Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pixar, Disney, Dolby "Film Done Right" Contest

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Pixar, Disney, Dolby "Film Done Right" Contest (Page 6)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Pixar, Disney, Dolby "Film Done Right" Contest

Steve Kraus
Film God

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

posted 11-08-2004 12:28 PM

Frank, are you sure you mean cue marks and not the VistaVision framing marks?

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 11-08-2004 01:51 PM

Actually I am not really sure because I never saw them while running such a print, only as an audience observer. They came and went just like cues and I could swear that they happened at reel changes. But then again, this was before I actually worked a booth and that was a LONG time ago. But would alignment marks come and go like that?

I used to trust my memory until once recounted my first experience as a kid seeing the opening of CinemaScope, the premiere of THE ROBE in a flagship Century theatre in Queens. I clearly recounted seeing the 20th Century Fox logo and hearing the fanfare with CinemaScope extension play as the curtains opened wider and wider. Everyone then pointed out to me that, no, that logo and CinemaScope music wasn't used in THE ROBE. I was so convinced I was right that I got the DVD. Nope; no Fox opening. So much for exact eye witness recall. Now I never say I am absolutely sure of anything.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 11-11-2004 11:13 AM

There is a photo of the green Technicolor dye transfer cue marks used on the dye-transfer prints of "The Family Man" in the Film-Tech reviews section:

http://www.film-tech.com/reviews/review31.html

| IP: Logged

Ted Costas
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 119
From: Hollywood, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 11-17-2004 04:17 PM

I've heard that the winner of the drawing, while at Pixar, will get to hide under John Lasseter's desk and jump out as he returns from lunch.

I'm kidding about the above. But bring your camera anyway, if you actually win. Pixar and "the Ranch" are two of the coolest filmmaking facilities around. It'll be great.

And on a serious note. I heard they were sending out t-shirts... Did anybody get their's yet? If you register, you get a t-shirt. If you got a print, you got the cards. If you got the cards, you can enter. If you were projecting the film digitally, unfortunately, there were no cards with your print.

So sombody tell me about the t-shirts. I've heard they are pretty cool.

What is the word?

Yours, Ted

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

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

posted 11-17-2004 05:55 PM

Ah, then you didn't hear about the embarassing typo.

Discussion in the Film Yak forum.

| IP: Logged

Allison Parsons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 630
From: East Peoria, IL
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 11-19-2004 12:32 AM

Ted,

I got my shirt on tuesday. It's kind of funny. It has the Incredibles 'I' logo on the front and on the back it says something like 'I cared enough to show the Incredibles in Scope'

However..

WILL THEY PLEASE START MAKING PROMO SHIRTS IN SIZES OTHER THAN LARGE AND EXTRA LARGE?!!

| IP: Logged

Barrett Jarabek
Film Handler

Posts: 7
From: Mitchell, SD, USA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 11-19-2004 05:10 AM

now im trying to remember...since this movie came out a couple weeks ago. but there were notes in the can describing lighting, sound....and hell i dont remember what else. also those projectionist "trading cards". so i kinda thought that they really cared how this movie was presented. but tell me this.....did anyone else find several lab splices in this print??? i found that pretty odd for a company that was going to be "picky" about their new print. im pretty disapointed that they try to hold US to a higher standard, but they cant hold up to these standards themselves!!!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 11-19-2004 05:51 AM

quote:
...did anyone else find several lab splices in this print??? i found that pretty odd for a company that was going to be "picky" about their new print. im pretty disapointed that they try to hold US to a higher standard, but they cant hold up to these standards themselves!!!

Completely eliminating lab (raw stock) splices would increase the price of prints significantly. Large release print labs normally use 4000-foot or 6000-foot lengths of raw stock. Few reels are exact increments of 4000 or 6000 feet. For example, printing three 1800 foot reels on a 6000 foot roll of raw stock would result in having a "short end" of 600 feet, worth about $60 USD. Having to discard that 600 feet would increase the cost of each reel by about $20.

Here is the guideline of the Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL):

http://www.acvl.org/manual/4c.htm

quote:
In release printing, it is recommended that there be a maximum of two splices per 400 feet of 16mm or 1000 feet of 35mm. These two splices may be insert splices, or one of the two splices can be a raw stock splice. There should never be two raw stock splices in the same reel. It is further recommended that spliced raw stock not be used in trial prints, dailies, TV spots or recording prints. It is customary practices to charge a premium for release prints that have no raw stock splices.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

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

posted 11-19-2004 09:25 AM

If only they would bother to arrange for stock splices to fall on the frame line.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-19-2004 09:28 AM

Not a very happy solution for scope.
How would you suggest they achieve that, Steve?

[I suppose I should think outside the box some more; I guess they could have a marked sprocket with a cutter and cut off a few perfs/frames from the end of the raw stock reel, thus not having to worry about whether the raw stock was a multiple of 4 perfs...still, I think it is not an easy problem?]

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

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

posted 11-19-2004 11:24 AM

quote: John Pytlak
Completely eliminating lab (raw stock) splices would increase the price of prints significantly. Large release print labs normally use 4000-foot or 6000-foot lengths of raw stock. Few reels are exact increments of 4000 or 6000 feet. For example, printing three 1800 foot reels on a 6000 foot roll of raw stock would result in having a "short end" of 600 feet, worth about $60 USD. Having to discard that 600 feet would increase the cost of each reel by about $20.

We had 3 nasty (white gap and sound pop) lab splices in our print. Going into week 3 and the print still looks mint, except for the nasty lab splices. I go through the trouble of making clear platter splices, black any splice gap on the sound track so reel changes look and sound great. Seems like $20 a reel extra cost is within the "high quality" presentation they wanted.
Why don't they save those odd lengths for making replacement footage or use them for budget production releases, or at least movies that are just plain bad to begin with [Wink]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 11-19-2004 12:32 PM

quote: Edward Jurich
Why don't they save those odd lengths for making replacement footage or use them for budget production releases, or at least movies that are just plain bad to begin with

When you are making thousands of prints (tens of thousands of reels), and have less than a week to do it, the logistics of managing short ends like that would likely be counterproductive.

I know labs have tried to index the raw stock splices to always fall on the framelines, but doing this reliably under darkroom conditions with only a few seconds to make the splice has been problematic. Remember, these splices are made on the raw stock, before the pictures are even printed onto it.

| IP: Logged

Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-19-2004 12:36 PM

quote: John Pytlak
Completely eliminating lab (raw stock) splices would increase the price of prints significantly. Large release print labs normally use 4000-foot or 6000-foot lengths of raw stock. Few reels are exact increments of 4000 or 6000 feet. For example, printing three 1800 foot reels on a 6000 foot roll of raw stock would result in having a "short end" of 600 feet, worth about $60 USD. Having to discard that 600 feet would increase the cost of each reel by about $20.

That approx average 200 Ft would be just about right for trailers though. and a splice IMHO would be more acceptable in a trailer than in a feature reel.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 11-19-2004 12:46 PM

quote: Jason Burroughs
That approx average 200 Ft would be just about right for trailers though. and a splice IMHO would be more acceptable in a trailer than in a feature reel.

The "short ends" vary in length. Labs printing the features are not always printing trailers. The logistics of tracking and using the "short ends" could cause problems (e.g., if Kodak and Fuji and Agfa print films are used, there are significant color balance (film speed) changes between the films, so short ends could not be mixed together).

Bottom line: Prints guaranteed to have no lab splices will cost more.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

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

posted 11-19-2004 01:04 PM

The index hole of the sort that used to be put on 70mm MP print stock (every four perfs of course on 35mm) would be a great solution for so many issues that degrade film presentation today. With it labs could have the splices fall on the frame line (and no, JHawk, it's not a complete solution for Scope but still better than mid frame) and it would discourage lazy platter jockeys from cutting off fades because they can't easily find a frameline. Silver recovery from the chads could help pay for it. The only downside would be that the lab has to make sure which edge is which. Surely this would be worth a test batch.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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.