|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Tipe on reel changes
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-19-2002 07:06 AM
You should remove TEMPORARY (i.e., unique to your theatre) cues and information before sending the print on. If you are labeling leaders with permanent information, be sure the information is CORRECT! For example, if you guess the track is Dolby A, and it is really SR, you are actually doing a disservice labeling the leaders as Dolby A. Likewise if you guess the aspect ratio is 1.66:1, and it is really 1.85:1, the next theatre might be showing mike booms when they use the incorrect 1.66:1 recommendation.------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-19-2002 07:29 AM
John, when did the SMPTE standardize 1.85 as the US spherical widescreen format? I know that when I first started in the mid-60s, a number of studios had reel-bands which printed both a minimum and a maximum AR crop. Presumably you could project at either extreme and anything in between without risk of seeing set gack or over-cropping foreheads and chins. We ran 1.66 in that theatre and at that time, we never had any problems with visible junk. I think in the early days studios were much more conscious of the fact that lots of theatres were cropping in a random kind of way so they had to take into consideration that there were still some which were not cropping out to 1.85. I am assuming that 1.85 became a hard standard later, perhaps in the mid-seventies? I know Disney stuck with 1.75 for quite awhile after everyone else was composing for 1.85. Even today I still get foreign imports which clearly state 1.66 (which is really a nice format -- a sensible compromise between width and less magnification grain/brighter image). I also found that even the studios don't always give correct information. I remember Miramax had marked CINEMA PARADISO as 1.85. Our 1.85 is right on the money, yet if I played this picture at that crop, there was one scene where if I kept the subtitling at the very bottom of the screen, the character would have his head chopped off by the top of the screen. Yes, they printed the SUBTITLES at 1.85, but this European import was composed at 1.66. I ran the rest of the shows at 1.66 and everything was fine....no one got decapitated. Also this question: foreign film distribs are notorious for not marking format information. Even soundtracks that are stereo do not have the familiar [Dolby] and [STEREO] boxes within the soundtrack. One has to inspect the track, sometimes with a loupe (I use an old 16mm lens) in order to determine if there is any differenence in modulation between the two tracks. Is it safe to assume that if you do see only the [Dolby] [STEREO] boxes, and not any specifically reference SR, that it must be Dolby A NR? I assume that once Dolby started releasing SR prints, the [DOLBY SR] would have been printed in the soundtracks, no? Plus, the release date of the film will figure in the determination. If I am not sure of the format, I never put my guess on the print. For a questionable AR, I will on occassion notate: PLAYS OK AT 1.66 for a film made in that questionable time period, if it looked ok in that format on my screen.
| 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