Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Laurie Solomon wrote:

>> Sorry, drifting off topic.
> 
> 
> Never a problem with me - especially if the information is informative or
> interesting.
> I hate to sound stupid; but I want to check and see if you mean what I think
> you mean when you speak of CN in relation to film.  Are you speaking about a
> chromogenic negative? All the movie films that I know of are tungston films
> which always left me wondering why places like Seattle Filmworks and others
> who sold the respooled tails of those films never made a point of saying
> that they needed to be shot under tungsten lighting.
> 
> If the negatives produced off these films tend to be thicker than normal as
> you said or implied, at least as I understood your to be saying or
> impliying, would this not make it harder to scan and make scanning the
> slides easier if not better?  Since you have already said that you have not
> actually scanned the stuff, I am asking this sort of in terms of rhetorical
> question or in search of a logical speculation rather than an empirical
> answer.
> 

Even if the neg film was designed for tungsten lighting, and not shot 
under those conditions, it could be corrected in both the prints and 
slides which were made through filtration.  Probably easier for them to 
correct it at their lab than expect people who bought this stuff to even 
know what "tungsten" was... (Seattle Filmworks wasn't exactly the place 
professionals flocked to).

The 'slide' film that was used was actually a non-masked negative film 
also c-41 processed, and they used contact printers to make them, so 
filtration could be easily accomplished ay that stage.
Art