|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kino shipped coffee stained print.
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-11-2001 02:05 AM
Ian, see I told you there was another print! There is almost always another print! This is the standard line of crap that these small distributors (and even the big boys, TES) pulls ALL THE FRIGGIN' TIME! They just do not want to be hassled and unless you really make an ass of yourself, these people will not help you. That is indeed the secret: bitch, bitch, bitch and then if you still haven't received an acceptable print keep bitching until they pay to strike a new print out of their own pocket. If that doesn't work, start in on the studios. Sooner or later you WILL get a good print and if the depots have any brains whatsoever, they will realize to stop screwing around with you that you are serious about a quality presentation and send you good prints from the start. Now what is really crappy about this particular situation is the fact that the first half of your presentation will be flawless, but the second half will be "good" at best. If they trusted you with half of their DVD master print, then why can they not trust you with the entire print? What is the logic here? Oh wait, never mind...there isn't any!The Kit Parker depot is like a torture chamber for films. Good film goes in...junked print comes out. During college I got lots of films from Kit Parker and ALL of them were complete shit. In the last several years I have had the displeasure of having to run prints from that depot because they were the only ones with a certain title and just as before, every single print was shit! If you dare to call and complain you will just be told that you caused the damage and then be threatened with either playing it or paying for it. Now just to make sure that my point is being made, I am not saying that a print from Kit Parker is not up to my personal guidelines for a good print. I mean that no one in their right mind would ever play any of the shit prints they sent me. Someone please bomb that building. Talk about "film done wrong"!!! 
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-11-2001 01:12 PM
In the days of triacetate prints and changeovers, the prints would literally WEAR OUT. Many fewer prints were made, and they worked their way from the "first run" in the big cities to the smaller cities, then to "second run", subrun, and finally institutions like colleges and prisons. Most prints would stay in circulation for over a year, and the "inspection cards" at the National Film Service exchanges would list at least ten to twenty theatres before a print was finally retired. (In those days, distributors still paid for print inspection, and the exchange wound through each print on a regular schedule). Triacetate film was prone to perforation damage (often from excessive feed and holdback tension with large reels), and older prints were full of poor splices made with both tape and cement. It was a given that well-used prints would be full of dirt and scratches, especially near the reel changes, and "cleaning"  a print in the theatre meant running through a rag wet with some solvent film cleaner. Triacetate and earlier polyester film often developed enough static charge to attract dirt particles from a distance.Today, polyester prints are very durable, and many would argue TOO STRONG and unforgiving. Kodak VISION Color Print film has a conductive antistatic backing that virtually eliminates the static charging that attracted dirt and gave nasty shocks to the projectionist when winding the film. Platters have reduced the tension on the film, and minimized the handling required. But more importantly, a major film release often numbers thousands of prints, so the chances of a small town theatre getting a brand new print are much greater. Most prints are retired within a few months after visiting only a handful of theatres, as the "window" before video release shrinks to a few months. Many theatres have film-cleaners, and a few use them for every showing. So, if the film and equipment are so much better, why do prints get damaged? The discussions on Film-Tech provide some answers. Hint, just look for the LONG threads with lots of icons. In most cases, the problems can be traced to being Cheap, Careless, or Clueless, or some combination of the three. ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic