ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
May 27 08 11:21 PM
Jameson281 wrote: Robert Aragon wrote: Of course...I meant the ELEMENTS (aka film negative) itself which made my print are indeed in prestine condition. A 16mm negative is created from the actual 35mm source, so if my print was flawless. It means the original 35mm film negative is flawless. The original camera neg is in Italy and conformed to the Italian cut. All AIP ever had were interposives and internegatives. And again, the condition of a 16mm neg made 25 years ago from a 16mm I.N. of indeterminate age tells us nothing about the condition of the 35mm film elements in 2008. I did manage to look up an eval from '94 of one of the 35mm elements, and it looks like it was neither pristine nor terrible--some age-related damage, a few flaws printed into the film, etc. Not by any means ideal, but nothing catastrophic
Robert Aragon wrote: Of course...I meant the ELEMENTS (aka film negative) itself which made my print are indeed in prestine condition. A 16mm negative is created from the actual 35mm source, so if my print was flawless. It means the original 35mm film negative is flawless.
The original camera neg is in Italy and conformed to the Italian cut. All AIP ever had were interposives and internegatives. And again, the condition of a 16mm neg made 25 years ago from a 16mm I.N. of indeterminate age tells us nothing about the condition of the 35mm film elements in 2008. I did manage to look up an eval from '94 of one of the 35mm elements, and it looks like it was neither pristine nor terrible--some age-related damage, a few flaws printed into the film, etc. Not by any means ideal, but nothing catastrophic
Well I assume that restoration could fix that assuming it has not allowed to decay to much. Perhaps work has taken place since then.
Share This