Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Universal switching to Technicolor lab?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Universal switching to Technicolor lab? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Universal switching to Technicolor lab?

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-06-2003 05:53 AM

Aha! Universal's 2 Fast 2 Furious released today was ALSO printed at Technicolor lab! The prints I saw looked absolutely fantastic! Does anyone know if this is a permanent switch? [Cool]

| IP: Logged

Les Brock
Film Handler

Posts: 42
From: Basingstoke, Hamshire, UK
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 06-06-2003 11:49 AM

Brad, yes it is a permanent switch.

Technicolor are servicing Universal's print orders.

| IP: Logged

Greg Routenburg
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 178
From: Toronto, ON, Canada
Registered: May 2003

posted 06-06-2003 12:32 PM

All of these new Technicolor/Universal prints that i've recieved have all come tails up. Is this a trend that everyone else has been noticing? It makes make-up day an absolute dream.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-06-2003 02:25 PM

Thanks Les! Such wonderful news. Universal used to always have the worst prints of anything coming out of Deluxe for some reason...but no more. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-29-2003 08:54 PM

Apparently its not a 'permanent' switch: I recently handled a print of 'Johnny English' that was made at Deluxe Toronto.

-Aaron

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 07-30-2003 12:25 AM

quote:
A blue/cyan colored fogging across the entire printed image (may also affect the reading of the soundtracks) is usually due to excessive exposure to the amber-colored "safelights" used in lab darkrooms when printing and processing color prints:

You mention this fairly frequently, John. If this is a common problem, why isn't it being fixed?

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-30-2003 01:30 AM

Deluxe Toronto does good work (the used to be better than Tech Hollywood, although they seem to be slipping a bit, judging by the prints that I've seen lately). It's Deluxe Hollywood that has problems and apparently has for decades (Eastmancolor prints from them seem to fade far faster than those from other labs).

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-30-2003 08:07 AM

Jack Ondracek asked about "safelight" fog:

quote:
You mention this fairly frequently, John. If this is a common problem, why isn't it being fixed?

"Safelight" fogging is usually a "people problem". Lab personnel need some light to work, especially in the printing and print processing areas where thousands of feet of film are zipping around at some pretty high speeds on equipment you would not want to fall into. So few workers may tamper with the safelights to get more light, or may misuse them (hold them too close or too long near the unprocessed film). Busy or vacation times sometimes bring more incidents of fog, since personnel unfamiliar with proper lab safelight procedures may be filling in for more experienced workers. The cost of replacing reels usually makes this a problem that is quickly addressed by the lab when the person causing it is identified:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/illumination/page01.blind

Scott wrote:

quote:
It's Deluxe Hollywood that has problems and apparently has for decades (Eastmancolor prints from them seem to fade far faster than those from other labs).

That's a very UNFAIR generalization. [Frown]

There is no doubt that improper processing can affect the dye stability of prints. But using anececdotal incidents from prints processed decades ago to comment on the quality of today's lab operations is meaningless. The processes are different (ECP vs. ECP-2D), the films are different, the machines are different, almost EVERYTHING has changed for the better.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-30-2003 08:42 AM

quote:
That's a very UNFAIR generalization. There is no doubt that improper processing can affect the dye stability of prints. But using anececdotal incidents from prints processed decades ago to comment on the quality of today's lab operations is meaningless. The processes are different (ECP vs. ECP-2D), the films are different, the machines are different, almost EVERYTHING has changed for the better.

Definitely agreed. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was trying to make two different points: a) that today's general release prints from Deluxe Toronto look better than those from Deluxe Hollywood (in general, though I've seen some stunning EK prints from Deluxe Hollywood) and that b) Deluxe Hollywood doesn't exactly have a history of providing quality release prints. I wasn't trying to use examples of older prints as evidence that new prints from Deluxe Hollywood will fade faster than other prints (who knows? they might not fade at all!).

I don't know why Deluxe Hollywood's prints don't look as good as many other labs', but I do know that many others will agree with me that their prints seem to have inferior color and contrast to those produced elsewhere.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-30-2003 09:28 AM

Frankly, the differences in print quality that I notice usually seem more dependent on the cinematography than the lab. Poor lighting, inappropriate filtration, underexposure, using grainier fast films when they are not needed, misuse of Super-35, etc. can all contribute to lower image quality.

There certainly are lab issues, many driven by the cost and time pressures of modern distribution, where thousands of prints must be in theatres within a week of the final cut negative being delivered. Kodak is partnering with labs to address these issues, including safelight improvements, printer steadiness improvements, better on-line cleaning, new duplicate negative and sound negative films with better scratch and static resistance, enabling use of 4K digital intermediate, eliminating soundtrack silver application problems, etc.

Having to get a replacement reel is a pain, for both you AND the lab.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-30-2003 10:00 AM

quote:
Frankly, the differences in print quality that I notice usually seem more dependent on the cinematography than the lab.

With the new intermission clock Justin and I produced, we tested the same footage at three different labs and it made all the difference in the world. Same stock. Our last choice, Technicolor, N. Hollywood, gave us the stunning results you see in our release prints today.

Online Catalog

Like Scott said, color and contrast were the big issues. Some of the footage I shot looks like dye transfer in the prints from Technicolor, while the competitor's versions are somewhat washed out and not as vivid!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-30-2003 02:42 PM

John, I have routinely received 2 prints of the same movie, one from Deluxe Toronto and one from Deluxe Hollywood. The Toronto print always looks noticeably better and has less registration issues than the same movie printed at Hollywood. Technicolor prints as a general rule always look better than Deluxe prints, so I have a hard time believing that this amazing repeatable coincidence is purely because the best cinematographers just happen to shoot for studios who use Technicolor.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-30-2003 03:11 PM

What I said is based on my personal experience when I see movies in theatres. I'm usually pretty good at separating lab issues from camera exposure/lighting issues, and most often, "low contrast" and "washed out" color are exposure issues (and sometimes a deliberate creative choice by the director and cinematographer).

In almost all cases, distributors must approve the final "check print" before the lab can go into production with a release, and sampled release prints are usually compared to the approved check print.

| IP: Logged

Robert Harris
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 07-30-2003 07:39 PM

Even in the late 1980s, the Eastman duplicating stocks (5243) provided a dupe image which many filmmakers, inclusive of Sir David, felt looked better than the original.

The difference is just the slightest softening through two generations, of the outermost edges of each bit of grain, which yielded a more velvet-like image, looking as if the grain was reduced.

In my humble opinion Eastman intermediates are in the same category as a fine aged port.

RAH

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.