Eureka's look

[Junko Tanaka]

I've found our recent discussion on quality of prints with interest, and
before it fades out, I'd like to throw another question that perhaps Dennis
or other members could clarify.
Like Aaron, I was curious to know why Japanese prints are shoddy due to poor
lab work. I remember seeing credits of Imagica and Sony PCL in films from
Taiwan and HK for instance, that has led me to think that film processing
and developing in Japan is trustworthy. I've also heard of other cases that
directors in southeast Asia, just after shooting, send their footage to be
developed in Japan or Australia with the risk of it getting lost (and in
some cases it did).
I'm just wondering (sorry this is a very basic question) whether film
processing and duplication are totally different matters. Also, if a
majority of new prints from Japan can be so bad, what about prints from
other countries in Asia or elsewhere?
After hearing all those stories from Dennis, it seems I still can't quite
get why a country that produces one of the two biggest film stocks has poor
reputations for its lab work. What makes a lab a good one - equipment,
skillful artisans, or something else?
Thank you, everyone.
Junko Tanaka, Tokyo


----- Original Message -----
From: <MileFilms at aol.com>
To: <KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Eureka's look


>
> In a message dated 1/14/01 7:37:31 PM, gerow at ynu.ac.jp writes:
>
> << Well, I was just following some of Tamura's comments in the press notes
> where he was noting how some of the effects were surprising and at least
> variable.  In some cases, they went overboard and had to trash some
> printed scenes.  But then again, Tamura is a cameraman, not a developer.
> Imagica, by the way, did the printing, and it is one of Japan's oldest
> and best respected labs.  But just out of curiosity, Dennis, what is the
> object of your occasional low opinion of Japanese labs?
> Aaron Gerow >>
>
> Dear Aaron,
> In the case of Eureka, sometimes publicity is just publicity -- I know I
pass
> along "tall" stories from the producers in our press kits since it's good
> press, and I'm guessing that's the case.
>
> As for the labs, I'll stand by my fairly general statement. We have gotten
> many prints from Japan and there has always been shoddy lab work. First,
you
> must remember that we're an "archival" company where we work on
restorations
> ourselves so we insist that our new films have the same quality.
> Unfortunately, most of the Japanese color films I get (Maborosi and
Fireworks
> are two specific examples) lean heavily to green due to poor timing at the
> lab. Flesh tones are not accurate. For Maborosi, we settled since we
didn't
> have the money then to create an interpositive, negative and answer
prints.
> And to be perfectly honest, no one but me and our film-to-tape engineer
> noticed. At the same time, Koreeda-san was delighted with the new video
> transfer since we corrected this. For Fireworks (which actually leaned
> towards magenta), we had a much larger commercial expectation so we
created a
> whole new interpositive off the camera negative and then spent two months
> correcting the IP of chemical splashes, flaws and scratches before we went
to
> do a timed negative and then prints. It got such a good reputation, it
ended
> up that we supplied prints of the film for much of the world. Kitano
brought
> one print from us and if you ever have a chance to compare the two, you
would
> see the difference immediately. As for Black and White, I've never seen a
> print that didn't have dust flaws leading me to think that they don't have
> wet-gate in Japan. New prints of older films are often lacking the perfect
> contrast. I should say that Antonio Gaudi and Woman in the Dunes were
> reasonably good prints so maybe it just needs personal attention.
>
> On the other hand this is distribution and I don't let myself get crazy
over
> these things (okay, I do, but that's just me). My biggest worry in Japan
is
> the state of preservation and the lack of archival standards. The
original,
> longer version of Life of Oharu doesn't exist according to Toho and
there's
> been no search for these extra 10 minutes. Many of the new Japanese films
we
> look at have the producers striking prints off of the original camera
> negative. There are no interpositives or internegatives to protect the
film.
> When we offer to pay for them or share in the cost, we are always refused.
> (For Fireworks, it took three attempts and thankfully, our assistant
> befriended Kitano and convinced him.) I usually am terrified to order
extra
> prints from Japan knowing that I can ruin the only master material they
have.
>
> Are there good labs in the rest of the world? There are about six in the
US
> that I trust implicitly (Cinema Arts, Triage, YCM are three). Henderson in
> London can do good work but only if they're pushed (Kevin Brownlow had
them
> produced 22 answer prints before he finally accepted a gorgeous print of
> Winstanley--and they call ME nuts!). There's Cine Studio in Rome who's
just
> getting a name for itself and Hagefilm in Belgium. Gosfilmofond did a good
> job on the one film I got from them but they can produce attrocious
prints, I
> hear. Beyond that, they're all iffy at times.
>
> Dennis
> Milestone Film & Video
>