Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Edit Splices (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Edit Splices
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

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


 - posted 02-25-2004 08:49 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Please, do tell! What is the ISBN?

 |  IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 02-25-2004 09:02 PM      Profile for Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Author's Homepage   Email Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Film Technology in Post Production

ISBN:0240514637 Paper Text
ISBN:0240516508 Trade Paperback

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 02-25-2004 10:09 PM      Profile for Dominic Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
ISBN:0240514637 Paper Text
ISBN:0240516508 Trade Paperback

Actually the first number refers to the first edition (1997) the second number to the second (much improved!) edition of 2001

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 02-25-2004 10:30 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I guess (does anyone actually know???) that "The Passion..." was not spliced this way. And as an aside, the Digital Intermediate process eliminates all splicing problems

I was told by someone from The Passion production that it was D.I. (for one thing to correct the color of the lead actor's eyes) but all these fat splices doesn't make sense unless there was a lot of cutting after digital. I know the splices are not all the same; it varies.

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

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


 - posted 02-26-2004 09:18 AM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
the intricacies of negative cutting to match a non-linear edit and the process of grading and regrading for the answer print.

Wonderful! It's on my list. Thanks!
[Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001


 - posted 02-26-2004 06:06 PM      Profile for Christian Appelt   Email Christian Appelt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dominic, it's a great book. I have often recommended it to students, together with YOUR FILM AND THE LAB and a German book from the 1970s called FILMHANDBUCH (naturally, also out of print).
Who, if I may ask, will do the translation to German? I'm asking because I just had trouble finding a good translator (G to E) for the English version of an article about cinematography - it's hard to get technical writing translated properly...

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 03-01-2004 09:57 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Given the consistent complaints about the neg splices on a film as popular as THE PASSION is, I would think that the easiest solution to the problem would be to file a custom aperture plate to cover this anomaly. After all, this title will probably have unusually long legs, why not give the patrons a better show by the little bit of extra effort it would take to cut a special plate? I mean, there have been lots of titles over the years that required special tweaking -- FANTASIA comes to mind -- Disney insisted that the masks be properly set for 1.37, which certainly was quite a bit of effort for the majority of theatres that could normally only mask to 1.85.

Cutting a new plate would produce a very slight black margin and probably a soft rather than hard edge at either the top or bottom of the screen (I would opt for the bottom edge), but that would be much less of a distraction than the constant flashing. Of course you could always raise the bottom (or drop the top) mask as well, but I suspect that kind of attention to presentation values would be asking way too much of today's exhibitors.

 |  IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted 03-01-2004 11:22 AM      Profile for Edward Jurich   Email Edward Jurich   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I did cut a new aperture plate. The old one overlapped the masking enough that all the edit splices were flashing on the masking. I filed ever so carefully so the picture "just" barely overlaps the masking for a sharp edge. Now only the splices that fall into the picture area are noticeable, I'd say about 3-4% of the film.
I think the best solution for a problem like this is to have someone edit who knows how to splice [uhoh]

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 03-01-2004 08:06 PM      Profile for Dominic Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think the best solution for a problem like this is to have someone edit who knows how to splice

Sad "smiley" noted in your comment - but ironically that's not the issue. The editor edits on a computer. Even in the old days of editing on film, it was a work print that was cut and spliced by the editor, not the camera negative. The original negative is spliced by a specialist negative matcher: someone who should very much know how to splice, and also what type of splicer to use. There must be a good reason for the problem you have had on this film - but it's not the editor's doing.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 03-01-2004 08:34 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dominic Case wrote:

quote:
The original negative is spliced by a specialist negative matcher: someone who should very much know how to splice, and also what type of splicer to use.
Also known as a "negative cutter":

Film Glossary

quote:
Negative Cutter - The person who cuts and assembles the original negative to match the edited workprint, which then goes to the lab for the answer print.

Negative Matcher - same as Negative Cutter.

Typical negative cutting services:

http://www.jrmediaservices.com/index.asp

http://www.jrmediaservices.com/pgServices.asp

quote:
JR Post has modeled precision throughout the whole process of negative conforming. The last step in the process for the negative cutter is to piece the final cuts together by the "hot splice" method. This tough, often frustrating job, needs knowledgeable talent to do it right. JR Post's staff averages over 10 years of hands-on experience. For the filmmaker that means the right cut the first time!

JR Post daily works with Super 35 mm, 35 mm, Super 16 mm and 16 mm film formats. We are familiar with both 3- and 4-perf film and can handle scope or anamorphic productions. For the student, we can set up an interview time with one of our staff members to show you what materials we will need from you so that you are ready for negative cutting before any costly errors are made.

http://www.sohoimages.com/pr_guidetopp2.htm

quote:
When a film is being printed for cinema, it will need to be cut exactly as per the final projected version. Optical effects such as fades and dissolves generally require a checker-board cut (called an A+B roll). Here, every reel is cut as two rolls of neg, with shots running alternately on each: with black spacing on roll A where a shot occurs on roll B, for example. Basic opticals are created by overlapping certain shots between the rolls, and carefully timing the printing process to create fade or dissolve effects in the print roll. N.B.: For a 16mm finecut film, every shot will have to be cut in this way. The 35mm frame is wide enough to splice shots together without the cement join intruding into the picture area. 16mm is half the width, so this is not possible. Using the A+B joining method, the cement splice overlaps into the black spacing following each shot.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 03-01-2004 08:51 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The 35mm frame is wide enough to splice shots together without the cement join intruding into the picture area. 16mm is half the width

This is really poorly worded no matter how you look at it. The 35mm frame is wide enough? Do they mean frameline? 16mm is half the width?

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 03-02-2004 01:35 AM      Profile for Dominic Case   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This is really poorly worded no matter how you look at it.
At least it gives the general idea that if you are dealing with smaller film, the splices are a bigger problem. If you want more, try

quote:
In 35mm negative, the frameline between successive frames is wide enough to allow a cement splice without intruding into the picture area. (Anamorphic productions leave a very small frame line area, and a splicer making a narrower join must be used). However, in 16mm, there is no room for an overlapping splice between frames, and so a different technique is used.

Checkerboard cutting
In checkerboard cutting, alternating shots are made up into two rolls (A and B) interspaced with black spacing. The cement splice is made off-centre, so that the entire splice overlaps into the black spacing rather than into the last frame of picture. Each roll is printed in succession onto a single roll of print stock.
. . .

refer to the second post on this page for the source [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 03-02-2004 01:22 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dominic: You do have a way with words! [Smile] [Cool]

Clarity and brevity are the hallmarks of your books.

 |  IP: Logged

Ivo Noorlander
Film Handler

Posts: 20
From: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 03-16-2004 04:04 PM      Profile for Ivo Noorlander   Email Ivo Noorlander   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I was told by someone from The Passion production that it was D.I. (for one thing to correct the color of the lead actor's eyes) but all these fat splices doesn't make sense unless there was a lot of cutting after digital.

Somtimes the neg is cut before scanning to data for the DI. I think they do it to keep the expensive time on the scanner to a minimum. These budgetary restrictions usually apply to European films more than Hollywood movies, but at $30M I guess The Passion is pretty low budget for a big period flick.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 03-16-2004 04:40 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
FANTASIA comes to mind -- Disney insisted that the masks be properly set for 1.37, which certainly was quite a bit of effort for the majority of theatres that could normally only mask to 1.85.
For what release? I saw FANTASIA several times since the 1969 re-issue (twice in mono, once in 4-track mag), and all showings were projected at 1.85. Even when I saw the newly recorded score (in mag stereo) in its exclusive run at L.A.'s avco, it was shown 1.85.

Only when I saw the restored soundtrack version in 1990, did I see the OAR, and both the 70mm and 35mm versions acccomplished this through not using the entire frame available (i.e. - 70mm through hardmatting the sides, 35mm by windowboxing the entire image into the normal 1.85 range of the frame normally used for "flat" projection).

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.