|
||||||||
Negative Film Clips Secondly, negative film clips were not of much interest to the collectors in the 1960s-1970s. Simply, the clips were not really viewable with a home 35mm slide projector. After all, they were negative and would look pretty bizarre and meaningless projected on a wall. Of course, any camera shop back then could have printed them to make a positive, but why would anyone have bothered? Positive film clips were readily available at the time that were just as interesting, unique and as it was assumed at the time, fade free . However, negative film clips are still desirable, especially today, because they yield the sharpest images and highest color fidelities in comparison to images made from positive clips, all other things being equal. This is because the original negatives came straight from the motion picture camera and did not go through any copying process (e.g., via a contact or optical printer) that degraded their images. Thus, they are as clear and as focused as they possibly can be. Also, and as discussed later, the original camera negatives (OCNs) have not faded to the same extent as the positive prints. Anyone who’s watched the re-mastered Star Trek episodes should
be able to attest to the benefits of using OCNs. One of the major reasons
that the re-mastered Trek episodes are so pristine and vibrant is that
the live action components have been digitally transferred directly
from the negatives. In contrast, the quality of the episodes first
released on DVD is due to the fact that those transfers were performed
from prints a generation or two removed from the original negatives
and/or internegatives. (A possible exception to this is Shore
Leave that appears to have been transferred directly
from an internegative
or interpositive.) The process of creating a print is analog, and
to use the analogy of a photocopier, each copy of a copy compromises
clarity, color and contrast, albeit subtly, during the film duplicating
process.
|
||||||||
Rolls of Film Consequently, we were delighted when we were contacted by Mr. Lee Gately and informed that he possessed a small roll of negative film that had belonged to his late uncle Mr. Carl Shoen. Carl was a property man in Hollywood who worked on Star Trek and also worked on several movies including the original Willard starring Ernest Borgnine. This negative roll has been in Lee’s family since it was acquired back in 1968, and Lee generously loaned it to us so that we could share it on startrekhistory.com. But what do you do with a 35mm roll or strip when you want to view
the motion picture? Unfortunately, unlike 8mm or even 16mm film, many
people do not possess the equipment at home to project the 35mm format.
This is probably for the best because old film can be brittle and spliced,
so the process of running it through a projector may permanently damage
it. The best and safest way to view old film is have it transferred
to a digital format. Once transferred, it can then be recorded onto
a DVD so that it can be viewed on a home player or computer. This is
what we’ve done to the negative roll, and the process is described
below. |
||||||||
I have to admit that I jumped at the chance to observe the telecine of this roll because I was intensely curious as to the nature of the scene that had lay hidden for nearly 40 years. So, I tucked the film under my arm and drove to the “studio” one morning with three cups of coffee and palpable anticipation under my belt (figuratively speaking). Upon arriving there, I accompanied the colorist to the back of a tiny room filled with wires, computers, and film projectors to find a telecine sitting there as big as a soda machine. Seriously, the telecine resembled an old computer bank from 1967 Earth as depicted in the episode Tomorrow is Yesterday. Before loading the film into the apparatus, the colorist first affixed the ends of the film to leaders using special adhesive tape. I asked him why he didn’t more firmly splice the leaders on as I did as a kid when I made my home movie Gorgo: The Zombie Terrier From Space. The colorist explained that the modern telecines don’t actually use the sprockets of the film to move it so there is no reason to splice the leaders using cement. He went on to say that sprocket-less transfers were better anyway because many older films, in particular, have distorted and/or damaged sprocket holes. By avoiding the sprocket perforations, he said, you get a much more stable transfer with less risk of damage to the film. |
||||||||
After fiddling with the color a bit using joysticks located on the telecine control panel, the colorist pushed a button and streamed the digitized video to his computer and onto a DVD. After one minute, it was done: A digitized movie of the original negative, Whom Gods Destroy, Scene 29D! As you are about to see, the bulk of the film shows an unused dolly in shot of Leonard Nimoy reacting to the conversation between William Shatner (Kirk) and Steve Ihnat (Garth). The scene occurs towards the beginning of the episode, and this particular footage was filmed as part of its coverage. The shots are used to cut in with the master shot, which is usually a wide shot. We speculate that the editor chose not to use this reaction shot because the bulk of the scene is focused on Kirk and Garth. Also, there is a slight scratch on the right side of the shot that runs through out. Although this might have ruled out the footage from being usable, it in no way deters from the historical significance of the film. The end of the footage shows a person, most likely the assistant cameraman, checking the lens of the camera for dust and lens flares. |
||||||||
We should point out that we’ve further
color corrected the movie to adjust for 40 years of fading. Unlike
the OCNs from the series, which are stored in a precisely
controlled environment, this roll was stored in a garage under
less than ideal circumstances. So, some chemical alteration and physical
damage was to be expected. Nevertheless, the degree of fading and damage
was minimal relative to rolls of positive film we’ve encountered
stored under similar conditions. Also, the colorist had no DVD to compare
the footage with and made his own assumption on exposure. About the clips
|