motion picture film still there

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Dale, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. Dale

    Dale Guest

    after talking about hybrid systems for awhile here I decided to visit
    Kodak's website and see what analog and hybrid products they had
    http"//www.kodak.com

    looks like consumer is only digital I think
    no sight of the portrait market I think
    commercial products are all digital I think

    but there is a huge catalog of motion picture film, chemistry, filters, etc.
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/index.htm
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Product_Information/index.htm

    they claim video clips highlights, there is no "toe" in digital
    contrast, and small gamut sRGB doesn't help, I see dress white shirts
    clipped on my CRT television

    they don't mention spectral reflectances, wide gamut RIMM, ERIMM, ROMM,
    like ProPhoto RGB don't even capture all of the eye's colors, let alone
    the clipping of a surface color when wide spectral reflectances hit it,
    this was a consideration with CCD scanning when I worked at Kodak R&D 17
    years ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB
    http://www.color.org/search.xalter?q=rimm&go.x=0&go.y=0
    http://www.color.org/search.xalter?q=erimm&go.x=0&go.y=0
    http://www.color.org/search.xalter?q=romm&go.x=0&go.y=0

    are people still using film for quality?
    does film still have a dynamic range and exposure latitude advantage?
    (film contrast is not linear like gamma, it has a toe and shoulder due
    to chemical activity and exhaustion and optimization thereof, that
    curves off highlights and shadows leaving them reproducible

    do people still prefer the "look and feel" of some films like B&W?
    these "looks and feels" could be put into abstract ICC profiles with the
    right film characteristic information

    the right film characterization information is not even provided in the
    standardization of ProPhoto RGB as ICC's RIMM,ERIMM, and ROMM
    http://www.color.org

    with the right film characterization information, one could develop a
    hybrid ICC system to suit Kodak's motion picture catalog, if there is
    time before digital capture, manipulation and projection replace the
    industry's establishment investment

    such a hybrid system, and the abstract ICC profiles mentioned above,
    could reduce Kodak's catalog to ONE input/output film and ONE chemistry,
    if such film was co-optimized with the right hybrid scanning,
    manipulation, and output

    if film still has a dynamic range and exposure latitude advantage,
    perhaps as it's standardization as RIMM, ERIMM, and ROMM, a color
    negative could be scanned, output and projected with the right ICC
    processing using film and equipment characterization information

    a film program cost around $5million when I was at Kodak.
    I have no idea how much or fast an equipment program would take

    but at least Kodak should share their film characterization information
    for optimization in existing information, use in existing digital
    manipulation and incorporation in abstract ICC profiles, this would
    allow more quality for the film, unless somehow you say they are
    operating on a price only paradigm

    included below is a list of some necessary film characterization
    information, an expert could add to or correct this list

    both empirical (easy way) and mechanistic (hard way) are supported
    mathematically by the ICC, but you could do your own system
    http:/www.color.org

    empirical characterization entails printing an equipment code value
    target to the "calibrated" equipment and relating it mathematically as a
    profile to the color of the profile connection space, usually cubic, a
    three dimensional profile for 3 colorant mediums, I know there are at
    least or there once was 4 colorant mediums from Fuji, I'll allow you to
    derive this from my post yourself, it is not hard if you know it

    even B&W colorants like silver halides have a hue that must be either
    maintained or translated in the ICC profile like a three colorant
    system, the eye is a three colorant system, I will allow you to derive
    B&W yourself, it is not hard if you know it

    with the advent of RIMM, ERIMM, and ROMM in ICC you can use digital
    manipulation for hybrid systems (you can search for these on the ICC
    site and they are from ProPhoto RGB according to wikipedia)

    so why would you want to do it the hard way, mechanistically?

    1) want to retain analog manipulation methods
    2) want to have analog manipulation algorithms within digital
    3) want to an analog capture of scene colorimetry
    4) multi-stage analog/hybrid systems do not calibrate
    (steady-state calibration is a prerequisite for profile characterization)
    5) want to design new analog equipment or manipulation
    6) want to design new sensitized media for a hybrid system
    ( a film program was around 5 million at Kodak 17 years ago)
    7) want to design a better analog RIMM, ERIMM or ROMM

    so how to do it the hard way?

    first, you will need a lot of information, the preferred way of getting
    this method is from analog media, equipment and software companies, as
    opposed to the investment yourself, some analog technology really
    requires single layer coatings to resolve crosstalk from spectral
    sensitivity and chemical processing, chemical processing can be just the
    way it is, process variability across or inside labs, or by design with
    things like DIR or DIAR couplers intended to reduce or optimize chemical
    crosstalk
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_motion_picture_film

    Kodak has licensed some hybrid or analog technology to IMAX, the analog
    industry may be willing to deal at this point, additionally some analog
    and hybrid information may be patented, when I was at Kodak R&D many
    things were not patented due to other nations not respecting
    intellectual property, PhotoCD was patented as a last ditch effort to
    leverage capture film into digital systems

    so what type of information will you need?

    spectral sensitivity of capture mediums
    (for some systems digital capture sensitivity needs resolved to sensor
    and filtration)
    spectrophotometry of print (subtractive) output mediums
    (spectral data might have to be resolved to light source and filtration)
    spectroradiometry of display (additive) output mediums
    spectroradiometry of analog and hybrid printers
    (for some systems such radiometry of equipment needs resolved to light
    source and filtration)
    chemical colorant response to light of medium (DlogE)
    interimage, overall crosstalk of medium
    single layer coatings of mediums to resolve chemical versus sensitivity
    crosstalk

    what are the use cases?
    1) captures (digital, hybrid or analog)(scene or like printing density)
    2) manipulations (digital, hybrid or analog)
    3) outputs (digital, hybrid or analog)

    spectral information is a one dimensional look-up table without crosstalk
    crosstalks are at least a linear matrix
    DlogE is best represented with a rational quadratic, higher math effects
    the central linearity, complete linearity effects toe and shoulder,
    highlight and shadow detail where dynamic range is low, this is still a
    one dimensional look-up table
    digital contrast is linear, gamma
    hybrid input/output contrast is calibrated for gamma in most cases
    multi-stage systems typically use some standard assumptions, mostly what
    equipment/software/measurement the systems engineer is working with

    any mathematician can take it from here to get all use cases

    if you want me to do a use case, just reply, I have a lot of time on my
    hands

    by the way, there is a book about "making" Kodak film, but not
    "designing" it, maybe the author might want to add a understandable
    compilation of this to his book
    http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/
     
    Dale, Mar 1, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale

    Guest Guest

    no. digital is better.
    no. digital has wider dynamic range and wider exposure latitude
    (basically the same thing).
    that can be modeled.
    some do, but that can be done with digital, for whatever film you want.
     
    Guest, Mar 1, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dale

    Dale Guest

    perhaps it "could" be done, but Kodak has a huge analog motion picture
    catalog, there is an establishment with infrastructure still using film

    film and filter manufacturers, etc. should make ICC abstract profiles of
    the "look and feel" of long standing appearance preferences

    also they should add analog and digital manipulation abstract profiles
    to aid in the transition too digital of people who have investments in
    analog and hybrid manipulations,, allowing them entry to digital

    this of course needs a better and deeper communication of film modeling
    and building characteristics

    for instance,, unsharp masking in Photoshop came from the analog industry

    film will eventually go away for the most part except for specialized
    applications, it might be time to share film specifications

    in building 69 we had a Marketing Technical Support group that did film
    publications with crude film characteristics,, they could do more
    technical ones for "look and feel" abstract ICC profiles, or the
    development of supporting software and hardware until film is dead
     
    Dale, Mar 1, 2014
    #3
  4. Dale

    Dale Guest

    Kodak licensed "something" to IMAX
     
    Dale, Mar 1, 2014
    #4
  5. Dale

    Guest Guest

    software companies have.
    mostly has already.
     
    Guest, Mar 1, 2014
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.