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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Weird trailer for "Secondhand Lions" (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Weird trailer for "Secondhand Lions" Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-22-2003 04:24 AM                     I haven't seen the scope version of this trailer, but the image quality on the flat version is remarkable! Razor sharp, no visable grain, excelent color.  |  IP: Logged Peter Kerchinsky Master Film Handler Posts: 326 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-23-2003 04:46 AM                     I took a second look at this trailer tonight and it appears only portions of it appear to be still squeezed. Not sure why. I still believe this is a quality control issue with whoever makes these trailers. Kind of makes us projectionists/exhibitors look like idiots running it this way if anyone in the audience notices it. I'm curious as to how the flat trailers look since we are only running a scope one.  |  IP: Logged Matt Hale Expert Film Handler Posts: 123 From: Vancouver, Canada Registered: Dec 2002 posted 07-29-2003 04:53 PM                        Does anybody know of film labs that do the super35 to scope extraction digitally? i.e. scan the whole thing from negative, squeeze it in the computer, and print it back out to negative? We happen to be at this stage of a feature right now, and the quotes we have gotten for making an interpositive and shooting it optically are astronomical. Thanks. [ 07-30-2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Matt Hale ]  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-30-2003 08:34 AM                        Doing the "squeeze" in a digital intermediate should be straight forward for any lab offering the service. But with today's technology, it may not necessarily be cheaper than doing it in an optical printer. Faster and better digital intermediates are on the way: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin04.shtml  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 07-31-2003 04:43 PM                    I ran Secondhand Lions unmarried with an Ektachrome dupe (I presume it was of the workprint which was contact printed from the neg). Image was full width. Recalling this thread about Super 1.85 I checked and was told to run it in normal 1.85. Before I got the word I auditioned some both ways and was leaning towards it being Super. Seemed ok during the run although I kept looking for examples of tight headroom and images that would have benefited from more on the left and of course I found some but whether that was for real or just the power of suggestion I don't know.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-09-2003 12:29 PM                    I can now add that if Secondhand Lions was a Super 1.85 show I would expect that the release prints would be hard masked to some degree. The maximum frame height could not exceed roughly Academy height and then only if the camera was shooting full height / full width 1.33 silent format frames and the optical reduction and recentering transferred them in full. Yet this is not the case. The frames on the release prints are full height and negative splices can be seen. This, coupled with my earlier experience with the dupe of the work print, causes me to conclude that this is not a Super 1.85 show. Perhaps it was shot with that intent but they rather lost some a bit of the left side composition in favor of skipping the optical printing step.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-09-2003 12:52 PM                        quote: Perhaps it was shot with that intent but they rather lost some a bit of the left side composition in favor of skipping the optical printing step. Too bad. Would have been interesting to see how much improvement in sharpness and graininess there would have been, had the larger negative image area been used.  |  IP: Logged Don E. Nelson Expert Film Handler Posts: 138 From: Brentwood, CA, USA Registered: Nov 2001 posted 09-15-2003 03:07 PM                     I also noticed the wierd format for this trailer, how many companies actually make trailers?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-15-2003 03:17 PM                        Coming attraction trailers are either produced by the studios/distributors, or by advertising agencies. The actual printing is usually done by the same labs that print feature films.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.