my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Dual inventory print hassles...again! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Dual inventory print hassles...again! John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 05-03-2003 09:34 AM                     I had heard somewhere (but I could be wrong) that Sony is now only charging, like, $1 to license SDDS. This tends to make sense, since they seem to have given up. I'm wondering if the reason some prints don't have SDDS is because the labs in those areas have decided not to maintain their SDDS recorders.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-03-2003 09:56 AM                     Once the sound negative exists with SDDS on it (which should be true if there are _any_ SDDS prints), isn't printing SDDS just a matter of having the lamp on in both SDDS areas? I would think that would be basically zero maintenance. Facilities to actually record the SDDS track on the sound negative are probably more complicated, but again, tht should only happen once.) Perhaps, though, the effort required to QC the SDDS tracks after prints are made is significant... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-03-2003 10:24 AM                     We had both prints on 2393, and both prints without SDDS. Which reel(s) does the SDDS track appear on? Is it a REAL track or just a strip of blue on the edges? Could it be that the attatched trailer is in SDDS but the feature isn't, and so that explains the "presence" of an SDDS track on Reel 1? I noticed the SDDS stopped after the attatched trailer, and never showed up again on the print. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-03-2003 10:52 AM                        quote: isn't printing SDDS just a matter of having the lamp on in both SDDS areas? Like I said before, without the SDDS track the print can be done at higher speed. Probably for some releases they decide to have the SDDS track only on some prints so they can do the other ones at higher speed.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-03-2003 12:32 PM                     Here's a visual of the difference between an actual SDDS track and just a field a blue-ish ink on the edges. This was the situation on a single print of "Strange Days". Some reels had SDDS and some did not. Fox is pretty wierd about how they handle SDDS. Kinda lends prudence to the idea of only screening DTS and Dolby Digital for Fox releases.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-03-2003 03:57 PM                        That is actually a good example for a misprinted SDDS track. Look at the S track (on the left side near the other sound tracks) and compare it to the P track (on the right or picture side). Note that the vertical dark outer edge of the S track is too thin. It should extend to the outer edge of the film like on the right side. It should also be uniformly dark, not getting lighter towards the edge as seen here. This edgemark and the very fine transparent line between it and the actual data blocks is there for horizontal synchronisation. If it is printed as badly as here, the camera might not find sync, the track might fail and force the system to go into digital fallback. Also note that the inner edgemark is too thick and extends practically into the Dolby Digital data blocks. This was printed on a very badly aligned machine. In most cases when you have a failing SDDS track, you will find similarly misprinted tracks. The misprinted outer edgemark can often be seen with the naked eye if you hold a white piece of paper under the track. This occurs most often on the P track, but in this example it is the S track which is affected.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-03-2003 05:19 PM                        Poor AMC.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-05-2003 12:56 PM                        I have heard that AMC have equipped all their screens with SDDS. Apart from the cited example, do American distributors put the track on all their prints? If there are some releases with and without SDDS, do they make sure that AMC cinemas get the ones with it?  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-05-2003 01:06 PM                        Michael--that may be true for AMC's new construction. It is definitely not true for the ex-GCC houses, which have whatever equipment was installed over the years. That usually is a mix of all formats, tending towards DTS and, to a lesser extend, SRD. Most complexes have at least one SDDS unit, however.  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-05-2003 01:17 PM                     As for original AMC builds, all 72 screens in Central Ohio have SDDS. A few of the larger houses in each complex have DTS or DOLBY DIGITAL.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-05-2003 02:00 PM                        What about 6/8 channels?  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-05-2003 02:31 PM                        While most major studios release their films with all three digital sound formats, I have noticed Paramount and Fox only includes SDDS tracks with 'big' pictures and only use SRD and DTS for most of their other pictures. There are times when even DTS is not used on some of their pictures. I wonder why studios such as Universal, Dreamworks, Warner Brothers and Disney will always use all three formats and Paramont and Fox only favors SRD and DTS. Do they have a personal grudge against Sony? -Claude  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-05-2003 02:35 PM                        While most major studios release their films with all three digital sound formats, I have noticed Paramount and Fox only includes SDDS tracks with 'big' pictures and only use SRD and DTS for most of their other pictures. There are times when even DTS is not used on some of their pictures. I wonder why studios such as Universal, Dreamworks, Warner Brothers and Disney will always use all three formats and Paramont and Fox only favors SRD and DTS. Do they have a personal grudge against Sony? -Claude  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-05-2003 03:25 PM                    quote: What about 6/8 channels? When AMC first adopted SDDS, all of their 4 (or 6) channel (big) houses were converted to 8 channel SDDS, and all of their front/surround (small) houses were converted to six channel SDDS (and hence also 4 channel analog). Someone else could speak to new installs, as I haven't been involved with any recently. What I really don't understand about all this is that all the attached trailers on X2 have an SDDS track. So why the rest of the print doesn't have it is beyond me. Oh, well.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-05-2003 05:05 PM                     Most SDDS houses are 5.1 channel (three stage channels). This is just a guess, but from judging averages I have seen in theaters I have visited in a number of cities and based on some advertising, I would say fewer than 20% of all SDDS installations are wired for 7.1. Most AMC 24-plex theaters have at best 4 to 6 screens equipped for SDDS-8. Could be fewer than that in smaller markets. I think studio politics play a part in why some distributors choose not to use SDDS and why others do. For the longest time Paramount has typically released many of their films SRD-DTS, with the lesser dramas and such going out SRD or SR only. Fox will get on a SRD-DTS trend at times and then go SRD or SR only on some other releases (particularly the Fox Searchlight ones). Universal supports both DTS and SDDS, but I wonder if they have some kind of quid-pro-quo deal with Sony. From the time Universal started supporting SDDS on nearly all their releases, nearly all Sony releases have been supporting DTS. There probably could be some quality control issues as well, depending upon where the distributors prefer to have their film prints manufactured. It does seem strange though that companies like Buena Vista, Universal, Sony and Warner Bros. have little problem issuing single inventory Quad Format prints whereas Fox keeps sending out this mixed bag of Quad and sans-SDDS reels on some major releases.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.