optical printing questions

[fritzcarraldo]

Hello,

I´m thinking about starting to work with an optical printer.

What models are there besides the JK´s?

And, how do they work.

I´m intrigued about a simple doubt,

What type of film is used in optical printing?

I suppose i need to have a normal negative developed film as a base, but what type of emulsion is needed to print on?

Plain negative emulsion?

And what about sensibility?

Are my questions too ignorant?

Well, i´m still ignorant about this, so that's why i'm asking :lol:

regards

[John_Pytlak]

The Kodak website has a short tutorial on printing and film systems:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/suppo ... gP.shtml#p

[Dr_Strange_Love]

dumb question, but Im dying to know what an optical printer is!

[John_Pytlak]

dumb question, but Im dying to know what an optical printer is!

It's described and shown on the Kodak link that I gave.

Essentially an optical printer uses a projector for the original, and a lens system to image the original onto the raw stock running in a special camera. Most optical printers are pin registered, and print one frame at a time, although there are some "continuous optical reduction" printers. Optical printers are usually used for effects work, or to change image size (e.g., "blowing up" Super-8 to 16mm, or Super-16 to 35mm)

Most release prints are made by "contact printing", where the original and raw stock are brought into contact over a large printing sprocket as the printer light exposes the image.

[fritzcarraldo]

Hello,

Thanks for the help John.

Let me explain what i need,

My main idea is to film in 16mm, develp the negative, then copy it to positive,

What i want is to be able to copy images, and also try to simplify the developing process,

Because i work with spiral tanks,

I prefer to use spirals because it´s cheaper and they don't usually scratch the emulsion, but the reversal process is risky and it takes too long.

So, by using the optical printer, i could copy the films,

And i also thought i could simplify the developing process, is that true?

What do you say John?

[robbie]

if you shoot neg. film you can use print stocks such as 3383 or 7242, these provide positive from printing neg. im assuming youre printing color. if so youll also need to figure a filter pack for doing this sort of thing. but if im understanding ya your desire is to process yourself so im not too sure about processing the above stocks and as you said processing neg would be easier so, im not sure what you want once you copy the neg as to what and if youll process or have it processed. i do these sorts all the time with an older JK, which has been working wonders for me for years. an optical printer will do more than you can perhaps imagine or if you want to just make copies w/o blow-ups, etc. then perhaps a contact printer will work. sometimes you can find what is called a cineprinter on ebay or a more professional contact printer can sometimes be found there too.

[Konton]

Hey, what kinda JK Optical Printer do you have? I bought an old JK 104 for $600 a few months back with a Super and Super 16 gate, but it doesn't seem to be working right. I also got a Bolex DS8 for another $450 to go with it. Since I can't seem to make it all work I'm taking it over to Jakko (I think that's how you spell his name) to see if he can check it all out for me. I figure that will run me a few hundred more, but it's nice to have the guy who made these things do a once over, ya know? maybe I'll see if I can get home to trade me out the 16mm gate for a Super 16mm one. Eh, who am I kidding. I'm probably gonna sell it after I know it been cleaned and tested.

[robbie]

i have an older k-200, which is just like the k-103 and k-104.
the work bench is really the only difference. what is yours doing? i had problem when i first purchaced. it would run w/o stoppping so, me being somewhat at the time affraid to monkey with the machine sent it to Jaako who did whatever for somewhere around $200. since then all works fine except the 16mm gate. seems to have lazy spring or something causing registration to be off each frame. ive had this JK for eight or more years ( purchased from dude that had it much longer) and i put about 1500' through per year. everything i produce goes through the printer. although, it does take a lot of test and adjustments to get things right.
if you decide to sell yours let me know. i know this one i have isnt going to last forever as it has many miles on it already.

[mattias]

you can always bipack the neg with print stock in a bolex (or whatever rugged camera that doesn't mind the extra thickness), aim it at a white paper, defocus, shoot. instant contact printer.

/matt

[etimh]

you can always bipack the neg with print stock in a bolex (or whatever rugged camera that doesn't mind the extra thickness), aim it at a white paper, defocus, shoot. instant contact printer.

/matt

Hey mattias,

Keep in mind, I have no preference either way--have never done it so I wouldn't know the pros and cons. I'm just interested in hearing people's experience.

When using the "bipack" sandwich process you describe, do you lose some clarity and sharpness in the contact print, because of the thicknesses of the negative and print stock? I read this somewhere when I was looking into getting prints made.

It certainly sounds like the economical way to go. And I can't imagine that the resolution loss can be that bad.

Tim :roll:

[mattias]

When using the "bipack" sandwich process you describe, do you lose some clarity and sharpness in the contact print, because of the thicknesses of the negative and print stock? I read this somewhere when I was looking into getting prints made.

if you're printing reversal to reversal, yes. if you're using negative and print stock, which has the emulsion on the other side, you sandwich them emulsion to emulsion. i haven't done it myself but i've seen the results of it. it looks just like a pro contact print. the thickness of the emulsion causes some slight loss of definition though, which is why an optical print is always sharper, even though other artifact can lower the quality instead.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

if you're printing reversal to reversal, yes. if you're using negative and print stock, which has the emulsion on the other side, you sandwich them emulsion to emulsion.

Reversal is also printed emulsion to emulsion. It doesn't have to print through the base.

Roger

[John_Pytlak]

The only reason to print through the base is when you MUST maintain the same orientation. Reversal camera originals like KODACHROME films are projected with the emulsion side toward the lens of the projector. If you make a print to intercut with it, you need to keep the same orientation.

[mattias]

Reversal is also printed emulsion to emulsion. It doesn't have to print through the base.

i meant reversal camera stock to reversal camera stock. reversal print stock will solve the problem of course. or double perf camera stock backwards.

/matt