1-4 before.

[@northernplacecorporation]

Scanned using the Rank Cintel MkIII telecine.

[@cinepost]

The Rank is simply a film transport now. Camera, light source, capture software and cpu are all new.

[@northernplacecorporation]

@@cinepost Oh. I see.

[@srfurley]

Is that two different films, or two copies of the same film? Could be useful if the latter since any damage on one would probably not be on the othering the same place.

[@cinepost]

I am pretty sure that it is the same film. The only reason to do this is that the lab costs are lower and if you needed to make 100 prints, you would go for this process.

[@srfurley]

@@cinepost I think you’re right that it was probably two copies on that reel, but it’s possible that is you had a film which was two reels long you could have one copy of each on the Internet, so that each print, after slitting would be the complete film. There were many of these strangely perforated formats for multiple printing. On 16 mm there was 2x standard 8, which I have only ever seen in 1-4 format, like standard 8 camera stock, and 2x Super-8 which was available in both 1-3 and 1-4 formats; the former seemed to be more common. There was also a 100 foot double Super-8 camera format in 1-4 which was slit after processing, but it was rare. On 35 mm stock there was a format for 3x9.5 mm down the centre of the strip with a narrow strip of waste down each edge which carried extra perforations which were used to register the films in the printer. I think this was only used for black and white. For large scale photographic printing there was a 4 up on 35 mm format with all four copies running in the same direction. I can’t remember the full designation of the format now. The 3 mm waste strip was down one edge of the film, and again carried an additional set of perforations for registration. All of these were for photographic printing. Technicolor imbibition dye transfer printing was always done onto 35 mm stock, but Technicolor had several systems for producing smaller formats. The first of these was for a single 16 mm print down the centre of the stock. This had conventional 35 mm perforations down each edge and so could be printed on a normal 35 mm pin belt, but was obviously a wasteful process. They later developed a format for 2x16 mm prints, again with an extra row of perforations on the 3 mm waste strip for registration. This required a special pin belt to be fitted to the printer. I believe there was even a format for standard 8 prints to be made 4 up using the same pin belt. For Super-8 there was a problem in that the perforations were two small to be used for printing, so these were printed 3 up on the stock, with 5.5 mm of waste down each edge which carried additional perforations for registration on the pin belt. I have never seen the format which you were handling in your video with the 16 mm being in 1-4 format, nor have I seen a format with the waste strip in the centre of the 35 mm. What was this film, was it a feature or a short? The 1-3 format had the advantage that making the reduction interneg from the 35 mm interpos could be done in one pass as both strips could be printed at the same time by means of a beam splitter prism on the optical printer whereas for the 1-4 format the intermediate stocks had to be run through the printer again in the opposite direction to print the second copy. However, as I mentioned before, today this could have an advantage when scanning today as the same frame on each copy would be in a quite different position in the reel, and so any damage probably wouldn’t affect the same frames. both copies. All very much in the past now, but there used to be a large market for 16 mm prints.

[@guntherweygers4762]

Hello! Quick question what kind of Lumenera USB3.0 vision camera is this?

[@cinepost]

LT1265

[@cinepost]

Did you ever get a Lumenera camera?

[@guntherweygers4762]

@@cinepost No, I’m waiting for the Kinograph project to finish.

[@cinepost]

@@guntherweygers4762 are you building a Kinograph?

[@SantiagoMonroy5]

How expensive is it to scan 35mm film into 4K in average? Say for a music video

[@cinepost]

Has the film already been processed?

[@SantiagoMonroy5]

@@cinepost To be perfectly honest, I'm just curious about the whole process and how much does it actually cost. Recently several old music videos are getting 4K rescans and it left me curious about it all (and why many still haven't got rescanned), Sorry for the ignorance. And is 35mm film 4K or higher even?

[@cinepost]

@@SantiagoMonroy5 35mm or 16mm to 4k cost the same to rescan….. $1000-2000 maybe… but you then have to import to a 4k project and do a video layback to the original cut by cut. This costs A little money too if color And effects are needed… it all depends.

[@SantiagoMonroy5]

@@cinepost Thanks for the info! Just curiosity and yeah I was aware of having to re-edit and grade from scratch 90% of the time. Honestly not as expensive as I thought, wish more music videos would go through that process

[@SantiagoMonroy5]

Only last thing, maximum is 4K or what resolution would film be?