I agree that it would be great to have less expensive test films. The dilemma is how much accuracy should be sacrificed for price. Both the Schneider/THX and SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test films are produced on a step printer using registration pins, to assure optimum steadiness and accurate image positioning. At most, these printers run a few frames per second, so production costs are high.

The $495 cost for a 200-foot roll of SMPTE 35-PA may seem high. But with reasonable care, that ESTAR-base test film can be used hundreds of times before it wears out. So certifying the projection performance of a theatre costs less than the price of a single ticket to that theatre.

Likewise, the cost of a quality Screen Luminance Meter is pro-rated over thousands of uses. Screen luminance and uniformity should be checked on a regular basis, and certainly after anything (e.g., xenon lamp alignment and focus, reflector cleaning, etc.) is changed. Look at it this way: without a meter, you might accidently "hot spot" and cause permanent heat damage to a print that costs more than the meter.

Just as you wouldn't want a back-yard mechanic to diagnose your modern automobile's emission system without the proper tools, it is "penny wise and pound foolish" to run a theatre complex without the proper tools to evaluate projection quality.

I could see a use for regular rolls of a "centering" target pattern, but for any serious work, it is my opinion the PA35 should be used.

Thanks . I think all of us on the Film Handler's Forum agree on the importance of having the right tools and equipment. The challenge is convincing the non-technical people who sign the checks of the need.

Your use of an ultrasonic splicer is a good example of how having the best tool for the job can improve quality. As functional and good as tape splices are, they do stretch, bend, get sticky, discolor, get dirty, etc. with age.

As you already know, a properly-made polyester splice on an ultrasonic splicer is almost indestructable, and very reliable. I would hope that larger theatre complexes or anyone really concerned with quality presentation might be able to convince management that $3200 is a good investment. (One possible line: "You'll never have to buy any splicing tape" ).

For those who have never seen or used an ultrasonic splicer, here is a link to Metric Splicer, Inc., one of the primary manufacturers:
http://www.metricsplicer.com

The particular model for motion picture use is the Model 3001:
http://www.metricsplicer.com/3001/html

A competing ultrasonic splicer has just been introduced by Hollywood Film Company:
http://www.hollywoodfilmco.com/Splicer.htm

The chain I work for now is nowhere near "cheap" (the last 80 screens we built from scratch were all bi-amped with CP65's or CP500's and about 70% are digital.) I mean, I'm sure there are better, but I think that's pretty good for a small chain.

Yet, they would never approve $3200 for a splicer, or even $1300 for a meter, and I think most other chains would do the same. How many theaters has anyone been to with their own meter or an ultrasonic splicer? For me (in 25 years) it's 1 and 0! Usually owners will say: the tech guy brings his meter, we will use his. (Then, of course, they try to never call him!) I admit, I have seen loops of the (B&W) RP40 around.

But, I understand the reluctance to manufacture lower quality test materials: The potental for abuse is high. People will buy the "cheap" test film then use it as a reference standard- all kinds of weirdness could result.

That's why I thought the chart on it would be simple, like that older SMPTE test film with just rectangles on it (RP 110-1983.) Only with a checkerboard pattern on it so it doesn't get too hot. Maybe a simple anamorphic test, shutter ghosting, etc. Good enough for checking the scope lens, shutter ghosting, centering the framing knob, masking, basic projector positioning and tilt, and an "image cropped or not" test.

It would not be meant for focus/resolution, lamp alignment, lens aberrations and jitter/weave. These are not tests done routinely. There would not be any patterns that could be used for these purposes, to prevent misuse.

Now, I'll annoy everyone just a little longer, then I'll shaddup; I promise!

I think the 35PA is "overkill." I mean, it's not just accurate; every frame is almost a work of art. And, you'd want that for critical testing on projectors or printers. But, for 90% of users, a cheaper test film would do. IMHO.

The SMPTE did once have a "35mm Visual Test Film for Theater Use". The 35-VT film was 450 feet long, printed on color stock, and could be used for simple checks of image size, steadiness, sharpness, etc. It was printed on a continuous contact printer, and was NOT intended for critical alignment. It was similar in concept to the P16-PP-C "Jiffy 16mm Projection Evaluation Film". The 35mm film was not a big seller, and when the negative wore out, SMPTE decided to discontinue making the film, rather than produce a new negative.

There will be a meeting of the SMPTE Theatrical Projection Technology Committee at ShoWest in March. You are welcome to ask the Committee to consider developing a new 35mm subjective test film. The current chairman is Bobby Pinkston of Dolby: bwp@dolby.com

 |  IP: Logged