Journal of Film Preservation - FIAF

projecting in a darkened room demand a
higher image contrast; of gamma 1.6 -
1.8 (or 1.3 - 1.6 for black-and-white) to
give the appearance of “natural” tonality.
Since gammas multiply in printing,
gamma 1 ECO’s corresponding print
films had a gamma of 1.8. It’s internegative
7272 has a gamma of .65, similar to
a camera negative’s. Therefore, printing
ECO (gamma 1) onto 7272 (gamma
.65), and then striking a positive release
print (gamma 2.6 - 3), produces a
gamma 1.8 image - ideal for viewing.
Here then, is the crux of the problem.
Current reversal materials like the
Kodachrome and Ektachrome lines - and
in fact any positive print intended for
projection - already have a 1.8 gamma.
Thus, printing them onto the 7272 material
and then the 7386 print stock (or an
Agfa or Fuji equivalent), results in a final
image gamma of around 3, which is
unsatisfactory by any standard.
4. Kodak has a gamma 1 reversal stock
intended for these materials, which will
be discussed later. But because “... the
print stock...must have extraordinary latitude
to capture the range of image tones
in a projection-contrast original(,) high
gamma original is an irrational course, if
prints are intended. Also if an internegative
is intended.”—Dennis Couzin, “Dear
Film Artists”, Experimental Film
Coalition Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 2, June
1984, pp. 2-3.
5. Optimage regularly utilizes the aforementioned
low-contrast stock, in combination
with “alterations” to their optical
printer. I suspect their alterations allow
the placement of a strong diffuser or opal
glass near to the printer projector’s film
plane, while retaining a high level of illumination.
6. These tests took place in December,
1994. At the time of this writing (May,
1996), the Museum’s intention is to use
an East Coast laboratory; I believe John
Allen’s. To my knowledge all parties were
very pleased with the test results, and the
change was primarily due to the attendant
difficulties of a long-distance lab
relationship. Clear communication channels
with one’s technical services are
obviously of utmost importance in any
non-standard printing operation.
7. Black-and-white films generally pose
less of a problem in this area, for a variety
of reasons. Contrasty subjects reproduce
better in black-and-white than
color, partially because colors suffer saturation
loss in reproduction, and color
that of watching that same frame once (8) with an extended shutter-time.
Similarly, step-printing an 18 fps original to 24 fps for 16mm viewing
creates a subtle stutter every sixth second. As the only alternative is often
to blow-up frame-for-frame and project at heightened speed, many
small-format film artists forsake blow-up entirely.
Gibbons’ Punching Flowers raised other considerations. Here the low-con
7385 stock’s desaturation effectively rendered the muted tones in
Gibbons’ original work. While this stock, intended for video-transfer
prints, has too little density and richness for most purposes; in this case
the subject matter demanded exactly these qualities. In fact, however,
this led to another question. A companion test on regular 7386 print
stock, while boosting contrast, showed such an improvement in saturation
that both project coordinator Steve Anker of the Cinematheque and
myself agreed it in fact looked better than the original. The issue then
became whether in fact our aim as preservationists were best served by
faithfully rendering the qualities of the original work, or in fact enhancing
them. Mr. Anker, a meticulously dedicated professional with an
exacting eye, preferred the more saturated (“enhanced”) version, while I
myself found the muted 7385 more in keeping with the work’s wry meditations
on nature and beauty. This is not to say that I would always opt
for “preservation” over enhancement; but simply that I preferred it in
this case. Of course neither interpretation is right or wrong in absolute –
they remain judgments. And it is just this sort of precise judgment
which is demanded of the preserving archivist.
Now, Punching Flowers, shot in handheld Super-8, is in many ways an
archetypal amateur film. The physical conditions of screening in 16mm,
as well as a variety of social constructs, create more of a sense of professionalism
in 16mm work than in the small-format underground or basement-screening
genres. While some home movies or “actualities” footage,
viewed primarily for image content, may benefit from blow-up, it is
quite conceivable that other works would actually suffer in blow-up. (9) In
fact, one quickly runs into a philosophical impasse when pondering the
very preservation of works whose strengths lay in their rejection of traditional
notions of the permanence of art, or else were grounded in their
own physical form and/or temporality. .(10) Mr. Anker, I think rightly, felt
that this piece is ideally viewed in an intimate, less formal small-format
projection. Yet as preservationists, we ultimately opted for the more stable
medium of 16mm. (11)
Historical Considerations
Perhaps the most puzzling project of this nature I have come across
recently is the preservation of Bruce Baillie’s All My Life with the Pacific
Film Archive. Mr. Baillie, an internationally recognized artist whose
Castro Street has been included in the Library of Congress National Film
Registry, and who along with his Canyon Cinema (12) co-founder Chick
Strand, is one of the American experimental movement’s great sensualists,
produced a body of works in the 1960’s and early 70’s renowned for
their visual richness and use of color. Among his most famous pieces is
All My Life, a short (3 minute) single-shot film consisting of one elegant
52 Journal of Film Preservation / 53 / 1996