Once scanned, this digital data was compared against the best-preserved picture print of the same title, to make sure that all the frames were preserved within the digital file. Once the digital image data was verified, a new Black and White/Successive Exposure (SE) negative was created from the scanned data by the Disney Digital Studio Services Film and Digital Services Department.
The Disney Digital Studio Services Film and Digital Services group has been hard at work creating SE negatives of not just our historical library, but also has employed the SE process as an important aspect of the Studio’s long-term archive strategy for films that have been finished digitally. The digital image data is separated into the digital equivalent of the film Yellow, Cyan and Magenta “records” for output onto a single piece of black and white negative film using a Laser Film Recorder. Just as in the original film process, in the digital SE process, each color record is written using an laser in succession onto black and white negative stock. What makes this process so important to our archive strategy is that that this single continuous strand of black and white stock, when properly stored, has proven to last over 100 years. There is not any digital media storage format that currently holds this same promise, and thus, the ability to convert our aging and deteriorating Nitrate film as well as our currently digitally finished motion pictures to a single stand of black and white negative, may be one of the most important steps we can take today to preserve our library for the future.
In the future, these digital black and white negative will be able to be scanned and then digitally recombined to create new masters from these archival elements. Throughout its history, The Walt Disney Studio’s has indeed treated its library like the “crown jewels” that it is. The result of this foreword thinking care has meant that generation after generation have been able to enjoy classics from the Walt Disney Studio library and for generations to come, will be able to enjoy our future classics.
For what it's worth, wet gate printing--it should work with scanning--using dry cleaning fluid as the wetting agent does wonders in recovering surface scratched negatives. I experimented with it 45 years ago and it gave me some remarkable headaches. Regarding archival storage, last year James Snyder of the Library of Congress Audio Visual preservation unit in Culpepper VA spoke at our local (Atlanta) chapter of the SMPTE. I shocked the hell out of me to learn that their primary focus was to stabilize the original materials, and then transfer them to high resolution digital TAPE cartridges, He acknowledged that there would be an ongoing effort transferring materials to ever newer media and technologies. Personally, I have a great deal more faith in the survivability of physical media. When RCA was experimenting with it's Holotape Selectivision process u=in the 1970s I though that might have some promise.
Bill Pettit-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Faul
Sent: Feb 5, 2015 8:49 PM
To: "PHOTOFORUM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Subject: film recordersI’m not sure the film recorder was invented to do this, but I have an acquaintance whose entire carer has been spent ’saving’ digital files through conversion to film. Larry claims his most popular conversion size is 4x5”.The difficulties with film are such that in the printing process through a darkroom or by developing film in a spot with slightly unclean water (like AA’s workshop in Yosemite), following the old tried and true method of soaking b/w film in PhotoFlo and then dipping one’s fingers in the solution before sliding the fingers down the film to squeegee off excess liquid can result in scratches which used to be invisible.I recently had the idea to scan some fiber prints of images including from a former lab in DC called Image, the White House darkroom, a print from my darkroom, a Judy Dater, a Cunningham, and a Walker Evans.All were scratched in the emulsion in various ways and I estimate that the scratches mostly occurred in the wash from having too many pieces of paper bump around into each other. Some film exhibited vertical scratches made by fingers and PhotoFlo and impure water å la Yosemite. Only after I complained, my lab in Copenhagen admitted they did not filter the water. They said, “Why? It’s perfectly drinkable.” Yeah, and I’m sure wash water is better with vodka in it.Some of the scanned prints exhibited small black bubbles from not being agitated enough in the developer and emulsion scratches look like the grand Canyon when scanned.But I imagine the film recorder which ’saves’ digital files, also has issues, including scratches. The problems are from the damned scanners: they just see everything.printsOn Feb 5, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:actually Jan, its actually the best way to store final digital images and the smallest way with the best chance of not being lost to technology. Write the files back to film. Its how movies are archived. they do a 3 color separation and write the movies to Black and white film. I hate this name but its called Reverse technicolor. (by technicolor I'm sure deluxe has a equally amazing name ;-/ )On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Shoot film, then it can be anything your scanner likes, for ex. Adobe 1998 RGB from a CreoOn Feb 5, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I get that and obviously we shoot and work in the widest possible color space and deepest possible bit depth to gather the most image data we can. Bigger sensors to catch every last drop of noise-free picture data.Printing technology is astonishing.It's extraordinary that they can get the technology past 8bit having to cope with 250 odd different size bubbles at the print head… let alone thousands of different sized bubbles.But what we're talking about here is not what the technology is capable of. It's someone who has to print stuff which has already been shot and processed in sRGB.To map the sRGB files back to Adobe 1998 is NOT going to improve anything… Where will that extra information come from? The ether?Where will the shadow and highlight detail come from? A bunch of numbers the computer has to make up?No, I stick with keeping it at sRGB.HerschelOn Feb 5, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Randy Little wrote:You need a profile larger then your color space to map colors Herschel. Its a setting in the driver. and it doesn't do a full 16 bit either probably more like 14with 2 bits of transform space since these transforms happen in integer math and lose precision. but the setting is 16 bit. the printer will easily push past the edges of Green cyan and magenta through orange are outside it as well. I Surely don't want sRGB cutting off even more. Plus the Gamma curve of sRGB just kills information in the darks.
If you shoot in sRGB and then edit in sRGB and then print in sRGB you are losing A LOT of information from the camera. Its being clipped. So you work in a bigger space and soft proof. If you use the apple color sync utillty to view the profiles. You will find that even the very conservative epson pro38 PGPP (photo glossy photo paper) well exceeds sRGB in yellow and Greens (bad in blues and magenta) but Thats a HUGE amount of color clipping in the viewer space. Adobe1998 swells up around a good amount of those missing color and Pro-photo completely envelopes them. So I am not clipping or doing an remapping of color space until its time. That way I can control how that all workers out in the end. VS shooting in sRGB and just not ever having the yellows oranges greens and Cyans to begin with.On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Randy, the 3800 is capable of wider than sRGB but not as wide as Adobe 1998... And it depends on the ink and paper... If you're printing on expensive art paper with artisan inks it can be very expensive while not being much better... When you set the profile for the printer, paper and ink, the color space is optimized for that setup...
On 11:02AM, Thu, Feb 5, 2015 Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well cant help if you are using out of date monitors and print profiles. The whole point of 8 and 9 color printers is that they have large gamuts. My 10 bit monitor and displayport to my 3800 which does 16 bit and adobergb gamut are well beyond sRGB.
On Feb 5, 2015 11:41 AM, "karl shah-jenner" <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First good monitors are all about 98% of adobergb. Apple monitors are not
in that category even though they a very accurate at sRGB.
Second
who still owns a 4 color inkjet. the 3800 on glossy stock covers pretty
much most of adobe rgb. sRGB is smaller then swop 2 or sheet fed standard
profiles.
color printers all tend to be referred to inaccurately as CMYK printers.. this makes it easier than referring to them as CLcMLmYKLkRG printers or whatever color range of inks get jammed into the 8+ ink carts of todays printers.
And sure, there's a plethora of greens in printers that lay outside some RGB gamuts including some mesmerizing green-yellows, that doesn't make them necessarily unusable - unless you use a color space that as well as squishing, ignores outliers.
I used to produce my images on q 10 bit graphics card, a matrox parhelia coupled to a rather nice 24" CRT. I gave that up since most of the people at that time I linked pictures to were using 3DFX cards with no color fidelity on 17" LCDs.. what's the point? I work to the lowest common denominator now.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
